Sitting of 1 November 1954

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's answer to the Addresses, as follows:
  I have received your Addresses praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Council of Europe) (Amendment) Order, 1954; the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Customs Co-operation Council) Order, 1954; the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the European Payments Union) Order, 1954; the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the International Civil Aviation Organisation) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1954; the International Organisations (immunities and Privileges of the International Telecommunication Union) Order, 1954; the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Order, 1954; the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Universal Postal Union) Order, 1954; the International Organisations
  2
  (Immunities and Privileges of the International Sugar Council) Order, 1954; and the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the World Meteorological Organisation) Order, 1954, be made in the form of the respective drafts laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Old-Age and Retirement Pensions
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) whether he is aware that, while there has been no increase in retirement pensions this year, the prices of many necessities for old people have risen; and what recent investigations have been made by his Department to ascertain the effect upon those people dependent upon retirement pensions;
    (2) whether he is aware that the delay in the announcement of a pensions increase has caused much distress among old-age pensioners; that many fear being unable to afford necessities during the coming winter months; and if he will, therefore, grant some interim increase immediately.
    Mr. Haleasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether, in view of the increasing hardship of old-age and other pensioners, he is now in

    3
    a position to announce Her Majesty's Government's proposals for an increase in the basic rate.
    The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): I would remind the hon. Members that no pensioner need suffer hardship because he has nothing but his retirement pension to live on, since he can always apply to the National Assistance Board for supplementation which is now granted on a scale higher in real value than at any time before the scales were raised in 1952.
    Miss Burton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you whether you consider that Questions Nos. 1 and 23 are in any way similar? The Minister was too quick in giving an answer for me to protest, but I feel that both Questions raise an entirely different matter.
    Mr. Speaker: They seem to me to be somewhat similar. Perhaps the hon. Lady can show the difference in the contents of the Questions by asking a supplementary question.
    Miss Burton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister aware that he has not answered either Question at all? Dealing with the first one, does he not really think it is scandalous that any decent person should talk about the position of old people in the way that he has today? Is he aware that most old people have less than 2s. a day to spend on food at present? Secondly, is he aware that the cost of food alone, according to the official index, has risen by 22 per cent. since the last General Election? Thirdly, is he aware that the cost of basic foods on which old people depend has risen by 40 per cent.? May I ask that as a supplementary to the first Question?
    Mr. Peake: I am sure that the National Assistance Board will take note of the hon. Lady's suggestions, but it is incontrovertible that the scales of assistance give a better standard of living today than at any time between 1946 and 1952.
    Dr. Summerskill: Having regard to the record number of Questions on the Order Paper today on this subject, which indicates the growing concern of the country, will the Minister take this opportunity to make a statement with regard to any increase?
    Captain Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cost of living in the first half of this year has risen only 1-4 per cent.? Can he explain why his predecessors did not do anything to raise the old-age pension during their régime when the cost of living rose 40 per cent.?
    Mr. Dodds: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that all the Conservative newspapers are agitating that the increase should take place and that it is overdue, if, as he says, the position is better than it has ever been before?
    Mr. Peake: It is true to say that not only are the assistance scales giving a better standard of living than at any time in the six years ending 1952, but also that the insurance pension itself has a higher value today than it had in the last year of Socialist rule.
    Mr. Jay: Is the calculation which the Minister has just made in relation to the real value of assistance and pensions based upon the cost-of-living index or upon the food prices index?
    Mr. Peake: In the case of pensions, it is based upon the Interim Index of Retail Prices.
    Mr. Speaker rose—
    Miss Burton: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, is it not usually your kindness to allow a Member to ask a second supplementary question when two of his own Questions have been answered together? I have only had one supplementary question.
    Mr. Speaker: It depends upon the length of the first supplementary question.
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the total number of retirement and contributory old-age pensioners in Scotland in each of the last four years; and how many in each year were in receipt of National Assistance.
    Mr. Peake: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister say whether the percentage of old-age pensioners now drawing National Assistance is increasing, as compared with the comparable figures a year ago?
    Mr. Peake: I should have to do a great deal of arithmetic in my head in order to work out that sum but I think it will be found that the percentage of pensioners seeking assistance in Scotland is below that of the average for the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is it on the increase?
    Following is the table:

    SCOTLAND

    (Thousands)

    Date

    Retirement and Contributory Old Age Pensioners

    National Assistance Grants paid in supplementation of such pensions

    December, 1950

    …

    393

    51

    December, 1951

    …

    389

    59

    December, 1952

    …

    391

    66

    December, 1953

    …

    399

    73

    In some cases the National Assistance grant covers the needs of a household containing more than one pensioner.
    Mr. Jayasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to give an assurance that the retirement pension will be raised before Christmas Day, 1954.
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how soon after he has been able to state the Government's decision on the amount of increase of pensions it will be practicable to implement the decision by increased payment to pensioners.
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will introduce the necessary legislation to ensure that the retirement pensioners have their promised increase by Christmas, 1954.
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether his promised statement on increases in retirement pensions will be made before the end of the present Parliamentary Session; and what is the earliest date on which such increases are expected to come into operation.
    Mr. Peake: I would remind hon. Members that what we are engaged on is the Quinquennial Review of the National Insurance scheme, which is being carried out in accordance with Sections 39 and 40 of the National Insurance Act, 1946 This
    6
    is a big operation, and we require for the purpose a report from the Government Actuary. Steps have been taken to make this available considerably earlier than might reasonably have been expected so as to enable me to make my promised announcement before Christmas. But, as hon. Members are aware, legislation is needed before benefits can be altered, and even when the necessary legislation has been passed, there is a lot of work to be done before new rates can be brought into force. I have already undertaken that no time will be lost in carrying through this operation, but further than that I cannot go at present.
    Mr. Jay: Does not the Minister realise even now that, if he were to introduce a very short and simple Bill giving the necessary increase, it would have the support of almost the whole House and would be passed very quickly?
    Mr. Peake: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that I am bound by the terms of the Statute which he and his right hon. and hon. Friends passed in 1946. This is the Quinquennial Review. The first stage is the report by the Government Actuary, which we expect very shortly. That has to be presented to the Treasury and laid before the House. The stage after that is that the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance is obliged, by statute, then to make his review of benefits and contributions.
    Mr. Jay: Although the Minister is bound to hold this review, is he not perfectly at liberty to increase the pensions now?
    Mr. G. Thomas: Is not the Minister aware that my right hon. Friend expressed the feeling of all of us when he indicated that the Minister need not wait for this report? Is he not aware that he could give an increase tomorrow to the pensioners, if he so wished, without waiting for the report, and that there would be no opposition from this side of the House?
    Mr. Peake: I think that the pensioners themselves know that in 1951, when a much smaller operation, involving only the old-age pensioners and not the war disability pensioners or the sick or the unemployed, was embarked upon by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, 5½ months elapsed that year between the announcement of policy and the date of operation.
    Mr. Ross: Surely, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) on Question 20, when the Minister said that my right hon. Friend would be satisfied with the proposals when he saw them, the Minister implied that he already had the proposal. If that is the case and he wants to raise these pensions, surely the Minister could do it with the help of this House before Christmas?
    Mr. Peake: I have referred to the time-table of 1951. I am confident that, in what is going to be the biggest and boldest operation ever undertaken in this pensions scheme, I can improve on the Socialist timing.
    Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that decent-thinking people of all political parties are most anxious that this increase should be the maximum the country can afford and should be introduced as quickly as possible? Is he further aware that decent opinion is nauseated by the attempts being made by some people to make political capital out of the hardships of the old people?
    Mr. Hamilton: If the Minister cannot guarantee that the old-age pensioners will get an increase before Christmas, will he give a specific assurance that they will get it before next June?
    Mr. Ross: Before the General Election.
    Mr. Peake: Until I am in a position to make the statement of policy, I cannot add anything to what I have said.
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what proportion of retirement pensioners and non-contributory old-age pensioners are now estimated to be in receipt of supplementary allowances.
    Mr. Peake: Just over one-quarter of retirement pensioners and one-half of non-contributory pensioners.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Minister not aware that, if dependants are added, this must mean something over one-third? Does not this add very strongly to the argument that immediate action should be taken to help them?
    Mr. Peake: As I have said in answering previous Questions, the numbers on assistance are, I am glad to say, becoming stabilised.
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what proportion of the present National Insurance contribution is taken for retirement pensions; and what is the cost of the non-contributory pensions and the cost of the National Assistance for retirement pensioners.
    Mr. Peake: Nearly half of the total contributions for National Insurance benefits is for retirement pensions. The estimated cost of non-contributory pensions is about £18 ¾ million a year at present, and the estimated cost of National Assistance allowances for retirement pensioners is about £39 million a year.
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would be the cost of raising the basic rate of pensions to its 1946 value for the rest of the present financial year.
    Mr. Peake: For retirement pensions, about £20 million.
    Dr. King: As the Minister must raise old-age pensions in the next Budget at latest, and we now know the amount involved, will he not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the £20 million, or come to the House, when both sides of the House will give him the money, so that the old-age pensioners may face the winter with a little more confidence?
    Mr. Peake: I have given the figure of the cost asked for, and I cannot add to my previous replies.
    Mr. Houghtonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what period elapsed between the date of the passing of the Act authorising the last increase in retirement pensions and the date on which payment of the higher pensions began.
    Mr. Peake: The Royal Assent was given to the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act, 1952, which gave effect to the increases announced on 8th April, 1952, on 26th June, 1952, and the appointed day for the higher rates of retirement pension was 29th September, 1952.
    Mr. Houghton: By how much does the right hon. Gentleman expect to shorten that period on the next occasion? Has he formed any estimate of the total time

    9
    to be taken by legislation and administration, and can he remove the growing fear that the pension increases will not be effective until October of next year?
    Mr. Peake: The time taken in 1952 was very similar to the time taken by the Government which the hon. Gentleman supported in 1951. I am not sure if the hon. Gentleman was in his place when I gave the assurance—and if I did not give it, I meant to give it—that I confidently hope to knock something off the time-table taken by his own Government.
    Mr. Wade: Is the Minister aware that there is widespread misunderstanding over the distinction in the date when he may make the announcement, the date when legislation may be introduced and the date when it may take effect, and in order not to raise false hopes, will he be more explicit as to the date when old-age pensioners may expect an increase in the rates of pension?
    Mr. Peake: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to what I have said, except refer hon. Members to the previous timetables and say that I hope we can improve on them this time.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that party political capital made by the Opposition during the passage of the Bill will greatly lengthen the time before pensioners can get increased pensions?
    Mr. Chetwynd: As the Minister seems to know what he has in mind about this increase, why cannot he be more specific in giving us a date, and is he aware that he is laying himself open to the charge that he may be delaying this until the next General Election?
    Mr. Peake: That hardly arises as a supplementary question on a Question concerned only with the time-table of 1952.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this persistent refusal to reveal dates is because he is afraid of revealing the date of the next General Election?
    Mr. Peake: No, Sir. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, in our case, I am following the procedure laid down by statute which his Government passed
    10
    in 1946, and this is quite a different operation from the one in which he participated in 1951.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the latest total of pensioners in the London County Council area whose pensions are supplemented by National Assistance.
    Mr. Peake: The estimated number of retirement, contributory and non-contributory old-age pensioners in the London County Council area who were receiving regular weekly National Assistance grants at the end of September, 1954, was just over 100,000.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is this not a deplorable increase over the corresponding figures for last year? Does it not show that even in London, which is one of the most prosperous parts of the country, poverty and destitution prevail?
    Mr. Peake: I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will be pleased to know that there has been a slight decrease in the numbers drawing assistance since June of this year.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Compare like with like.
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the actual increase per month of retirement pensioners on National Assistance in the last available six months.
    Mr. Peake: Monthly figures are not available, but between March and September they increased by about 20,000.
    Mr. Ross: Despite the satisfaction expressed by the Minister about a general decrease in the number of retirement pensioners receiving National Assistance, does not this reply show that the number is still increasing? Surely these numbers speak for themselves and underline the complete inadequacy of the retirement pension?
    Mr. Peake: The increase is very slight. It is very slight indeed compared with the rise which took place month by month and year by year under the Socialist Government.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will now give an assurance that

    11
    old-age pensioners in receipt of supplementary assistance grants will not have such grants reduced by the whole amount of the promised increase in pensions.
    Mr. Peake: I cannot give such an assurance. In assessing need, the National Assistance Board is bound to take National Insurance pensions into account in full.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that the proposed increase, about which he has been talking so much, will be regarded by all those pensioners who have to rely upon National Assistance as a cruel hoax if he gives it with one hand and takes the whole lot back with the other hand?
    Mr. Peake: The National Insurance pensions were deliberately omitted from the schedule of disregards contained in the National Assistance Act, 1948, because our general objective is to make pensions payable without a means test the main provision against old age.

    Facilities, Kirkby and Huyton-with-Roby
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when he expects to be able to open a local office of his Department to serve the new housing estate at Kirkby, near Liverpool.
    Mr. Peake: Current estimates of the rate of development of this new housing estate suggest that it will continue to be adequately served by the Ministry's local offices at Walton and Huyton for at least another year, but, if there is need, facilities for dealing with callers' inquiries will be provided at Kirkby in 1955, and continued till a full-time office is required.
    Mr. Wilson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his willingness to deal with the immediate problem, but does he recognise that the travelling distances both to Walton and Huyton are very considerable and costly, and that the sooner he can get an office at Kirkby the better?
    Mr. Peake: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that special attention is being given to this problem.
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will arrange with the National Assistance
    12
    Board to open an office to serve the 60,000 residents of Huyton-with-Roby, in view of distances applicants have to travel to offices in the Liverpool and St. Helens areas, and the cost and inconvenience arising therefrom.
    Mr. Peake: The National Assistance Board informs me that it intends to open an office in Huyton-with-Roby or Prescot as soon as suitable premises can be obtained.

    National Assistance
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the number of persons in receipt of National Assistance at the latest convenient date together with comparable figures for 1951. 1952 and 1953; and what is the increase since 1st January, 1954.
    Mr. Peake: The numbers of regular weekly grants of National Assistance in payment at the end of September in the years 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954 were, respectively, 1,409,000, 1,599,000, 1,713,000 and 1,764,000. Figures are not available to enable comparison to be made with 1st January, 1954, but during the greater part of this year, the total number of grants in payment has been falling; the figure for September last was about 18,000 less than that for the end of January.
    Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the number of persons now receiving National Assistance suggests that the pension allowance is much too small? Does he not further appreciate that his party stated, in October, 1951, that the pension of 30s. had already been left behind by the cost of living? Does not he now see that it is necessary to increase the pension by much more than 2s. 6d.?
    Mr. Peake: I regard it as a very satisfactory trend that the numbers on National Assistance have at last begun to fall. During the years of the Socialist Government, they increased year by year by an enormous amount.
    Mr. Popplewell: Do I understand the Minister to say that he is satisfied, when there has been an increase of nearly one-fifth on the figures for 1951? Does not he realise that the Government's policy of reintroducing Poor Law relief under

    13
    the guise of National Assistance is abhorrent to everyone, and that his Government can increase pensions at once without waiting for any further legislation? When is he going to stir himself?
    Mr. Peake: Ever since 1948, I have expressed concern about the growing numbers of people on National Assistance. It is a matter for general congratulation that the figures today are stabilised, and actually show a fall as compared with January last.
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is aware that old-age pensioners who have been induced to continue working after 65 years of age on the promise of additional pension for each year worked are disappointed when they have to seek extra help from the Assistance Board to find that their advantage is wiped out by their extra pension being regarded as ordinary income; and whether, in his forthcoming announcement, he will consider restoring to the pensioners the extra they earned by including the additional pension among the other items which are disregarded by the Assistance Board in calculating income.
    Mr. Peake: No, Sir. One of the advantages of the increased pensions men can earn by continuing at work after 65 is the better prospect they offer to insured persons of remaining independent of assistance.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is not the Minister aware that a person will not ask for National Assistance if he is able to live without it? If he is compelled to ask for National Assistance, is it not quite wrong that he should be deprived of the inducement offered to him to give up his pension for five years in order to add to it when he retired? Will not the Minister reconsider this matter when he looks at the scheme again?
    Mr. Peake: No, I cannot undertake to do that. Increments of pension were not included in the list of disregards put into the National Assistance Act, 1948, by the party opposite. Our object on this side of the House is to see as few people as possible drawing National Assistance subject to a means test.
    Mr. Woodburn: Does the Minister realise that I am not trying to score any
    14
    party point? I hope he is not going to introduce party points in discussing this matter. As he said, it was estimated that people could live on the pensions plus this increment, but, where circumstances force them on to public assistance, is it not quite wrong to deprive them of the promise the State made that, if they worked longer and did not draw the pension, their pension would include the extra money?
    Mr. Peake: In my view, the main purpose of the great Beveridge Plan was to make insurance rather than assistance the main provision for old age.
    Mr. Woodburn: I am sorry to persist, but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks the revised pension rates plus increment will be sufficient to absolve these people from the necessity of asking for National Assistance?
    Mr. Peake: I think the right hon. Gentleman will be well satisfied when he sees the proposals I shall make.
    Dr. Summerskill: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the statement he has just made, that the object of that side of the House is to reduce the number of people on National Assistance, is a little unfortunate, because it will have the effect of preventing those perhaps in greatest need from coming forward to ask for assistance?
    Mr. Peake: No. I certainly hope that it will not have any such effect, but I do think we ought all to agree that we want to see people earning pensions as of right by virtue of payments made, rather than going to assistance subject to need.
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what definition is used in the Regulations of the National Assistance Board to define cases of need in so far as food is concerned.
    Mr. Peake: The National Assistance Regulations contain no such definition. They prescribe comprehensive rates which Parliament has approved for all subsistence requirements except rent, for which an addition is made.
    Miss Burton: Would the Minister make that quite clear? Is he aware that old people truly believe that they can ask for help in regard to food only in

    15
    connection with food for medicinal purposes? Will he make it clear, to take tea, for example—the price of which has increased—that the old people can call for assistance? Does he not realise that the old people cannot get through another winter without some help?
    Mr. Peake: I think the position ought to be understood. Apart from the scale rates, which were so greatly improved in 1952, the National Assistance Board is paying additional discretionary allowances in one case in every three which comes before it. The Board has a discretion, which it is exercising, to pay something more than the scale rates in 600,000 cases. My belief is that the Board is doing its job with humanity, courtesy and kindness.
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Second Schedule to the National Assistance Act, 1948, in order to bring the amounts of resources to be disregarded into line with the decline in the value of the £ since the passing of the Act.
    Mr. Peake: No, Sir: I do not think we want to encourage more people to rely on assistance.
    Mr. Warbey: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept, then, the principle of disregards? If he accepts it, surely he must accept the principle that the amount of the disregard should vary with the change in the value of money? Is he aware that miners, whose pension has just been increased from 10s. to 15s. a week, are having 4s. 6d. a week deducted from their National Assistance because they are now above the basis level?
    Mr. Peake: To increase the disregards is no help at all to the most needy persons, and it would obviously widen the scope and increase the numbers of people able to draw assistance. That is not our policy. We believe that the existing disregards, which cover the ownership of a house, £375 of war savings, £50 of other capital, up to £1 a week disability pension and £1 a week casual earnings, on top of the full scale of National Assistance, are adequate at the present time.
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the
    16
    present average discretionary addition being paid by the National Assistance Board to augment existing scale rates.
    Mr. Peake: The latest date for which such information is available is November, 1953, when the average addition was 5s. a week.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: In view of the relatively small sum that has been paid, is not this a further reason why the Board should be given an immediate opportunity at least to increase the general rate to help relieve that category of case?
    Mr. Peake: I think that the Board is using its discretion very freely and that the existing position is reasonably satisfactory.
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance detail of the improved scales of National Assistance which have been in operation since 1952.
    Mr. Peake: The principal rates provided in the current National Assistance Regulations (a copy of which I am sending the hon. Member) are, for needs other than rent, 35s. for a single householder and 59s. for a married couple. The scales for blind and certain tuberculous persons are substantially higher.
    Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that his statement does not bear out his claim this afternoon that the National Assistance scales are better than ever or, indeed, are even adequate? Will he pay regard to the fact that the former rationed foods have increased by something like 40 per cent. in price since 1951 and that, on the present scales, old people are barely able to manage to buy them? If pensions cannot be raised this year, will the Minister approach the National Assistance Board so that pensioners can be given an increased or supplementary allowance to provide for these increases in price?
    Mr. Peake: The assistance rates speak for themselves. In any event, they are a matter primarily for the National Assistance Board. The married rate today is 59s. From 1948 to 1950, it was 40s., and from 1950 to 1951, 43s. 6d. There has been a very big increase since then.
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many persons were receiving National

    17
    Assistance on the first day of September of each of the four years 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954.
    Mr. Peake: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. de Freitas: As these figures show that there is a considerable increase in the number, will the Minister regard this as further evidence of the position of the old-age pensioner? Will he do something about it before Christmas?
    Mr. Peake: The increase from August, 1953, to August, 1954, was only 60,000, which compares with an annual average of nearly 200,000 in the years following
    1948.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware that by selecting those figures he is being unfair? My Question refers to 1951 to 1954.
    Mr. Peake: I am sorry. I thought I was helping the hon. Member with the one figure which he required. Perhaps he will study in the OFFICIAL REPORT the table which I have given.
    Mr. de FreitasIt would have been better had the Minister studied my Question.
    Following is the answer:
    The numbers of regular weekly grants of National Assistance in payment on dates, nearest to those mentioned, for which statistics are available are:

    28th August, 1951

    …

    1,396,000

    26th August, 1952

    …

    1,582,000

    25th August, 1953

    …

    1,701,000

    31st August, 1954

    …

    1,762,000

    Some of the grants cover the need of more than one person.

    PNEUMOCONIOSIS: COAL-MINING CASES DIAGNOSED UNDER THE NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) ACTS

    Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel

    1951*

    1952*

    1953

    January to June, 1954

    Cardiff

    …

    …

    …

    …

    975

    769

    904

    325

    Swansea

    …

    …

    …

    …

    133

    124

    121

    57

    Stoke-on-Trent

    …

    …

    …

    …

    347

    371

    686

    254

    Sheffield

    …

    …

    …

    …

    351

    435

    450

    254

    Edinburgh

    …

    …

    …

    …

    442

    404

    799

    554

    Manchester

    …

    …

    …

    …

    589

    209

    398

    212

    Newcastle (separated from Manchester in October, 1951)

    …

    …

    …

    …

    83

    405

    531

    319

    London

    …

    …

    …

    …

    115

    231

    82

    17

    Bristol (separated from London in October, 1953)

    …

    …

    …

    …

    —

    —

    32

    30

    Total

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3,035

    2,948

    4,003

    2,022

    * These figures do not include cases diagnosed on second or subsequent examination, of which there were 119 in 1951 and 195 in 1952.

    Pneumoconiosis and Byssino is
    Mr. Slaterasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the number of certified pneumoconiosis cases for the last 12 months in the mining industry in each area separately; and how such certifications compare with the last three years.
    Mr. Peake: I regret that the information is not available for the last 12 months; but I will, if I may, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures for the years 1951 to 1953, and for the first half of 1954.
    Mr. Slater: Can the Minister say whether there has been an increase or a decrease in the number of these pneumoconiosis cases during the period?
    Mr. Peake: There was an increase of about one-third in 1953, compared with 1951 and 1952. For the first part of 1954, it would appear that the annual rate was about the same as that for 1953.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, terrible as is the incidence of this disease in the mining industry, it is also prevalent amongst foundry workers? Will he see if figures can also be given to see what is its effect in this industry?
    Mr. Peake: I shall certainly furnish the right hon. Gentleman with any figures which are available upon this subject, in which I take a deep personal interest.
    Following are the figures:
    Mr. Prydeasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what consultations he has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland with regard to the application of the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Amendment Scheme, 1954, to Scotland.
    Mr. Peake: In general, the scheme will apply without distinction in all parts of Great Britain. I have, however, been in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about an administrative provision which concerns Scotland.
    Mr. Pryde: Who will be responsible, financially and otherwise, for ordering a post-mortem examination in Scotland in cases where there is dual certification of death?
    Mr. Peake: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has floored me on this occasion. I wish he would put that point about procedure in the Scottish courts to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I have been in consultation with the Secretary of State on one point only, dealing with the payment of death grant in these particular cases.
    Mr. Pryde: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are 80,000 mine workers in Scotland and that this scheme affects their wives and families and is of great interest to us?
    Mr. Peake: I shall be very happy to look into the point if the hon. Gentleman will let me know all about it.
    Mr. Woodburn: As this provision deals with coroners' inquests, which do not take place in Scotland, is the right hon. Gentleman making alternative arrangements?
    Mr. Peake: That is a point upon which I have been in correspondence with my right hon. Friend.

    Widows' Pensions
    Mr. Slaterasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what is his most recent estimate of the number of widows receiving the 10s. per week widow's pension; and what the cost would be to bring such pension up to the standard of the widow's pension prescribed for under the National Insurance Act.
    Mr. Peake: About 170,000. The annual cost of increasing these pensions to the current rate of widow's pension under the National Insurance Act would be about £10 million.

    Welfare Milk and Vitamins (Registration Particulars)
    Mr. K. Thompsonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance for what purpose applicants for welfare milk and vitamin tokens are required to give their maiden names and the age of their husbands when completing Form F.W.6.
    Mr. Peake: By way of a check on identity and to avoid duplication; applications for welfare milk and vitamins used to be linked up with a person's ration book and necessitated registration with a particular retailer. These formalities have been abolished and, in their place, the applicant is simply asked to give enough information to trace her National Insurance number or, failing that, her husband's number.
    Mr. Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, to a great many people, this is an imposition and an intrusion into their personal affairs which has really no relevance whatever to the purpose for which the information is being sought?
    Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that, as a result of representations from different quarters, I have had this form simplified and some of the questions struck out.
    Dr. Summerskill: In view of the fact that an unmarried mother will be entitled to welfare milk and vitamins, can the Minister say whether he has had the request for the woman's single name struck out?
    Mr. Peake: Yes.

    War Pensions Committee (Meetings)
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many meetings of the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions were held during 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954, respectively.
    Mr. Peake: From 1949 to 1953 there were, respectively, eight, five, five, three and four meetings. So far there has been no meeting in 1954.
    Mr. Simmons: Will the Minister consider calling an early meeting of this Advisory Committee, as I know the members are anxious to consult him on various problems; or does he think he is entirely self-sufficient now that war pensions are under the wing of his enlarged Ministry?
    Mr. Peake: The answer is: Yes, I certainly will, and I expect to have very shortly matters of considerable importance which I am anxious to discuss with the Central Advisory Committee.

    Quinquennial Review (War Pensions)
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to what extent the proposed increases in war pensions and allowances are required to await the Actuarial Report on the Quinquennial Review under the National Insurance Acts.
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether the Quinquennial Review includes in its purview pensions paid to disabled ex-Service men.
    Mr. Peake: The provisions for the Quinquennial Review of National Insurance benefits do not extend to war pensions, but I must have a complete picture of the total cost of all the proposed improvements before I can announce any of them.
    Mr. Simmons: Is the Minister aware that the majority of ex-Service men will be very disappointed with that reply, because they were promised in two world wars a reward for their service and sufferings irrespective of actuarial considerations? As he has the knowledge of what is needed to increase pensions to the present-day purchasing power of money, why does he not act now?
    Mr. Peake: I think I can say that when I am able to make an announcement—and I am just as impatient to make it as hon. Members are to hear it—the ex-Service community will be very well satisfied with the proposals.
    Dr. King: As it is common ground that the basic rate of 1946 was not too high, and as the Minister could act tomorrow by the Royal Warrant and 300 back benchers on both sides think we
    22
    have a debt of honour to the ex-Service men that ought to be fulfilled now, will not the right hon. Gentleman do something now for the ex-Service men?
    Mr. Peake: I do think it is reasonable for the Government to say that they must collate all the various proposals in all the different pension schemes before an announcement is made.

    Earnings Rule
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if be will now consider allowing old-age pensioners to earn over 40s. without loss of retirement pension.
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether, in view of the fact that the earnings allowance is imposed to encourage persons to remain at work and earn increments on retirement pensions, he will take steps to protect the interests of these persons who cannot remain in full-time employment by altering the law to remove the earnings allowance limit in respect of these people.
    Mr. Peake: I think we must wait for the report of the Phillips Committee before considering questions of this kind.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend not realise that these old people have paid for their pensions and should be allowed to earn what they like? Will he remove from the Statute Book this scandalous piece of Socialist legislation?
    Mr. Peake: No, I cannot accept that.
    Brigadier Clarke: It is Socialism.
    Mr. Peake: We adopted by general agreement in 1946 a new principle of giving a pension by virtue of retirement. There must be some test of retirement. This earnings rule has been the subject of inquiry by and of evidence given before the Phillips Committee, and the report of that Committee will be available very shortly.
    Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this earnings rule imposes a great hardship on women, particularly on widows, who find it very difficult, quite often, to get back into employment? Will he bear that particularly in mind so that we can have some amelioration of the present earnings rule?
    Mr. Peake: Yes, I will certainly undertake to bear the point that my hon. Friend has raised particularly in mind.
    Mr. Gibson: In view of the admitted pressure that there is these days on all pensioners, and the public support there is for them not only from these benches but in the newspapers, why must the right hon. Gentleman wait until the Phillips Committee reports? Is there any hope of the Phillips Committee's reporting and of the right hon. Gentleman's making a statement before the end of the year?
    Mr. Peake: Oh, certainly. I am hoping that the report will be available by the end of this month. I certainly promise a statement before the Christmas Recess.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, as there is practically full employment in the country, he would, by allowing pensioners to work and earn more, benefit both industry and the country?
    Mr. Peake: Yes, but we must be careful not to induce people to retire prematurely and to depend upon part-time earnings and pension rather than continue in their regular jobs and earn the higher pension by their so doing.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is no superannuation scheme applicable to professional or official classes which demands retirement or permanent unemployment as a condition for paying the benefit of the scheme? Why cannot the same principle be applied to workers generally?
    Mr. Peake: That may be so, but there was general agreement, I think, in all parts of the House in 1946, and we must try out this new retirement principle and provide higher pensions to be earned by virtue of deferred retirement.

    Retirement Pensioners (Death)
    Mr. P. Wellsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many persons in receipt of retirement pensions have died during the six months ended 30th September, or nearest convenient date.
    Mr. Peake: About 140,000 in the six months ending 30th June, 1954.
    Mr. Wells: Without being partisan, may I ask whether, in view of these
    24
    figures, the Minister will not anticipate the reports now pending and give this increase before Christmas?
    Mr. Peake: I am afraid that the numbers of deaths every half-year are an inevitable fact from which we cannot escape.
    Mr. F. M. Bennett: Is there any difference between the figures given and the usual annual rate for many preceding years? If not, is not the imputation behind this Question quite disgraceful?
    Mr. Peake: I did not myself read any imputation behind it. I have no reason to suppose that there is any change in the mortality rates in the last three or four years which is of any significance.
    Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. Has not the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. F. M. Bennett) imputed dishonourable motives to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells)? I think this is an important matter. A question of this character is put down to discover how many people who might have been receiving old-age pensions at the increased rate would not get them because of the death rate. This is not a dishonourable Question to ask. Surely the hon. Member for Reading, North should be asked to withdraw what he said.
    Mr. Speaker: I am bound to say that I could not myself understand what the implication was.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Ross: We never expected the hon. Member to withdraw.

    Alternative Pensions
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will grant an increase in pension to the 400 totally disabled ex-Service men of the first war who are drawing an alternative pension and who have had no increase of any sort since 1919.
    Mr. Peake: I cannot usefully add to what the Parliamentary Secretary said about alternative pensions generally in reply to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) on 20th October.
    Mr. Callaghan: Will the Minister reconsider this and take into account that there are 400 of these men, mostly

    25
    wounded when they were young, that they have lived their lives in a state of disablement, that the average age is 64, that the cost of giving them an increase would be £14,000, and that the most any could draw is £5 a week? Does he not think that the State should do something for these men?
    Mr. Peake: These men have been exceptionally treated and have drawn something higher than the standard rate throughout their period of disability. Whenever the standard rates are improved, they have the option of going on to the standard rates if those are higher than the pensions they are receiving. I have no doubt that some of these men will be able to exercise that option when I announce my new proposals for war pension rates before Christmas.

    London Bus Workers (Assistance Payments)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware that the National Assistance Board have refused to make grants to London bus men, recently on strike, unless they first agreed to borrow £2; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peake: Assistance to persons in full-time employment is payable only in case of urgent need. Bus men who applied for assistance after the strike were, therefore, first required to take advantage of the London Passenger Transport Executive's offer to make an advance against wages already earned.
    Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that Government approval of this procedure will create a new and very dangerous principle as applied to National Assistance, and, if extended, would it not destroy the whole basis of National Assistance, namely, that the power to borrow would be used as evidence of means? Will he, therefore, look at this matter again in the hope that this can be reversed?
    Mr. Peake: I am informed by the Board that this is not borrowing at all. The men themselves were drawing money to which they were entitled and which they had already earned.
    Mr. Mellish: The Minister is quite wrong. These men were offered a loan, and as many of them did not wish to
    26
    get into debt in this way their wives applied for assistance benefits, they were told that, unless they borrowed this money, they would get no grant from the Board. Surely that is a wrong principle, and will the Minister receive a deputation?
    Mr. Peake: I think that the House knows that assistance is given to the wives and dependants of men on strike quite regardless of whether the strike is official or unofficial. In the case of the strikers themselves, the Act lays down, and the Board are bound by the Act, that it can only be given in what are called urgent cases, and I think that the Board in this case was acting properly in suggesting that these men might draw from their employers sums of money which they had already earned.
    Mr. Mellish: What about a deputation?
    Mr. Peake: Of course, I will receive a deputation from hon. Members of this House at any time.
    Mr. Collins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men were told that they could not draw assistance unless they first agreed to borrow money? There is a question of principle involved. What is the Minister's reaction to that? Does he approve the principle of forcing people to borrow before they can get assistance?
    Mr. Peake: I do not really see that persons are in urgent need if their employers hold a sum of money which is due to them and which they can obtain by asking for it.

    Pensioners (Christmas Fare)
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what emergency plans he has for providing extra Christmas fare for pensioners and people in receipt of other insurance benefits.
    Mr. Peake: I do not regard arrangements of this kind as appropriate to an insurance scheme.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister not aware that he is the only person who can ensure a bearable Christmas for our old folk, and that it is not exploiting the situation in any way when we say that

    27
    there is real need among these old people, which everyone recognises except himself?
    Mr. Peake: I should have thought that what I have already said about the National Assistance Board would have assured the hon. Member that the Board was doing a humane and kindly job; but I do not think it would be at all appropriate to an insurance scheme to introduce gifts of Christmas fare, and so on.

    MINISTER OF EDUCATION (SPEECH)
    Mr. Benceasked the Prime Minister if the speech by the Minister of Education at a Primrose League luncheon on Tuesday, 26th October, referring to a new form of inquiry into the political views of school teachers, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend, in the course of a speech to the Primrose League, recommended their members to see more of the teaching profession and to give them the hospitality which their important position in the local community deserved.
    Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to a report of the speech in the "Scotsman" of 27th October, his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education said that in his constituency his party workers had complained that their new school teacher was a very bad influence on the children and that they were sure that that teacher was a Welsh Socialist? His actual words were:
    "How can you expect them not to go wrong?"
    May I assure the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education that we on these benches, who were taught by Socialist teachers, have not gone wrong, and that we who are teaching our children Socialist principles are not causing them to go wrong?
    Mr. Crookshank: I am glad to hear that the hon. Member has not gone wrong. My right hon. Friend and I both read the report of the speech. The gist of it was that it was a great pity that people went about saying that sort of thing when they had not taken the trouble
    28
    to make the acquaintance of the teachers concerned and find out what sort of people they were.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Education is the first ever to concern himself with the politics of the teachers in the employ of his Department? Secondly, are we now to understand that the policy to be adopted towards teachers is not to "treat 'em mean and make' em keen," but to invite them in to have a meal?

    HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING
    Mr. Jegerasked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, how many pats of butter sold in the Members' Tea Room make up 1 lb.; and at what price he buys the butter.
    Mr. W. A. Steward: Approximately 80 to the lb. It is not the policy of the Kitchen Committee to disclose prices paid for commodities.
    Mr. Jeger: On what date was the number 80 to the lb.? My general information is that on the day that this Question appeared on the Order Paper the size of the pat of butter was increased.
    Mr. Steward: I can only give the hon. Member the information which has been given me from a reliable quarter.

    SOUTH-EAST ASIA DEFENCE TREATY
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what forms of action are contemplated by Her Majesty's Government in fulfilment of the obligations of Article IV of the South-East Asia Collective Defence Treaty.
    The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): The nature of the action to be taken by Her Majesty's Government would entirely depend on the circumstances in which Article 4 of the Treaty was invoked and on the general situation prevailing at The time.
    Mr. Warbey: Does this reply mean that the Government reserve to themselves a completely free hand to decide

    29
    what action to take in the event of a situation arising, or do the Government regard this Article as imposing a binding obligation on this country to send military forces to deal with a situation arising under the Article?
    Mr. Nutting: The reply means exactly what it says.
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which countries, other than those which attended the Manila Conference, have been invited to adhere to the South-East Asia Collective Defence Treaty.
    Mr. Nutting: None, Sir.
    Mr. Warbey: What would be the value of this Treaty in not including such important Asian members of the Commonwealth as India and Ceylon and countries like Burma and Indonesia?
    Mr. Nutting: In the view of Her Majesty's Government, the value of the Treaty is that it is a contribution to peace, stability and security in South-East Asia.

    BACTERIOLOGICAL WARFARE (GENEVA PROTOCOL)
    Mr. S. Silvermanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which of the Powers included in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation are bound by treaty or international convention, which they have signed and ratified, not to use the weapons of chemical or biological warfare which, by the Nine-Powers Treaty, the Federal Government of West Germany undertakes not to manufacture, and which Powers are free to do so.
    Mr. Nutting: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the Geneva Protocol of June, 1925. The United Kingdom, Canada, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Greece, Turkey, Portugal and Italy are parties to the Protocol, and the United States and Iceland are not.
    Mr. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the purpose of Dr. Adenauer's declaration was to make clear which weapons the West German Federal Republic, in contradistinction to its prospective allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, would not make and that the world, unless a denial is clearly
    30
    made, will draw the inference that the other parties to that alliance are free to make those weapons?
    Mr. Nutting: The position is as laid down in the Geneva Protocol, and what we are trying to do is to get an effective agreement or disarmament embracing all weapons of mass destruction including bacteriological weapons and those to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention in his Question. We consider that that is much better than going back to the ratification or non-ratification of the 1925 Protocol.
    Mr. Silverman: In the meantime, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it might be well if all the Powers in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and especially the principal Power concerned, the United States of America, should bring themselves into line with other civilised nations on this subject?
    Mr. Nutting: No, Sir. What I think would be much better would be to try to make progress in the future rather than go back into the past.
    At the end of Questions—

PERSIAN OIL AGREEMENT
Mr. Mott-Radclyffeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Persian oil settlement.
Mr. Nutting: I will, with permission, answer Question No. 70.
Yes, Sir. I am sure that the House will have heard with gratification the news that the agreement between the Persian Government and the consortium of oil companies has been approved by both Houses of the Persian Parliament and was signed by the Shah on 29th October.
The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company will retain a 40 per cent. interest in the consortium operations in Persia and will be paid, over a period of time, £214 million by the companies who take up the remaining 60 per cent. interest. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company will also receive £25 million in compensation from the Persian Government.
The companies have already begun operations and British tankers have loaded oil at Abadan for the first time for over three years.

31
Her Majesty's Government warmly welcome this satisfactory conclusion of a dispute which did nothing but harm to Persian and British interests. They are convinced that the settlement which has been reached has reconciled to the greatest possible extent the interests of all parties, and will bring prosperity to all concerned, particularly to the Government and people of Persia.
Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the reaction of the stock market would indicate that this agreement, after many months of patient negotiation on the part of all concerned, is highly satisfactory from the point of view of British industrial and commercial interests?
Mr. Nutting: The reaction of the stock market is, indeed, remarkable, for immediately after Abadan in October, 1951, Anglo-Iranian £ shares stood at £5. Now, on 1st November, 1954, after ratification of the present agreement, they stand at £18, an all-time record.
Mr. H. Morrison: While passing no comment on this test of wellbeing by the swelling of share values, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this settlement, quite apart from the detailed merits, does not illustrate the wisdom of patience, and is it not the case that if we had gone to war about this, as some people wanted to do in 1951, the situation would not be as good as it is at the present time?
Mr. Nutting: As to the right hon. Gentleman's original remark about swelling the pockets of the shareholders, he will, of course, remember that the Government are a 50 per cent. shareholder in the company. As to the second supplementary, it does illustrate wisdom and patience on the part of Her Majesty's Government, but it also illustrates the result of a little resolution and determination.
Mr. H. Hynd: Does it not also show that the previous Government would have made a big mistake in going to war on this matter and losing the lives of British soldiers when negotiations could settle it, as has been proved?
Mr. Nutting: What it shows is that in October, 1951, when the late Govern-
32
ment left office, we were out of Abadan; in November, 1954—[HON. MEMBERS: "Suez"]—we are now back in Abadan.
Mr. Speaker: We really cannot debate this matter of Abadan.

DOCK STRIKES (RESUMPTION OF WORK)
The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): The House will have learned with relief that the dock strike has ended and that work in the ports affected has been resumed today. This is the result of negotiations which followed the publication last week of the Interim Report of the Court of Inquiry which I set up. I understand that the final Report will soon be available.
As the House knows, the strike started in London a month ago and was followed by sympathetic strikes in other ports. The injury to our economy has been grave and the effects will be felt for a long time to come; indeed, some of the loss can never be made good. The total value of imports and exports which have been held up is in the region of £200 million.
We can only hope that all those concerned in this regrettable affair will now do their utmost to repair the damage which has been done.
I have just had disturbing reports of fresh trouble at some of the London wharfs where the dockers are refusing to load lorries, the drivers of which do not produce proof of union membership. I have as yet no details, but I am sure that the House will join with me in urging all concerned to show moderation and a sense of responsibility and so avoid any occasion for fresh conflict.
Mr. Robens: I am sure the House will join with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in relief that this dispute is over, but at the same time I am bound to say that, if non-union labour is introduced into the docks, there will be a recurrence of the trouble, and I do not think that any of us on this side of the House could support such action.
Mr. G. Jeger: May I join with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in saying that I am glad the men have returned to work, but is it not clear that the terms on which they went back to work this morning are identical with the terms

33
which were offered to them months ago and that there was no need whatever for the strike? Is it not also true that the claim of the unofficial strike leaders that they have won a glorious victory is just a hollow mockery?
Sir W. Monckton: I do not want to qualify anything that has been said, except to state quite clearly that the terms which were accepted differ in no material respect from those available nine monhs ago.
Mr. Mikardo: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman extend to the Lord Mayor of London his injunction to moderation and to do nothing that will exacerbate feelings?
Mr. Speaker: The Minister is not responsible for the Lord Mayor of London.
Mr. Silverman: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain one point to the House? In view of the findings of the Interim Report that the point in dispute between the two sides was a very narrow point which was easily capable of being rapidly settled by the constitutional conciliatory machinery, could he explain why that machinery failed to settle it for a period amounting to nearly two years?
Sir W. Monckton: I can assure the House the point was a narrow one from first to last, but I think it is best to wait for the final report, which will be available in a few days' time, to see how narrow it was.
Miss Ward: Is it not rather a pity that the Press headlined the statement of Mr. Barrett's union without giving a really clear-cut exposition of how hollow that victory was, and would my right hon. and learned Friend not consider asking the Press to give an objective account, so that the public will not be confused? May I have an answer?
Sir W. Monckton: You have excused me, Sir, from responsibility for the Lord Mayor of London. I am not sure that I would not prefer that to responsibility for the Press.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: Can the Minister say what is the present position with regard to the ship repairers' strike?
Sir W. Monckton: That strike is still going on, and I have no further news to give about it, but if a Question is put down, I will deal with that.
Mr. Hastings: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is using his good offices to try to settle the ship repairers' strike, which has been going on, as he well knows, much longer than the dock strike?
Sir W. Monckton: As I said in the answer to the last question, if a Question is put down about that, I shall be glad to answer it, but I do not want to reply offhand.
Miss Lee: The Minister said that the point of dispute was a narrow one. Is he aware that, since January, over 80,000 men have been reported because they refused to accept compulsory overtime, and that among those men there was one of over 70 years of age?
Sir W. Monckton: I did not want in any way to be misleading when I said the point was a narrow one. I did not mean that it did not affect a great number of men, but the issue was a narrow one—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why was it not settled?"] An hon. Member asks why it was not settled. If he had been in this place, as I have been for three years, he would know that the narrow issues are not always easily settled, although they ought to be.

RAILWAYS REORGANISATION SCHEME
3.42 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on the Railways Reorganisation Scheme presented to Parliament by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Command 9191).
I rise to commend to the House Command Paper 9191 which contains the Railways Reorganisation Scheme of decentralisation. Under Section 16 of the Transport Act, 1953, the Commission is required to submit to the Minister a Scheme which is to be embodied in an Order approved by affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
During the passage of the Act, many hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed great interest at this provision and desired to have an opportunity of influencing the Scheme when it was made. The Government accordingly promised that Parliament should have an opportunity of contributing both constructive and destructive criticisms. But, as a Statutory Instrument cannot be amended by the House, the Government promised that, in the first place, a White paper should be laid which could be debated fully. Before making the Order, therefore, my right hon. Friend will give full and careful consideration to all the suggestions which are made today on both sides of the House. If, therefore, we appear to be taking two bites at a cherry, it is so that there should be an opportunity for the House to influence the moulding of the Scheme.
It may be convenient if I begin by giving a brief historical account of how we have reached the present position. If I do so, I hope that it may become clear that there is no reason for any ideological difference between the two sides of the House as regards this Scheme. In August, 1914, there were no fewer than 123 railway companies in this country. During the war of 1914–18 the Government took control of all the railways and administered them as a single whole. After the Government control had been brought to an end, an Act was passed by this House in 1921 which grouped
36
those 123 railway companies into four systems. During the years that followed there was even a further step in the direction of concentration. The four groups agreed to pool about 70 per cent. of their total resources and to redistribute their revenue among themselves upon agreed principles. When war broke out in 1939 the railways were again brought under Government control, and when that system was brought to an end in 1947, an Act was passed by the recent Government which provided for unification of the whole railway system and the vesting of it in public ownership.
I think it will be agreed generally that modern concentration brings with it certain problems arising from mere size. It tends to divorce the workers from those who control them, and it makes for a certain rigidity which is extremely undesirable. In bringing forward this Scheme we are trying to give effect to what the Prime Minister announced last year was the policy of the Government. My right hon. Friend said:
"We abhor the fallacy…of nationalisation for nationalisation's sake. But where we are preserving it, as in the coal mines, the railways, air traffic, gas and electricity, we have done and are doing our utmost to make a success of it, even though this may somewhat mar the symmetry of party recrimination."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 3rd November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 23.]
When the new nationalisation scheme came into operation, the control of the railways was vested in the Railway Executive. This was almost entirely a functional body and the members of that Executive, most of whom were technical men, were responsible for the control of specialised departments of the railways from the top to the bottom. It may very well have been necessary, in order to effect a complete unification of four different railway systems, and to obtain the advantages of economies, for the administration to begin by being highly centralised and in the hands of technicians. Quite soon, however, the Railway Executive came to feel that the organisation which it was administering would be too centralised to be a permanently satisfactory system.
Some time before 1951 the Railway Executive had appointed chief regional officers who were responsible for the administration of all departments in the six regions which they set up. The British Transport Commission came to very

37
much the same conclusion shortly afterwards. Early in 1951, and before the change of Government, the Transport Commission had come to the conclusion that a further substantial measure of devolution was necessary.
I emphasise these points to show that the need for decentralisation does not arise out of the abolition of most of the Executives by the present Government. That may, of course, have made it more important and more urgent but, even before this Government came in, the Transport Commission had come to the conclusion that it would not be possible or desirable for them to administer the railways on the same tight rein as had been the case when the concern was in the hands of a functional Railway Executive.
On 1st October, 1953, the Transport Commission introduced an interim organisation. Under this, the chief regional officers were made into chief regional managers and to a very large extent the regions were left free to administer their own concerns. The Scheme which I am commending to the House is a logical and natural development of this interim Scheme.
The Act of 1953 left the nature of the area authorities uncertain. It required the Transport Commission to decentralise, but it did not specify whether the decentralisation should be to individuals or to boards. After careful consideration, the Transport Commission has decided in favour of boards. There will be six boards responsible for the administration of the existing six regions, which will be renamed "areas." The Commission expects to find as members of those boards men who are in contact with commerce, industry and labour and representative of the general travelling public. It is hoped to find wise men of light and leading who will be able to give useful guidance to administration in the areas. It is not intended that they should be representative of any particular interest.
The composition of these boards is fully described in the Second Schedule of the White Paper. The number of members may vary from two to six, in addition to the chairman. One of these members will be a member of the Transport Commission but he will not necessarily be chairman of the area board. We
38
believe that this will be a most valuable liaison between the central authority and the boards.
It may be asked whether there is any intention on the part of the Transport Commission that these boards, in fact, should be its creatures, having been appointed by the Commission.
Mr. James Callaghan: Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us in a little more detail why this conclusion has been reached and why those appointed should not be representative in view of the fact that they are to be part-time members anyway?
Mr. Molson: On the ground that where people are being selected to act as advisers and administrators in an area it seems better for them to have the general view and not to be representative of some particular interest.
Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): Would the Minister say what he means by a general view? Would be consider knowledge of transport and the working of transport as being a necessary qualification?
Mr. Molson: If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether these people are intended to be experts on transport, the answer is that they are not and that they are intended to be representative of the general public.
Mr. Popplewell: Are they to have knowledge of transport?
Mr. Molson: It is not in the least necessary for them to have any special or detailed knowledge of any particular form of transport in order to be valuable members of a board.
Mr. Callaghan: This is a very important point which has been raised by the T.U.C. in correspondence with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, as he well knows. It is important that we should be quite clear on the question of representation on the boards. Will the hon. Gentleman explain a little more fully why it is the view of the Minister and of the Government that they should depart from the principle that is laid down in the 1947 Act, and in other nationalisation Acts, that there should be included upon boards persons who have had wide experience and have shown

39
capacity for various things, including the organisation of workers? The hon. Gentleman owes it to the House at least to give in some detail his views of that point.
Mr. Molson: I am always most anxious to give way and to try to answer questions, but, generally speaking, it is convenient to the House, when a fairly complicated scheme is being put before it, that the opening speech should be one which only sets out to explain the matter on general lines. I am perfectly willing, however, to give the hon. Member an answer on this point.
Our view is that what is required of these area boards is not any detailed or technical knowledge of transport as such. While it is no purpose of mine to say anything which is in any way controversial, we are all of opinion that for a permanent system it is not a wise thing to have in charge of railways a Railway Executive exercising functional control, and consisting very largely of technical experts. We are desirous of having on the boards representative public men who enjoy the confidence of those who need to use the railways, of commerce, of industry and, I hasten to add, of those who work on the railways. Indeed, our feeling has been that it has been a great defect of the old set-up that there has come to be too great a gulf fixed between those who work on the railways and those who are responsible for them.
Mr. A. J. Irvine: Is it the intention that the Commission will have the power to terminate by notice the employment of members of these area boards? The importance of the point is that the White Paper emphasises the danger of friction between the area boards and the Commission and, therefore, states that the Commission must have power of appointment. It is of some importance to ascertain whether the Commission is to have power to terminate the appointment of members of the board at any time.
Mr. Molson: It certainly would not be the intention of the Transport Commission to dismiss members of boards simply on the ground that they happened to express a point of view which was not entirely acceptable to the Commission.
40
A little later I will try to develop in more detail what we hope will be the relations between the Commission and the boards.
I was just asking the Chair the rhetorical question whether there was any danger that these boards would be mere creatures of the Transport Commission. I can give a categorical assurance that it is not in any way the intention of the Commission to appoint guinea pigs to these boards.
Indeed, the only way in which the Commission will be able to obtain the services of responsible public men will be by giving them very full scope for important and responsible work; but where it has been emphasised in the White Paper that there must be no question of a rival firm, it is, as I am sure the House will agree, because in trying to decentralise administration and management we do not want to carry it to the point where there is any destruction of the unification of the railways which has been effected. We do not want any hostility to be shown by the boards to the Commission. It would be most unfortunate if there were any refusal to comply with policy decisions of the Commission which were intended to apply to the railway system as a whole.
No one will expect any concern to be controlled in day-to-day matters by a part-time committee. It is for this reason that the Commission will appoint a chief regional manager who will be responsible for the day-to-day administration of the railways in each of the areas. I do not think that there is any danger of any divided loyalty because, as I will try to explain, the boards and the Commission will, in fact, be applying the same policy.
So far, I have been describing the machinery—
Mr. Popplewell: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, will he define what is meant in Article 5 of the Scheme, when it says that the area authorities will be responsible for the management of the railways? Just what powers will be given to the area boards for managerial purposes if they are not to interfere?
Mr. Molson: That will be covered by my next point. If I do not satisfy the hon. Gentleman I shall be happy to give way again. I hope to give two illustrations which will satisfy him.

41
Policy in future, as in the past, as it applies to the railway system as a whole, will continue to be decided by the Commission, but in dealing with these matters it will be considering the concrete problems which arise in the areas. There will be a two-way movement of ideas between the Commission and the boards. The policy will, at the same time, be the cause and the effect of what is being done by the boards.
I want to give two examples to show how the Scheme is intended to work. One of the matters which is the responsibility of the Commission is stated in the Scheme to be the standard of maintenance of both the permanent way and of the rolling stock. Clearly, that is a matter which ought to be the same throughout the whole system. When, however, it comes to a question of what particular length of permanent way requires to be renewed that will be a matter for the area boards. When it is a question of what locomotives require to have a major overhaul to satisfy the general standard laid down, that, again, will be a matter for the boards. Each board will be required each year to prepare a budget both of revenue and of capital expenditure and will send that budget to the Commission to be approved. The position will be not identical with but perhaps broadly analogous to that with which hon. Members are familiar, that of Departments of the Government putting in their Estimates and obtaining the approval of the Treasury.
When the budgets, modified to meet the exigencies of finance, have been approved by the Commission then the carrying out of those works will again be left in the hands of the boards. The average amounts of many of these budgets will be about £50 million a year and, in some areas, they will considerably exceed that. The total expenditure on the railway system is likely to be in the neighbourhood of £446 million and, of that, approximately £445 million will be spent by the boards. Only perhaps a little more than £1 million will be spent directly by the Commission itself on those services at headquarters which are most efficiently and conveniently administered there.
Mr. A. Woodburn: I am not clear about the amount of devolution that is to be
42
allowed. I gather that the Scottish board will be allowed to put its own character upon the running of the system. Until now, it seems to me that it has been only a question of how it is to spend the money within very limited uniform lines and that uniformity is to be established over the whole country. What is the purpose of giving the area boards any devolution unless they have some way of implanting their own character on the running of their own system?
Mr. Molson: I thought from the expression on the faces of some hon. Gentlemen opposite that I was emphasising too much the very considerable measure of decentralisation which we contemplate. Scotland will be a region, just like any other region. It will have its own budget and, subject to those matters where it is desirable that the whole of the railway system of the United Kingdom shall be similar, there will be the very fullest opportunity for the Scottish board to leave a Scottish imprint upon its administration.
Mr. Popplewell: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of who would decide that a length of permanent way ought to be renewed or that a number of locomotives should be given a general overhaul. May I take it that the Minister will absolve the chief mechanical engineer or the chief regional manager from this type of detailed responsibility and that he will take to himself the duty of telling these experts what they should do. Does the hon. Gentleman seriously ask us to accept that suggestion—that the advice should come from people with no knowledge of transport?
Mr. Molson: The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the position. This is a Scheme for the decentralisation of administration from the Commission to the boards. My right hon. Friend comes into the matter only in so far as he presents the Scheme to the House with his approval. All I say, and it is important, is that the general standard which has been laid by the Commission to apply to the railway system as a whole will be put into operation throughout the country by the area boards and by the chief regional managers who operate under them.
Mr. Percy Collick: The Minister gave two examples of what will

43
happen as between the boards and the Commission. Will he enlighten the House as to what advantage it will be in the general interest of British railway organisation if the decision to re-lay a line is taken by the area authorities as against the Commission itself?
Mr. Molson: I hope the House will not think it unreasonable if I do not give way any more. The last question might very well have been elaborated—indeed, I hope it will be elaborated—in the course of speeches during the debate. My right hon. Friend will be winding up the debate and will be explaining in greater detail any of the points which hon. Gentleman like to raise. The whole purpose of the debate upon the White Paper is that there shall be the fullest discussion of the matter. My right hon. Friend will listen with close attention to the arguments which are put forward.
To reply briefly to the question put by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick), it is manifestly undesirable that responsibility for considering whether a particular length of permanent way requires to be renewed this year or can remain for another year should be decided by a Transport Commission which is responsible for the policy of transport as a whole. That is essentially the kind of matter which in all normal administration is dealt with by those who live and work in the areas.
At present, the boards will be concerned only with the railways which, as I have tried to show, will give them plenty of work to do. Other duties may at a later time be assigned to them if experience suggests that that is desirable.
This Scheme was presented by the Commission in the summer to my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He gave it very careful consideration and found himself able to pass it on in its present form for consideration and for criticism, as is required under Section 17 of the Act of 1953, by all those bodies which are specified on page 4 of the White Paper.
The general response was extremely favourable. The Trades Union Congress and the Scottish Trades Union Congress were critical on the ground that they did not think there was any need for a scheme of decentralisation of this kind at all. However, that is, of course, a
44
criticism of the Act of 1953, and not of this Scheme, which it is mandatory upon the Transport Commission to produce. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce say that they still prefer their own proposals which they were good enough to explain recently to my right hon. Friend.
It has been suggested that the Scheme is enabling only and not sufficiently mandatory and that the Act obliges the Commission to set out in greater detail exactly what it intends to do. I am advised that from the legal standpoint the Scheme satisfies all the requirements of the Act.
As for the merits of the criticisms which have been made, I beg the House not to press for the Scheme to be spelt out in detail. The Scheme itself has to obtain an affirmative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament. If it were found at any time later necessary to amend it, it would be necessary again for an amended Scheme to be presented to both Houses, and hon. Members are aware how seldom it is possible for anyone to draft a scheme or to prepare a document which afterwards is not found in some respects to be unsatisfactory or incomplete. Therefore, I beg the House to be satisfied with this general outline Scheme. I can also assure my hon. Friends that the Transport Commission is looking to further devolution in the future as time and experience suggest it may be desirable.
The only justification that there could be for asking that the matter should be set out in full detail, with every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed, would be if there were any reason to suppose that the Transport Commission was not sincere in desiring to decentralise. I can assure the House, and my hon. Friends in particular, that the Commission pressed on with preparing the Scheme, presented it to my right hon. Friend in the summer, and was most anxious that, if possible, it should obtain the approval of the House before the Recess, so that it might get on with the appointment of the boards.
I also understand that some of my hon. Friends are not satisfied with Article 9. I am sure that they will have studied carefully paragraphs 36–39 of the explanatory statement which set out very clearly the difficulties to be overcome. There is, of course, no difficulty in presenting statistics and costs which deal with

45
the railway system as a whole; there is a great deal more difficulty in presenting statistics and costs which deal with particular areas, and the more centralised the control of the railways is, the more difficult it is to allocate some of the overhead costs as between one area and another.
So far, it has appeared almost impossible to prepare figures of that kind in a way which would provide a fair yardstick for comparing the efficiency of different areas. The Transport Commission has, in fact, set up a committee to go further into this subject. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend has discussed the matter very fully with the Commission and that we hope to find a satisfactory solution.
I have described the machinery contained in the Scheme and the way in which it is intended to work. The Government want to make a success of the nationalised railways. We believe that the Scheme is well directed towards reconciling and combining the advantages of a centralised control of railway policy with devolution of administration and management to the areas. We believe that this will ensure closer contact between management and those who work on the railways and will promote a more flexible service so that the needs of the nation can be more fully and more efficiently met.
4.19 p.m.
Mr. James Callaghan: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for having reminded us, by reading the Motion, that the House is invited to take note of the Scheme. The Parliamentary Secretary told us on two occasions that he was commending it to the House, but if that is so, I must point out that the Scheme is not the form in which the Motion has been put on the Order Paper, and that in no sense shall we be giving it our commendation in what we have to say today.
We on this side thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his painstaking explanation of the Scheme. I cannot congratulate him upon having made it clear to us—I shall come to that matter in a minute—but at least we know that he has, as always, given his usual patient and courteous attention to the matter.
We are very glad to see that the Minister himself has returned to the Chamber.
46
He is an old friend in these debates, although I must say that as I stand here and look at him all the old clichés come into mind.
The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Do not bring them out of your mouth.
Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman is the poacher turned gamekeeper, making bricks without straw and leaving no stone unturned. He used to be very assiduous in his attendance at the Transport Bill debates. As we all know, he is a great champion of the London traveller. We still remember the right hon. Gentleman's impassioned appeals for lower fares for London Transport travelers, and he is now in the fortunate position of being able to carry out the policy which he enunciated when he was sitting on these benches.
He will earn the gratitude of millions of Londoners when he comes to the House and is able to announce reduced fares along the lines of the policy which he used to enunciate so clearly when be occupied the third bench above the Gangway on this side of the House. We are looking forward to that experience. When it comes, I do not know whether my emotions will be compounded more of astonishment than gratitude but there will be a mixture of both, and we are looking forward to hearing the right hon. Gentleman tonight.
This Scheme, as the Parliamentary Secretary has told us, arises out of the 1953 Act. He rightly told us that the T.U.C. and the Scottish T.U.C. were opposed to this Scheme, but I think he was wrong in indicating that they are opposed to decentralisation, which was the word he used, and had not the hon. Gentleman asked to be excused further interruptions, I should have invited him to put that right there and then. In all my conversations with the T.U.C., I have never found them to be opposed to decentralisation or devolution, and we on this side of the House are not opposed to it either.
We believe that there is a very good case to be made for devolution. It was always the intention that there should be devolution of responsibility from the centre to the periphery, and, if the Parliamentary Secretary would care to turn to the Annual Report of the British Transport Commission for 1953, he will

47
see that, in paragraph 32 on page 6, it says this:
"As was pointed out in the introduction to the Annual Report for 1952, it had always been the intention of the Commission that a devolution of managerial authority should ultimately take place, probably on an area basis, covering all the carrying services, once the preliminary unification of all the various forms of transport had proceeded far enough."
This was certainly in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) and in the mind of Sir Eustace Missenden, who was the first chairman of the Railway Executive. There was never any opposition to devolution from the centre, once the standardisation which was necessary in order to achieve unification throughout the four railways before nationalisation had been achieved.
I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary fully apprehended this in his reference to devolution to the area boards. Indeed, I say that the area boards are quite irrelevant to the problem of decentralisation and devolution, and, if I wanted to find some fortification of that view, I should find it in paragraph 36 of the Report of the Transport Commission. This is what it says:
"So far as railway reorganisation was concerned, the Commission had, as mentioned above, already reached the conclusion that the three-tier organisation of Commission, Executive and region was no longer suitable to flexible and commercial methods of management, and had communicated their views on this matter to the Minister at the end of 1951. The Government decided that any necessary changes must be dealt with under legislation."
The first point which I would bring to the notice of the House is that we could have had a changed organisation, with devolution and decentralisation, if the previous Minister of Transport had not held up the Transport Commission from carrying it out. As its Annual Report indicates, it was ready to do so at the end of 1951, but the then Minister wanted to obtain the political kudos of taking action under the Transport Act, 1953.
The present Minister regards this with incredulity. He cannot know his right hon. Friend as well as we know him. I say that the Government, so far from encouraging the Commission to embark on a useful process of devolution, prevented it from carrying out this process
48
until certain changes had taken place which the Government wanted to get through in the Transport Act, 1953.
As far as we are concerned, we believe in devolution. We think it is an essential stage in the process of securing a decision about any individual matter as close as possible to the point where that decision must be applied, but we do not believe that the area boards will help in that process at all, and that is the difference between us. We have argued previously the case against the abolition of the Railway Executive which it would be out of order to do now, but, because I am now going to discuss some aspects of the area boards, I hope the Minister will not conclude that we are departing from the criticisms which we made about the abolition of the Railway Executive at the time when it took place.
We believe that he was wrong to abolish it, and we also believe that the Commission is already taking the view that, having abolished it, it will be necessary to replace it by something, not with these area boards, but with something rather smaller at the headquarters, as time goes on. I draw some deductions from the White Paper. In paragraph 6 (c) on page 2, certain matters are reserved to the Commission, for example, the wagon stock. It goes on:
"…some large undertakings prefer to do their business with British Railways by negotiation at the centre instead of separately in the six regions. Other examples could be quoted. There must be a focus for these and like matters, and that focus must be within the Commission's headquarters. The organisation at British Transport Commission headquarters is not final in that respect yet, but it can be taken that a clear focus for these matters of executive railway management will have to exist, in addition to the Commission's policy-making machinery."
That is because the Railway Executive has been abolished, and nothing has taken its place, but some machinery will have to be designed to take its place. There are a number of railwaymen who feel very strongly that no proper attention is being given to the individual problems concerning the railways as they crop up, and that nobody is taking a general overall view of them, as distinct from day-to-day management. I think the Commission may find it necessary to create in its own headquarters some machinery to take over the functions exercised in the past, because the area

49
boards will do nothing to help in that respect.
I should like to ask the Minister whether the specific examples which the Parliamentary Secretary gave about the work of the area boards have received the commendation of the Transport Commission, and whether the latter is in agreement with the examples that have been given by the Parliamentary Secretary. If they are, then paragraph 13 of the White Paper needs some amendment. Let me draw the attention of hon. Members to it.
"The functions of the former Railway Executive were thus divided as follows: The Commission took direct charge of certain specific matters (such as the design. manufacture and standards of maintenance of locomotives. …"
I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary that this is to be a matter for decision by the area boards. Which is right, the White Paper or the Parliamentary Secretary, or has there been some amendment in between? It really cannot be both. It cannot be the Commission taking direct charge—those are the hon. Gentleman's words—and the area boards having responsibility for doing it. I do not think I am being very obtuse here, and I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite find themselves also in this difficulty.
The White Paper says:
"The Commission took direct charge of certain specific matters,"
in which are included the permanent way.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No.
Mr. Callaghan: Well, it says:
"…(such as the design, manufacture and standards of maintenance of locomotives, rolling stock, permanent way"—
Mr. Powell: It alters the sense.
Mr. Callaghan: Do not let us become heated about this matter. I am seriously trying to find out whether there is any difference between what this document says and what the Parliamentary Secretary says.
Let me restate the position as I understand it. Under the Scheme the Commission is to take direct charge of the manufacture, design and standards of maintenance of the permanent way. As I understand the Parliamentary Secretary, the area board is to take direct charge of
50
the maintenance of the permanent way. Am I wrong? Is that not what he said? We cannot have two sets of people taking charge of the same thing.
Mr. Powell rose—
Mr. Callaghan: I would prefer to have the explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary.
Mr. Molson: I thought I had made it plain that the Commission will be responsible for laying down standards for the permanent way all over the country, but when it comes to deciding whether a particular permanent way has to be taken up, that is the responsibility of the particular area board.
Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. I think I begin to see the matter a little more plainly. I only hope that the area boards and the regional managers will be able to see it even more clearly.
This brings me to my first point of criticism. This Scheme of divided authority between the Commission and the area boards is sinning against the cardinal principle of organisational administration, that there should be a clear chain of command from the Transport Commission at the top to the people down at the bottom. I do not think that anybody who, with the best will in the world, reads the White Paper can believe that there will be a clear chain of command of that kind. The area boards have been tucked in half way down the scale to satisfy the Government's back benchers. We shall have this discussion continuously going on about where the level of responsibility lies, who is responsible, and how the responsibility is to be carried out, just because the Minister has sacrificed good administration to party dogma and prejudice.
However, I will leave that point. I do not think it is at all clear and I do not think that other people will think it clear either. If the words
"the Commission took direct charge of… standards of maintenance of the permanent way"
do not means what they say, I suppose we must accept that from the Parliamentary Secretary. It has certainly altered the Scheme for the worse so far as I am concerned.
The Parliamentary Secretary boasts, I think not so much for the benefit of the

51
public as for the benefit of his own backbenchers, that the area boards are to spend £446 million a year. How often are these area boards to meet? What sort of meetings are they to be? [An HON. MEMBER: "Part-time."] We know that they are part-time. Are they to meet part-time every day, every week, every month, every quarter, or what? Are we to commit the expenditure of £446 million of the nationalised industry's money into the hands of a part-time board when we have no idea how often they are to meet and what they are to do? We know that they will be appointed for two years and that they can be replaced at the end of that time, but major responsibility will lie with other people and not with the railways—
Mr. David Renton: Does not the hon. Gentleman recollect that when his party established the National Health Service it set up regional boards which had part-time members and which expended very large and quite comparable sums?
Mr. Callaghan: I am not aware of that, because I am not an expert on the National Health Service. But I know enough about this matter to know what the consequences will be in this case.
If the Minister tells us that the area board is no more than a façade and a sham under which the regional manager will do the job for the Commission, I understand. That means that he has tossed another bone to the backbenchers and that the work will go on in the same way. If he is telling me that these part-time gentlemen, who work for small remuneration for an unknown number of hours, are to be responsible for spending £446 million, I reply that it is a disgrace which ought not to be permitted.
We certainly do not agree to a Scheme of that sort. In view of the remarkable statements of the Parliamentary Secretary, I hope that the Minister will tell us what are intended to be the functions of these boards and with what degree of assiduity they will pursue their duties. We can then have some conception of the nature of the boards into whose hands we are committing this vast sum of public money.
52
I can see all sorts of difficulties arising between the regional manager, who is to be responsible to and is appointed by the Transport Commission, and the area board by whom he is not appointed but to whom he certainly has some responsibility. This offends against paragraph 4, which says:
"Whatever may be the organisation, there must be a continuous chain of responsibility from the apex down to the lowest ranks."
I do not believe that, left to itself without this Act of Parliament, the Transport Commission would have produced a Scheme like this. It had to produce it because the Act says so, but when we consider how far short the Scheme falls of fulfilling that cardinal principle I do not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite can feel sure that these area boards will be useful. Putting them at their best, the boards may be innocuous; at their worst, a distinct encumbrance.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to trade union representation. The Trades Union Congress attaches considerable importance to the departure which has taken place in the composition of these area boards from the practice followed hitherto. I am sorry that he could not go into more detail than he did. It is important, as I said in an aside to the Parliamentary Secretary which he immediately accepted, that these area boards should command the confidence of those who work in the areas, not only of the business and commercial interests but of the public whom they will have the responsibility of serving.
When the previous Minister saw the Trades Union Congress, he gave it an impression that was not borne out by subsequent events. The Trades Union Congress wrote a letter to him on this particular point about the representation of workers, and said:
"You will remember that this point was raised by our representatives at their meeting with you on 12th December, 1952, and they understood you to say that it might be possible to provide for such appointments on the new authorities, and that you will give an assurance to this effect when the appropriate Clause of the Bill was discussed in the House of Commons. Your view of the discussion, on the other hand, is that you said that since the Bill envisaged the possibility of single persons as authorities it would not be practicable to specify that authorities should include trade

53
unionist members, although it was inconceivable that workers would not be represented on the new authorities wherever it was appropriate."
I can well picture in my mind's eye this interview. I can see the Minister giving all the assurances that seemed likely to be necessary to bring the matter to a rapid and successful conclusion. This is the result of it: the Trades Union Congress feels that it has been given a promise, which promise the Minister says he did not make. The Minister says that he did not make it because the area boards might have to be single persons, but although, in fact, they are not, the promise still is not forthcoming.
I put it to the Minister that he will be making a great mistake unless he incorporates into his Scheme, before he finally presents it to the House, a formula such as is contained in Section 1 (2) of the Transport Act, 1947, namely, that the persons to be appointed shall be those who have had
"wide experience and shown capacity in transport, industrial, commercial or financial matters, in administration, or in the organisation of workers.…"
It is a reasonable request to make. He knows already the suspicion with which the trade unions regard any departure in these matters, especially when the White Paper goes out of its way, in paragraph 25, to emphasise that persons with close knowledge
"of public and business requirements in respect of transport"
are to be especially brought in. I hope that the Minister will look at this part of the Scheme again, and will amend it in accordance with the very strongly pressed view of the Trades Union Congress.
I also wish to make another point in connection with the area boards. I hope that they will contain a substantial proportion of persons taking part in provincial life, and will not be drawn purely from people working in and around London. If they are to have any value at all, then I am sure that they can have a value in that respect, and I hope that the Minister will bring the point to the attention of the Transport Commission when it is making the appointments.
We on this side of the House do not dissent from the view that the Transport Commission should make the appointments. We believe that this is the only way
54
in which the change-over in command can properly take place, because, although the Parliamentary Secretary is at pains to deny that these people will be creatures of the Transport Commission, it is quite clear that the Commission will appoint them. I am very glad that this will be so, because otherwise the confusion would be even worse than before.
I am also glad to see from the Explanatory Note that the Transport Commission has made it clear that the area authorities are to represent the Commission and to relieve it of work. They are not to be an opposition firm. I hope that the Minister will really insist on this point being followed, as otherwise I can see nothing but recriminations and delay instead of the advance towards the sort of transport system which we all want to see.
I come now to the question of statistics. It is notable that when the Parliamentary Secretary wanted to discuss the question of statistics, he turned to his own benches, because he knew that they were the people who would really have to be appeased on this matter. I do not believe, and I do not think that anybody who has had experience of the matter really believes, that there are many statistics that can be produced between the regions which would enable one to compare their efficiency. I doubt whether there are many hon. Members opposite who really believe that there are.
On the financial side, as the Transport Commission points out, 70 per cent. of the total receipts were pooled in the old days before nationalisation, so that no test applied to the odd 30 per cent. will really he indicative. I have tried to apply this index of efficiency to one set of statistics produced by the Commission, and I have done it in relation to the train miles run by British Railways every year. This is one set of statistics which they are going to produce and by which hon. Gentlemen opposite say that they will measure efficiency.
If hon. Members who have it would turn to the Sixth Annual Report, they will see set out on pages 190–191 statistics called
"Train miles per train engine hour,"
by which, I understand, is meant the total number of miles that a train travels every hour that an engine is attached to it

55
and is working, whether loaded or unloaded. I do not pretend that that is an exact definition.
Let us compare the London Midland Region with the Southern Region. As will be seen from this table, the London Midland passenger index is 10·24 miles per total engine hour. For the Southern Region the passenger index is 11·09 miles per total engine hour. Therefore, the Southern is more efficient than the London Midland, because this is what statistics are for.
But now I turn to freight, and I find that on the London Midland the index for the freight services is 3·49 miles per total engine hour compared with 3·41 for the Southern Region. Clearly, therefore, the London Midland is more efficient than the Southern. But we have just demonstrated that the Southern is more efficient than the London Midland. I feel like saying, "So what?" When one has produced these statistics and analysed them, what conclusion is one to draw, especially when we see, in relation to these indices, that the London Midland passenger steams 2½ times as much as the Southern, and that, in relation to freight, the London Midland figure is nearly six times as much as the Southern?
Statistics of this sort are susceptible to argument in almost any way, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will not place too much reliance upon them. I much prefer the comment of the Transport Commission itself, in which it says, in paragraph 282:
"These averages are substantially influenced by the pattern of the services required on each of the regions."
I beg hon. Members not to get too much into the habit of thinking that by comparing statistics of a line like the London Midland, whose freight haulage is so great, with those of the Southern, which hauls a negligible amount, they can thereby deduce what the efficiency of each is going to be. I beg the Minister to resist the claptrap which comes from his own benches on this aspect of the matter.
I want now to express some criticism of the hotel policy as laid down in the White Paper. We on this side of the House are not very happy about the hotel policy that has so far been followed by the Transport Commission. As far as
56
we can make out, it seems to be a process of closing down or selling the moderate-sized and comparatively cheaper hotels, and of concentrating on the luxury hotels and on charging luxury prices in them.
I have no doubt that there is a case to be made out for the luxury market, and if the Transport Commission can make money out of people who want to spend a lot of money on such accommodation, I see no objection to it. However, I would very much like the Minister, in connection with the pattern in relation to hotel and catering services—especially hotel—to consider whether the Commission ought not to carry out much more fully its obligations to the ordinary members of the travelling public by providing reasonably priced hotels with a decent service, instead of just closing them down or selling them off.
I believe that there is a market there, and that the Commission has a responsibility. I do not see why it should not go into the hotel market if it can make it pay. If the Commission is to do this job, which is an ancillary part of the provision of proper transport facilities, then I ask the Minister to look into it and to discuss with the Commission the possibility of its changing its policy.
In short, we do not believe that the area boards will achieve anything of note. We do not believe that they are any more than a concession to the strongly expressed views of the back benches opposite, and that they bear no relation to the necessary organisation and administration of the Transport Commission. We believe that we could have spent our time far more profitably discussing ways and means by which the Commission could secure the technicians of which it is at present short in order to remedy the lack of capital investment from which it is suffering.
If I may venture an opinion, a few more bureaucrats in the area board will not make up for the shortage of technicians which at present is holding back the railways far more than anything else. I think it is a very great pity that the Minister has not something better with which to engage the attention of the House than a Scheme to create a few more jobs. He was, I think, the inventor

57
of the phrase "Jobs for the boys," but is now to become one of the largest dispensers of patronage in the country.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter indicated dissent.
Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman denies that he was the author of that phrase. I am ready to accept that he had not the originality to think it out, but, nevertheless, he used it on many occasions.
I assure him that his past will haunt him. His speeches are being looked up. There could be no bigger condemnation of his Scheme than the rather scornful words of the T.U.C. about the plan for different uniforms for the staffs and different colours for the trains in different regions. The T.U.C. say that it is playing at trains, that the right hon. Gentleman has produced a Scheme which will add not 1 per cent. to the efficiency of the Transport Commission nor add one man, one wagon or one locomotive to the equipment of the Commission.
If the right hon. Gentleman is going ahead with this Scheme—and, no doubt, with his obedient majority, he will force it through the House—we hope that he will, at least, consider the points which we have made, and will try to bring some sense into a Scheme which is confused, in which there is likely to be overlapping between the various authorities who will be responsible for this matter, and which will have to be altered within the next few years.
4.51 p.m.
Mr. John Maclay: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and I disagree on quite a number of matters, and I should like to say forthwith that I disagree with his closing remarks. The Scheme before us goes a fair distance to meeting what many of us felt was very necessary in the reorganisation of British Railways. Unlike a good many hon. Members who have to open their speeches by saying, "The hon. Member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow him," I intend to follow the hon. Member quite a bit.
I turn at once to the admission at the beginning of his speech that he and his colleagues—presumably hon. Members on that side of the House—believe in executive devolution. They felt that when, in the early stages of the British
58
Transport Commission, the unifying process was going on, centralisation was necessary. I understood him to be ready now for the coming devolution which was, at least partly, carried out in the interim organisation. Whether or not I can take it that the hon. Member and his colleagues do not quarrel with the interim organisation, which the Report says is producing very important results, at least the hon. Member has accepted that executive devolution was necessary.
The hon. Member referred in disapproving terms to the abolition of the Railway Executive but, having earlier referred to the fact that in 1951 the Transport Commission was ready for devolution he forgot that, at that stage—and it is made clear in paragraph 36 of the Report for 1953—the Commission obviously itself contemplated doing something about the Railway Executive even before the 1953 Act was passed. That paragraph states:
"So far as railway reorganisation was concerned, the Commission had, as mentioned above, already reached the conclusion that the three-tier organisation of Commission, Executive and region was no longer suitable to flexible and commercial methods of management…"
From that it is quite clear that, early on, the Commission had realised that, whatever may be the views of hon. Members opposite, the Executive structure was
not the right one and that the Commission obviously thought—
Mr. David Jones: But in September, 1951, the right hon. Gentleman told his predecessor that it was not right. The right hon. Gentleman then said he preferred to have it done by legislation.
Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East made rather a strong point of the Opposition's dislike of the abolition of the Railway Executive. Again and again he said that the Executive structure should not have been abolished. All I am pointing out is that it is explicit, even in those few words which I have quoted, that in 1951 the Commission was itself thinking of doing something in terms of getting rid of it.
Mr. Callaghan: The major point of the objection was not in regard to its existence but to its independent existence; that it was appointed not by the Transport Commission itself but by the Minister.

59
I suggest that, had it not been appointed by the Minister, we would not have heard anything about complete abolition.
Mr. Maclay: It is at least clear that the Commission did not wish it to exist in that form.
In studying what has happened under the interim organisation—and it should be pointed out that neither the House nor the general public have ever really known what the interim organisation was—it is quite clear that there have been substantial improvements in devolution. The first important point was that departmental officials in the areas were made responsible to the chief area managers, or chief regional officers or whatever they may be called, and secondly that, functionally, except for certain reserved subjects, all the departmental work at the centre has ceased. I welcome that. I have seen some of its results in Scotland and I think that they have been good.
When one examines the reorganisation Scheme now before the House it is difficult to see how it goes very much further than the interim organisation brought into existence some time ago, except in one very important aspect, which is the creation of the area authorities, which hon. Members opposite do not seem to like very much. What would happen without area authorities? We now have very substantial devolution from the centre, and without the area authorities that devolution would be from the Commission to the area manager responsible, say, in Scotland, for a very large country and for all kinds of interests to meet the conditions of the Highlands, the industrial belt, and the Lowlands. One man would carry that huge responsibility. I think that that is a task beyond the powers of any single man.
The area boards, while not interfering in any of those things about which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East is frightened, can undoubtedly be a tremendous help to area managers and to the Commission. That help lies, say in Scotland, in bringing to deliberations at area level a width of experience from all parts of Scotland and, if one likes to use the word, from all interests in Scotland. How will that work out? The area manager may think that he sees a method of improving services or whatever it may
60
be. Without the board—even under the interim organisation—he would, by reason of the powers devolved to him from the centre, be making his own decision.
Could he be certain of being right, or even reasonably sure of being right, in a decision affecting possibly the whole of Scotland when he, by the very nature of his job must be in, say, Glasgow, unable to travel very much and unable to test local opinion? Do not let anyone say that the transport users' consultative committee is the answer.
Mr. J. A. Sparks: The right hon. Gentleman has completely forgotten that the chief regional manager does not act on his own isolated responsibility. He has at his beck and call, subordinate to him, at least 15 departmental men who have at their finger tips the various aspects of railway organisation. He can take their advice.
Mr. Maclay: Everyone of them is functional and, as one of my colleagues has just whispered, every one of them is subordinate to him. That is the whole point. He will certainly get his technical advice from his assistants, but can he assess the social, and even the economic, consequences of possibly quite important decisions which he already has powers to make under the interim organisation?
Even more important, say under the reserved powers of the Transport Commission in London, if the Transport Commission makes certain decisions, can the area manager really fight the Transport Commission on his own, if he believes that fighting is necessary, in the same way that he can if he has got the backing of a representative body of people? I am talking of broad policy decisions. Some very difficult things have to be done, and I, as a Member of Parliament representing my constituents may not like some of the things which have to be done if the railways are to become efficient and make themselves pay.
We must be satisfied that, from the beginning, the broadest consideration is given to these policy matters, not by a special interest, but by people of broad understanding of economic and social problems. The transport users' consultative committee can serve a very definite function, but not a function that such a body can serve. The difficulty is that

61
there have been chief regional officers in the past, either on their own initiative or on instructions and in fulfilment of major policy instructions, acting, or at least consulting the transport users' consultative committee, at a late stage in the development of policy.
I do not think it is practicable, even with the best intentions, to consult a body such as the transport users' consultative committee right at the beginning of policy making. Such a body, even if it comes in before the event, is bound to come in at a very late stage in policy discussion, and the task of the railway authority is to try to persuade the transport users' consultative committee that the policy under discussion is a good idea. Likewise, if they come in after the event, the odds are that they cannot do very much about it.
Mr. Ernest Davies: Is it not a fact that in the case of proposals to close branch lines, it is the policy of the Commission to ask for consultations to take place with the transport users' consultative committee at the outset so that it is aware of the policy before action is taken?
Mr. Maclay: That has increasingly been established, I agree. Originally there were some hitches, but later the consultations became better in the earlier stages of policy making.
The fact remains that there may be a general policy of closing branch lines, and before very serious thought has been given by the Commission to how it will do it a broad view is required—not at a later stage when the Commission has made broad decisions, and only then discusses with the transport users' consultative committee how a particular area will be affected. Surely the Commission and the area manager are strengthened and the interests of the country are best served if, at an early stage of policy making, wide knowledge is available to the Commission and to the area managers.
What the function of the area authorities is to be, one can quibble about indefinitely. That is quite right. Questions should be asked about what their functions should be. For myself, I am prepared to accept what is set out in the foreword to the Scheme, where, in paragraph 6, it makes clear that
"The British Transport Commission is a policy forming body.
62
The area authorities are also policy forming at area level, and supervisory. They are not intended to be executive organs of day-to-day management."
There must be a certain development of working practice between the area authority, the chief regional manager and the Transport Commission in London. It would be folly to decide now exactly what the details should be.
I am satisfied with that statement, particularly when it is coupled with the sentence in paragraph 6 (b):
"The chain of responsibility is from British Transport Commission to area authority, and from authority to chief regional manager."
That might sound slightly contradictory, but in this country we have never got our best results by being strictly logical. If we get the right type of men serving on the area authorities, good chief regional managers, we can get a really great improvement in the day-to-day operation, and in the medium- and long-term policy working throughout the country of British Railways.
Having said that I approve the Scheme in general, I should like to ask for some clarification of some of the Articles in the Scheme which I think are a little obscure. When we turn to Articles 7, 8 and 10, Articles 7 and 8, read in conjunction with a certain part of the explanatory note at the beginning make it clear that the Commission is keeping power to set up authorities other than area authorities.
Paragraph 8 says:
"…the Commissions may delegate to any authority set up under Article 7 of this Scheme…such functions of the Commission relating to that part of their undertaking which consists in the operation of the railways as may be specified by the Commission, being functions which appear to the Commission to be unsuitable for delegation to an area authority…"
I have no inside knowledge, and I cannot visualise what these authorities are going to be asked to do. It would be of help if before the close of the debate, we were told roughly what these bodies are supposed to be, or what kind of functions may be delegated to them which are something to do with railways but appear to the Commission to be unsuitable for delegation to an area authority.
Article 10 says:
"Subject to the provisions of this Scheme, the Commission may with the approval of the Minister, delegate to any authority…"

63
Does that mean any area authority, or another authority set up under Articles 7 and 8? The intention of these three Articles as they are at present drafted is very obscure.
Article 10 says that the delegation may include
"any functions of the Commission not concerned or directly concerned with the operation of the railways …"
That raises an extremely important point of principle, on which I hold a personal view. I do not know whether it is shared by my colleagues; nor do I do know whether it is shared by hon. Members opposite, but if that means that there is the possibility of the Commission delegating to the area authorities not only control of the railways but also control of road passenger services and road haulage services remaining in Commission ownership, then I hope that nothing will be done without the fullest consultation with all those concerned, including this House of Commons.
There is a school of thought which believes that in Scotland we should be better served if we had unified control of all forms of nationalised transport, but I do not share that view.
Mr. A. C. Manuel: The right hon. Gentleman does not know the Highlands.
Mr. Maclay: If the hon. Gentleman is going to quote the classic case of the small place near Tobermory, it was not British Road Services which was involved; it was MacBrayne's.
Mr. Manuel: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain the difference between British Road Services and a subsidised service of MacBrayne's, which gets £360,000 a year subsidy?
Mr. Maclay: The important difference is that the MacBrayne structure is a fifty-fifty one, and the management lies in private enterprise hands. The management is not in the hands of the State or of any nationalised body. I well remember the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport in the previous Government saying that he believed it was an admirable way of running these services.
While there may be a case for saying that the best service in Scotland could
64
be provided by having unified control and management of road passenger, road haulage, and rail services, I hope that that will not be done without the fullest consultation. The danger is that if this is done we shall once more be setting up a monopoly which might work extremely well in the interests of the providers of transport, but not so well for the users.
A very tightly integrated passenger services scheme can be introduced which will do the job, but is such a scheme the kind which the users need? I doubt it. The same thing applies to road and rail haulage. In all our considerations for an improved road and rail transport system, whether private or public, we must remember that it is the user who matters. The financial results shown in the British Road Services Accounts for 1953 may be magnificent, but is that necessarily anything to be proud of? It is nothing to be proud of if the charges are high—and if the organisation is too rigid, how are we to know whether they are too high?
The worst of all worlds is reached if there is a limited amount of privately-operated road transport sheltering under the umbrella of a very large nationalised body. I sincerely hope that a large sector of road haulage will consist of private enterprise, which will provide a check on what the real cost ought to be. I am convinced that it is in the national interest for the British Transport Commission to dispose of as many vehicles as possible.
The British Transport Commission can easily show profits, with a unified control and a sufficiently large sector of the country's transport under its control. It can put its level of charges where it likes, and it can make certain economies, but we shall never know whether it is providing the cheapest possible service.
Mr. Callaghan: I do not know how far all this is relevant to the debate. I should welcome a debate on British Road Services, but I should like to have guidance from you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it is in order to deal with the financial results of British Road Services. If it is, I should like to ask the Government about the fact that the British Transport Commission has incurred a loss of £20 million instead of a profit on its disposals so far.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I should have thought that this was a rather wide debate, in which alternative schemes could be put forward, and I do not see why the financial results of the British Transport Commission should not be referred to.
Mr. Woodburn: In view of the fact that, as I understand it, transport units in Scotland are to be sold in great blocks, which will automatically create the same kind of monopoly in each district as is possessed by nationalised transport, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how that will provide a check on cost, especially when there are rumours that these blocks are to be sold at about two-thirds of their value.
Mr. Maclay: I am afraid I should be out of order if I went any further into those questions.
I was conscious that I might be sailing a little close to the wind, but I felt it essential to make clear the reasons why there should not be unification, under one authority, of road passenger services, road haulage and railways. I was bound to develop my argument a little by way of illustration, to make clear what the dangers would be.
Mr. Manuel: In trying to make the comparisons that he desires in regard to Northern Scotland, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the routes there are completely profitless? He cannot make such a comparison because private enterprise firms will not run in those areas.
Mr. Maclay: What I have just said applies to the hon. Member's intervention; I am afraid I should be out of order if I followed it up.
Mr. H. Hynd: You having given your Ruling that the right hon. Gentleman is in order so far, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Can you assure him that he will still be in order if he continues to discuss this subject?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: What I said was that this debate concerned railway reorganisation, and that if the right hon. Member's argument amounted to an alternative suggestion, it might be in order.
Mr. Maclay: I think I have carried this part of my argument to the limit of
66
what you will permit, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
My remarks are nevertheless relevant, because if we keep the three forms of service under separate control, even though they are nationalised, we leave the way open for a very effective body which I hope will come into existence, namely, the Scottish transport council. That seems to be the right place at which one should co-ordinate services, and I think that such a body would exactly meet the problem raised by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel).
If we have separate structures for road passenger, road haulage and rail services, under separate managements but coming together for co-ordination, I believe that we can go a long way towards meeting problems which are very apparent in Scotland, especially in the remoter areas. I urge the Minister to do what he can in his dealings with the Transport Commission to see that no schemes or further arrangements for delegation of authority under Article 10 of the Scheme are made, at least without the fullest consultation on the part of all those who may be affected. I hope that in due course he will be able to make some statement about a Scottish transport council, which was discussed in previous debates, when the Minister made very positive statements.
I now turn to what may be a relatively small point but, in the light of this new Scheme, is an important one, namely, the functions and structure of the transport users' consultative committee. Clearly, with area boards, or whatever they may be called, the use of a consultative committee may be intensified. There is one point about the structure of such a body which I would commend to the attention of the Minister and the Transport Commission.
At present, the secretariat of the Consultative Committee is generally provided from some part of the railway organisation. Without casting any reflections upon any individual in the secretariat, I suggest that it will become almost impossible for a relatively junior man, working for an area manager or an area board in future, to be a dispassionate secretary to the transport users' consultative committee. It is probably right that the Transport Commission should provide secretariat services, but I suggest that the members

67
should not come from the railway services, because the greater part of the Committee's work relates to railways.
Mr. Popplewell: There is much in what the right hon. Gentleman says as far as it relates to the payment of the secretariat, but he will find that in practice, while the payment is made by the railway organisation, the transport users' consultative committee does not take undue consideration of the railway's point of view. It explores all the other avenues, such as those connected with local authorities, and tries to arrive at a fair decision.
Mr. Maclay: I have admiration for the transport users' consultative committee, but I still think there is quite a lot of substance in the point I have made, and that there will be more if there is controversial closing of lines and other such reorganisation.
There is another matter. At present, I understand, it is laid down by the Act that certain members of the Transport Commission or staff of the Commission shall be members of the transport users' consultative committee. That is all right for obtaining close contacts, but I suggest that it is an arrangement that should be looked at carefully to see whether they should be allowed to vote. It seems to me rather absurd that representatives of the Commission, whether members or servants of the Commission, on a body which exists to consult and possibly criticise the Commission, should have the right to vote on that body. I certainly think the representatives of the Commission should be present at meetings of the committee. It is a small point, but it may become important in the future.
Finally, I believe that if one travels by any of the different methods of nationalised transport in this country nowadays one notices a different feeling about it, whether one travels by rail, by any of the bus services that remain nationalised, or by air. It may be that these nationalised services are getting over their teething troubles. I have the greatest admiration for the work that has been done by the permanent staffs and the members of the bodies that run the nationalised services.
However, may not this new feeling be due to a realisation that there is going to be some live competition, that looked like
68
disappearing at one time? May it not be due to the stimulus of competition, the real stimulus that private enterprise can always give, even if sectors of nationalisation are to remain?
5.22 p.m.
Mr. Ernest Davies: Many of the later remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) were reminiscent of the debates we had on the last Transport Bill. Many of us on this side of the House would like to take them up and deal with those references to the road haulage organisation and the profit that has recently been made, and we would also like to deal with his remarks about unification, but to do so would extend the debate rather widely.
When he was speaking, in the earlier part of his speech, in favour of the area boards, I think he was suffering from the same misapprehension as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, which seems to me to be that both in effect argue that the area boards would be a logical development of the interim organisation that was set up. I do not think that is so at all. The arguments against area boards have already been very well stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). Some of them I shall touch on later in my speech.
As to the argument used by the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West about the need for interposal of the area boards between the Transport Commission and the chief regional managers, the White Paper itself, in paragraph 16 of the Explanatory Statement says of the interim scheme now functioning:
"The new arrangements are working well."
The question is. what is the necessity to change a position that is working well?
It seems to me that the two questions we have to put to ourselves in examining this Scheme are, will it make a worthwhile contribution to the improvement of the transport system and will it work? Can it work? In other words, what purpose will it serve? Will it help or hinder the railways in serving the public? Nothing that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said today or that the right hon. Gentleman has just said has convinced me that the answer to these questions is other than in the negative.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in his speech and in the explanations he

69
gave, made this Scheme appear far worse than I envisaged it when I studied it. I came to the conclusion, after listening to him not only that it is unnecessary, as I have always maintained, but that it is going to be extremely harmful. My first reason for saying that is a general one, that this Scheme makes no contribution whatsoever to the needs of transport at the present time; that this Scheme will not contribute to the establishment and maintenance of a more efficient, more economic transport system.
The needs are, first, the modernisation of the transport system. We all know that the railways need a modernisation scheme, that hundreds of millions of pounds need to be spent on the railways as speedily as can be to bring them up to date; to electrify suburban lines, to introduce far more diesel sets; and in many other ways to develop them on modern lines.
There is also need for modernisation of the roads, but that subject is outside this debate. As to the inland waterways, a survey is now being made which, no doubt, will lead to the conclusion that modernisation needs to be undertaken there. We have the London transport inquiry going on at present. There will no doubt be recommendations which will involve a vast expenditure of money. We all know the necessity for Route C, which has been given priority, a necessity made much more urgent by the development of London traffic during the last 12 or 18 months, with the increasing congestion, the increasing parking, and the slowness of travel which is referred to in the Annual Report of the Commission.
The capital investment required may be £1,000 million; it may be double that amount. Very great sums have been spent on capital investment in gas, electricity, steel and the mines, and plans have been made for spending far more. There was a Measure concerned with that which passed through the House before the Summer Recess. It seems to me that in regard to the railways the priorities have gone astray, that the railways have been neglected in this respect, and that to make up for that neglect is the first priority.
We cannot afford to spend these large sums on capital investment in the transport system unless that system is
70
planned, and unless the expenditure is planned. We need to develop a transport system with a view to obtaining the optimum use of the transport available. Does this Scheme make any contribution in that sense? I very much doubt whether it does to the railways. What do the railways need? What does the travelling public need? It needs speedier and more comfortable travel, electrified travel, cleaner and cheaper travel. Of course, the shipper of goods needs cheaper and more efficient transport for his goods. It means that the tools must be provided for the job. That means modernisation.
It is necessary, in discussing transport policy, always to keep in mind that only a certain volume of traffic is available and that transport does not create traffic. A certain amount of traffic has to be moved and it goes by the existing systems. However much we increase transport facilities, we do not thereby create demand for their use. Of course, there is some optional travel by persons who are attracted if low rates are offered, but generally there can be no increase in traffic. Freight traffic fluctuate with trade.
For reasons of history of which we are all aware, we have today excessive transport facilities, although that does not mean that they are always in the same place or the right place; there are excessive facilities to the extent that neither railways nor road haulage are used to their full capacity. The aim is to employ the available transport facilities as economically as possible.
I will not suggest that we need less transport, but we certainly need more co-ordination of the transport which exists. The right hon. Member for Renfrew, West attacked co-ordination, indicating that he supported the 1953 Act 100 per cent., because the 1953 scheme was based on what to me is a mistaken concept that by making more transport available through the introduction of competition, transport needs would be better served. In fact, the scheme only caused waste and overlapping. This has been particularly the case in road haulage, with increasing competition and the increasing amount of transport on the roads, with the results which we are now seeing.
Our view, which we implemented through the 1947 Act, was that all forms

71
of transport should be brought under one control, because we thought that in this way it was possible to bring about the co-ordination which was necessary if we were to have the most economic use of the available transport facilities. In this way it should be possible to influence the flow of traffic, possibly by different rates, and—
Mr. Maclay: I give the hon. Member full credit that ever since the early days of 1947 he has been consistent in this argument, but he is still thinking in terms of the provider of transport. Presumably he will not disagree with that.
Mr. Davies: I am not thinking only in terms of the provider of transport, because if the provider is the public—in other words, if it is publicly owned—then it will be seen that the system operates in the interest of the user. For whom is a public service provided? It is provided for the user of the service. When the right hon. Gentleman suggests that people who enter private enterprise to make profits will provide a better service in the conditions at present prevailing in the transport industry, I do not follow his reasoning.
Mr. Maclay: If the hon. Gentleman will apply quis custodiet to his argument, we can leave the matter and not bother the House by pursuing it further.
Mr. Davies: I should like to see private enterprise sacrificing itself for the users.
I remind the House that the unification of the railways, which followed our policy, has brought good results. A number of statistics, published both in the annual report and also every month, demonstrate that. They are available for anybody to study. They show that through unification there has been a steady improvement in the efficiency and economy of the operation of the railways. There has been a saving of £16 million per annum up to 1953.
In my view, if this Scheme goes through that unification will be threatened. We cannot introduce an extraneous body of control in the form of area boards, interposing them between the centre and the regions, without confusing the lines of authority and thereby
72
weakening unification. This afternoon the Joint Parliamentary Secretary took good care to point out that the members of the area boards would not be idle persons but would have a job to do. How they will do it on a part-time basis I do not know.
What he will find it necessary to pay them in order to get the type of people he has in mind and in order that they shall give enough time to the work is another question. He made it quite clear that they would not be guinea pigs but that they would have full scope for important and responsible work. On the other hand, although they are to do that, they are to have no knowledge of transport. That, too, he made quite clear. I agree with him that these people will not do nothing; if they were to do nothing there would no paint in creating, the area boards.
Whoever they are, they will create work for themselves, which means that they will build up their own staffs and in certain respects their own systems of operation, because they will not be content to sit idly by and do nothing. As a consequence, there is no doubt that the friction between the area boards and the Commission, which the Commission fears, is bound to arise, and difficulties will be imposed upon the chief regional managers in knowing where their duty and responsibility lies. Theirs is bound to be a dual responsibility, one to the area boards and the other to the Commission.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that the area boards would apply the same policies as those of the Commission, but later he pointed out that they would be responsible for certain aspects of policy, which suggested that there was some confusion in his mind. In my view, the area boards are bound to encroach upon some of the Commission's present activities, even those which unification has made the Commission advocate should be reserved to it and even some of those powers which the Commission has exercised to bring about the economies and benefits to which I have referred.
In its explanatory memorandum the Commission says that absolute authority must be retained by the Commission, but if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was right in what he said this afternoon, absolute authority will not be retained by the

73
Commission. This Scheme is unnecessary and harmful and I prophesy, for the reasons given by my hon. Friends, that it will result in less efficient management, because it will reverse the policy of unification, because it will destroy many of the gains of unification and because it will prevent the Commission from proceeding with co-ordination.
We cannot have successful co-ordination of our vast transport system on a regional basis. The Commission itself shows us that that is so in its Report and its explanatory memorandum. Coordination must begin at the centre and spread through to the regions, and coordination is not the same thing as decentralisation. Decentralisation is something which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East made quite clear we support, but, on the other hand, we support the retaining of sufficient power at the centre to ensure the maximum degree of co-ordination to carry out a planned transport policy.
Once these boards are established, they will not be content to leave even the minimum of power over policy which is essential to maintain this central control and is essential to the maintenance of the benefits of unification. I do not think that these hazards which the Scheme presents, which are referred to by the Commission itself, and which have been referred to already this afternoon, should be underrated. I think that the Government should have a serious look at these hazards in the light of what has been said here today, and consult a little more with those people in the transport industry who are most concerned, and with the Commission itself.
I have very grave doubts as to whether the senior people in the Transport Commission favour this scheme or see the necessity for it. I am certain that many of them do not. Therefore, the Government should look at it again because they have a responsibility to do so, and because if they proceed with it in its present form, and these area boards are set up with the powers which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said this afternoon that he would give them, the Transport Commission will be in financial difficulties.
That, unfortunately, is already in evidence and inevitable because of the loss of the road haulage business through
74
disposal. It has been remarkable how successfully British Road Services have been able to carry on while disposals have been taking place, but we are already told that the capital loss is estimated now to be at least £20 million, and it is obvious that if there are capital losses we shall get revenue losses in due course.
They have carried on successfully up to the present time but increasingly there must be losses resulting from the disposals. That money will not be available to the Transport Commission and, therefore, the increased costs which have been experienced in recent months will not be assisted by the surplus which British Road Services were making. The Transport Commission's Report itself states that the outlook is comparatively bleak. So I say that the losses of the British Transport Commission may be of some magnitude, and this Scheme, if it goes through, may well contribute to those losses.
That is to say, if the results of unification are diminished in any way and the costs of operation are increased by the creation of these staffs and this increase of bureaucracy in the regions, the Commission will be the sufferer. By establishing these area boards responsible for running the railways on a regional basis, it seems to me that another managerial body is introduced and there will be more people to interfere with the operation of the railways—people who know least of all about their operation— and there will be an increase in bureaucracy, more paper work and consequently less efficiency.
The only transport policy possible today and the only way in which the transport industry can be put on its feet is, first, to bring to an end the disposal of road haulage, to bring an end to the losses which are being made there, and to the steps which are being taken under the 1953 Act towards the disintegration of the public service which had been set up. The second need is to embark upon a vast scheme of modernisation both of the railways and all other forms of transport, which is absolutely essential: and the third is to abandon the old-fashioned belief that competition within transport will in any way increase economy and efficiency. It is not doing so at the present time and cannot do it in the future.

75
Therefore, unless the policy which the Government are pursuing is reversed, the British Transport Commission will be driven to come cap in hand to the Government and ask for the dole, and a subsidised transport system will become inevitable. None of us wants to see that, if it can be avoided, but I suggest that if this policy is pursued and this Scheme is proceeded with, that will happen.
5.46 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I welcome the White Paper on the Railways Reorganisation Scheme with moderate enthusiasm tempered with a degree of apprehension because, while it is clear that this Scheme sets out to carry out the letter of Sections 16 and 17 of the Transport Act, 1953, I am not absolutely clear whether it carries out to the same extent the spirit of that Act. Whether it does so or not will depend very largely on how it is interpreted and how it is worked.
We had an admirable explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary, but he is not the person who will be working out the details of the Scheme when it is put into practice. I make these cautionary remarks because it seems to me that the shadow of the old gods lies rather heavily across this White Paper—all the old shibboleths and phrases—integration, wasteful competition, taking the cream of the traffic and all the rest—which hon. Members opposite elevated into idols which they worshipped and for which they were prepared to commit human sacrifices. The shadow of all these old shibboleths is still across this White Paper, and I think that we must look at this matter carefully.
There is a fundamental difference of attitude of mind between hon. Members opposite and those on this side of the House on this matter of what is really the principal problem of transport. This was apparent in the two speeches which we have heard from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). Unless we can be clear on what is the difference in approach of the two sides of the House, I do not think that we can adequately debate the details of this Scheme as it is outlined in the White Paper.
I want to describe these differences as fairly as I can, but it seems to me—and
76
this particularly came out of the speech of the hon. Member for Enfield, East—that hon. Members opposite start off with the belief that the total volume of traffic available in this country, passenger and goods, is limited. The hon. Member for Enfield, East said so in terms. They go on to say that the principal contestants for this limited total volume of traffic are the railways, on the one hand, and buses and lorry services, on the other. Apparently, hon. Members opposite believe that only a central, super planning authority can decide how much transport is required and can ration it out to the public as between trains, buses and lorries so that no wasteful competition need take place and all the public needs are met.
We on this side do not take that view. We do not see any practical limit to the total volume of the transport. We believe that if a form of transport is cheap enough, or sufficiently convenient, it will create its own demand. We do not believe that the principal form of competition at present is between railways, on the one hand, and buses and lorry services, on the other hand, whether they are publicly or privately owned. If one studies the statistics, that is not at all the principal form of the competition.
The principal competition now is between railways, buses and lorries which are operating public services whether privately owned or not and private vehicles, such as private motor cars and C licence lorries. Unless we adopt a slave State, which we are not prepared to do, and direct people as to what transport they should use it is not possible to avoid that form of competition between the private vehicles owned by the public itself and the various forms of public transport. The fact that that competition exists proves that at present public services, whether nationalised or in the hands of private enterprise, do not provide a service cheaper or more convenient than the public can provide for itself with its own vehicles.
The mere integration of one public service with another would do nothing whatever to meet that competition. What happened before the war and the fact that nationalisation is only one step forward from what was happening before the war is, in those circumstances, quite irrelevant. Whether or not integration

77
was the answer before the war, it certainly is not the answer now.
The reason why, in the debates on the Transport Bill of 1953, we on this side pressed for a greater degree of local control was not merely to foster local pride and strong emulation, and all the other desirable qualities that are referred to in paragraph 31 of the Explanatory Statement of the White Paper. We believed that a strong effort should be made to provide a better service for the public and that much greater local control would assist towards that end. That is why we asked for a degree of decentralisation.
The needs of industry in one area vary considerably from those in another area, and the requirements of blocks of population in one part of the country are quite different from those in another area. We think that if the railways have to compete with the privately-owned transport of the individual the only way they can do it is through local knowledge of the conditions of trade and habits of the population in a particular area.
Quick decisions will have to be taken and there must be changes of policy, not only from time to time, but from area to area, and there cannot be a uniform policy applicable throughout the whole country. If one policy does not succeed, it must be abandoned quickly and something else will have to be tried. In those circumstances, we welcome the greater degree of power which is to be given to the chief regional managers and we welcome the setting up of area authorities to advise on local problems.
I do not understand clearly some of the reasons given in the White Paper for the establishment of the area authorities. I do not think that the magnitude of the problem has been sufficiently appreciated. Article 5 (1) of Part II perhaps needs clarification. It is headed:
"Delegation to area authorities of railway functions"
and it states:
"… there shall … be delegated to each area authority … the following functions …
(b) promoting initiative in improving the services …
(c) ensuring that contact is maintained with transport users …
I hope that this means something effective, because the powers of the area
78
authorities seem to be considerably limited if policy is all to be directed from the centre. If it is not to be effective, if we are not to get local advice in management, the power and value of an area authority will be very much limited.
Reference has also been made to Article 9, which deals with operating costs. I am sorry that it is not a little more definite. What is wanted is a method whereby the chief regional manager and an area authority can see at a glance whether they are succeeding in meeting the public need and are doing better one year than in the previous year. It was the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, I think, who poured ridicule on the idea that there could be regional accounting on the railways or that one year's costs could be compared with those of another year, because even before the war 70 per cent. of the traffic was pooled and one could not say what was the expenditure or revenue in any one part of the country.
The desire from this side of the House is that there should be a yardstick not so much to compare one region with another—not to compare Scotland, for instance, with the Western Region—but to help those in the region to decide whether by adopting a particular policy they are doing better than they did in the previous year.
Mr. D. Jones: The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was making was that because physical conditions differ from one region to another, net ton miles per engine hour could not provide a reasonable comparison.
Mr. Wilson: That is not a figure that we want. We need a figure which, in a particular region, will tell those in charge whether they are doing better this year than last year and whether some variation of policy would not be effective in improving the services which they can provide. That is an important point.
The Minister of Transport is ultimately responsible for the efficiency of the railways and, therefore, of the regions and areas, and he must have some means of telling if they are efficient. The Articles, in their present form, are somewhat extraordinarily worded. They might mean a lot or nothing at all, or they might mean that the areas are not to

79
publish any effective figures whatever. I do not suppose that that is the intention, but Article 9 (2), for example, is entirely permissive and states:
"Until such time as statements and statistics are specified in pursuance of paragraph (1) of this Article, the Commission shall compile and publish annually as respects each area such statistics as are specified in the Third Schedule to this Scheme."
The Third Schedule is a list of miscellaneous things like wagon miles, engine hours, and so on. In those circumstances, it might well be that nobody other than those in the Transport Commission was in a position to have any clue at all as to whether a region was doing well or badly.
There are one or two other points which, perhaps, need clarification. Reference has been made to Article 10. I suppose there is good technical reason why it is necessary to have a provision dealing with
"Delegation to authorities of functions other than railway functions,"
and why Article 16 is headed:
"Abolition of authorities."
The first of the Articles might conceivably be used for the purposes of re-establishing the area schemes which were specifically abolished by the Act of 1953. I cannot think that that is the intention of the Scheme which, as I have said, can be used for all sorts of purposes. Article 16 enables the abolishing of authorities and that might result in abolishing of all the area authorities with power again concentrated at the centre, to avoid which was one of the purposes of the 1953 Act.
With those qualifications, and subject to these observations, I welcome this Scheme as a real effort to improve the transport of the country, and in so far as it encourages local initiative and local knowledge to assist in meeting local needs, I think it will lead to greater efficiency.
6.2 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Steele: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) started his speech by saying that the Government had, in fact, carried out their legal obligations under the Act of 1953 but he was a bit sceptical as to whether they carried out the spirit of them. What he meant was that the Government had failed to carry out the
80
promises which their spokesmen had given and to carry into realisation the great hopes which they had given to their back benchers as to what the Scheme would really mean.
The hon. Member then left the White Paper and told us what we believed and started to argue the case from those premises. I was very glad when he left that and came back to this question of regional accountancy. The hon. Member has made it quite clear that hon. Members opposite have changed their minds on this matter, because during the debates on the Transport Bill it was made clear that it was the spirit of competition between various regions that they wanted to engender, and that this matter of statistics and regional accountancy were for the purpose of judging one region as against another.
Now the hon. Gentleman is agreeing with the Parliamentary Secretary that statistics of that kind are quite impossible. The hon. Gentleman now says that he wants statistics that would indicate to the regional manager how the region is getting on one year from another. But the regional manager already has information of that kind and every station master is compiling statistics of that description every week.
I remember that in the days before nationalisation each station was like a football team with a place allocated in a league. By results it was seen how the station was getting on and each station tried to get up the league. I remember getting out these statistics and I can recall being in a league and the station which came out on top one year was a small place called Loudon Hill. The reason it got top place was that it sent a wagon of livestock from Loudon Hill to London while the year before practically nothing was sent. The percentage increase was something which even the Executive could not calculate. It made nonsense of the whole scheme.
The other drawback to the scheme was that only the amount of money collected at the station was counted, so if a stationmaster sent off goods carriage to pay at the other end, he got no credit for it. That was an indication that any accountancy system like the old railway companies had, whereby one station was dependent on the other in matters such as that, could not give a true picture. These

81
kinds of statistics are no use at all in judging one region with another.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) told us that the area boards would be useful in discussing general policy. Of course, that is the one thing they are not allowed to discuss. The Commission made that perfectly clear in the White Paper. He then indicated that this ought not to be left to one man and that is why he welcomed the area boards. That is nonsense, too. At present, the chief regional officers have the operating and commercial departments to give them advice. The general public are not slow to give them advice nor are the newspapers and the stationmasters. There are plenty of opportunities for so doing.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Renfrew, West was much wiser than the Parliamentary Secretary, because the Parliamentary Secretary tried to give us examples of how the area boards would function. The right hon. Gentleman kept on general broad lines and dealt only with matters in a broad way, so that he gave us no examples at all.
Sir David Robertson: The hon. Gentleman said that the area boards would have no say in policy, but in paragraph (b) we are told:
"The area authorities are also policy forming at area level …"
Surely that is a contradiction of what the hon. Gentleman stated.
Mr. Steele: If the hon. Gentleman would content himself for a moment and take the advice which was offered to him by the education authority in his constituency, which was revealed to us in the "Glasgow Herald" today, namely, to find out what his constituents really think before he makes speeches in this House, we would get on with the job more quickly.
The trouble with the hon. Member for Truro is that he is not a practical railwayman. There are no practical railwaymen on the other side of the House, whereas there are quite a number on this side.
Mr. G. Wilson: I was in the railway service for over 20 years.
Mr. Steele: The hon. Gentleman was a solicitor with the Great Western Railway
82
Company, and to be a solicitor to a railway company does not necessarily mean that the solicitor should know one end of the train from the other.
This is a Scheme for making possible a proper degree of decentralisation of management and control by British Railways. All of us would agree—and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South East (Mr. Callaghan) made it clear—that we think decentralisation is a desirable thing. The Transport Commission itself has been carrying it out.
I joined the railways in 1919 and shortly afterwards there came into operation the scheme embracing the four different railway companies. My experience from the amalgamation up to 1947 was that the company I was with was continually experimenting with reorganisation. In fact, a great deal of decentralisation had taken place, but some things were found to be quite undesirable and they were returned again to the centre. That sort of thing was going on all the time.
Under British Railways, a great deal of decentralisation has taken place on both the commercial and the operating sides. But I think that all of us would agree—and this was the experience of the old companies—that there are certain matters where decentralisation would create chaos and complete inefficiency. The Commission's statement provides evidence of its fears of interference by the area authorities in certain fields where this would result.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), in an interruption, drew attention to some of the paragraphs. I want to draw attention, first, to paragraph 4, which specifies that the area boards are being set up in order to make possible a proper degree of centralisation of management and control. Yet paragraph 6 (b) states that they are not intended to be executive organs of day-to-day management, nor will they be suitably composed for that purpose. As I see it, this Scheme proposes the appointment of area authorities for decentralisation of management, but the authorities will not be allowed to participate in normal management. Is that a correct description? If it is not, perhaps the Minister will describe more precisely what management functions they will have.

83
Our difficulty in reading the White Paper is to find out what are the relations between the area authority and the Commission. The Minister is a master of the English language. I used to listen with awe to his facility, when on these benches, of picking up any paper and making a speech which kept us here for hours. If, however, he looks at paragraph 6 (d) he will see there a clear example of the use to which the English language can be put. That paragraph states that this is not a by-passing of the area authority, but the entire content of the paragraph is an ingenious explanation of why the area authority is being by-passed.
In paragraph 6 (e) we see that the Commission goes out of its way to emphasise that the area authorities are there to assist the Commission, and paragraph 26 states:
"The experience of the Commission between 1948 and 1953 has shown how essential it is that the authority of the Commission in the scheme of organisation should he absolute. The scheme should admit of no doubt on this point."
That is rather different from what we were led to believe, because during the Second Reading debate the then Minister of Transport, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), said that what the Government had in mind was
"a substantial measure of regional railway autonomy sufficient to give genuine reality to regional railway control over matters proper to regional responsibility…the bias in future should be in favour of the widest measure of regional railway responsibility…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1414.]
No doubt the right hon. Gentleman himself felt that this was what ought to be done—at least he tried to make us believe that great things would be done. I have no doubt that the staff of his Department laboured long to try to get a scheme; for myself, I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman laboured a great deal. The Minister was rather guarded in his phrases, but not the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. He said:
"First of all, let the Committee recognise the very remarkable changes for the better that this Bill brings about for Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: 'Oh.']… There is at the present time, under the present Act, no
84
Scottish railway authority, no devolution, no method by which Scottish views and the Scottish Councils views can be pressed or expressed—none…This Bill will create a Scottish railway authority with wide powers."
Afterwards, the hon. Gentleman said that, in consultation with the Minister of Transport, and after giving consideration to all Scottish problems, a scheme would be produced but would be applicable to Scotland. We are still awaiting that scheme and perhaps we can be told when it will be available. I understand that it will mean a radical change because the hon. Gentleman said, "We propose a radical change." I can appreciate the word "radical" because he claims to be a National Liberal. Whether the hon. Gentleman will prove to be so when the scheme comes forward, I do not know.
In that speech he went on to accuse us of driving headlong into the attack, and so on. Referring to us, he said:
"I do not think they have yet understood what a remarkable advance it means in all Scottish transport affairs … Our proposal means that there will be, by and large, Scottish authorities running the various branches of transport."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1952; Vol. 509, c. 982–986.]
The fact is that these radical changes are not in the White Paper and, the more one reads it, the more we find that the organisation remains the same, except for the area authorities. What do we find on page 10?
"Under the Interim Organisation the Commission have reserved to themselves only the minimum powers necessary to enable them to ensure fulfilment of their responsibilities."
That means, in effect, that it has left practically nothing to delegate to the new authority. Any management functions which this area authority can undertake can only be those which have already been decentralised to the present chief regional managers. This means a transfer from one competent decentralised unit, with great experience of management, to a board of gentlemen who meet once or twice a month under the scheme and are supposed to make the railways more efficient.
The former Minister of Transport indicated that he could not prepare a scheme, but that it ought to be prepared by railwaymen. Yet the one thing that has come out of the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary today is that once the railwaymen have prepared the scheme,

85
there will be no railwaymen on the area authorities to run it. I would have thought that the scheme should have been left as it was.
If that is the position, we need to look with some interest at the people who will comprise these boards. They are described in the Second Schedule as persons of wide experience and likely to be conversant with the circumstances and special requirements, in relation to transport, of the area of the authority. As far as I can see, and as far as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary stated, what is wanted is men of character, drive and ability, with independence of thought, who are prepared to cut through all the apparent tangles of red tape and drive forward to make British Railways a shining example of efficiency.
If such men can be found, I hope that they will not read the White Paper. If they do, they will find that they have singularly few opportunities to do the work which the Minister thinks that they can do. Paragraph 25 of the White Paper states:
"The Commission believe that certain advantages would be gained if area boards were established with proper precautions to ensure that they understood their role and were imbued with a sense of loyalty to the Commission as a whole."
That is the opportunity for independence of thought.
Paragraph 26 states:
"There is a danger that by the establishment of boards as the area authorities an element productive of friction and lack of cohesion may be introduced. The Commission are, therefore, strongly and unanimously of the opinion that they alone should appoint the persons who would constitute the area authorities."
Paragraph 29 states conclusively that
"… the Commission would continue to reserve for themselves the powers referred to in paragraph 13."
That being the case, we want to know, and it is a fair question, what the boards are going to do. We ought to know how their appointment will affect the authority which is at present vested by the Commission in the chief regional managers.
I can see, as was envisaged by the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West that a clever regional manager will be able to get behind his board and pump the members with certain ideas so that they will kick up a noise and the
86
board will be a backdoor by which he can get things done through the Commission. If that is the method by which things will work, I do not see that it is a co-ordinated method at all. It is no wonder that the T.U.C. described the Scheme as just playing at trains.
This is only a facade for decentralisation. It will not add one iota to the existing arrangements for decentralisation. In fact, it will do the very opposite. As has been said, it will provide another 36 jobs for the boys, part-time be it noted. It will be interesting to see how many of those appointed will have an understanding and knowledge of working conditions.
My own view is that as long as appointments are restricted to part-time employment it will be almost impossible for an ordinary worker to accept appointment to boards of this kind. That is a criticism which the T.U.C. has often levelled at the Minister. I believe that the House generally has no idea of the amount of decentralisation which already exists on the railways. Because of the very nature of the job and the responsibility involved, many railwaymen are on their own, with almost complete authority. One can instance the signalmen, the engine driver, the platelayer and the guard and, last but not least, the stationmaster.
The Government and the Commission would have done better service to the country by recognising these special responsibilities and, in so doing, encouraging the right type of individual to join this great service. We may talk about decentralisation in the abstract, but when things go wrong no stationmaster has any doubt that he will be held responsible. All stationmasters are convinced that they have been appointed for that purpose. How have they been treated? I lived in a railway house which, just like the railways, had celebrated its centenary. The house was tied to the job and I discovered that only one room was usable. Unfortunately, I only discovered that after a winter had passed and all my furniture had been ruined by damp.
It is nonsense to talk about decentralisation when we consider the responsibilities of a railwayman at the present time. How many people recognise, for instance, that the stationmaster at Waterloo, only a few hundred yards from this House, has great responsibilities?

87
He has hundreds of staff under him and he is responsible for the safety of millions of people. Yet he receives little more than £1,000 a year. There are hundreds of stationmasters throughout the country who have great responsibilities which they have to carry out for only half that sum.
What is wanted on the railways is not the creation of unnecessary and expensive boards for a ghostly decentralised management, but the proper recognition of the people who are already working such a system.
6.27 p.m.
Sir David Robertson: The speeches which we have heard so far, including that of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), have concentrated on the area boards. I thought that the case for them was made out in the strongest possible fashion in paragraph 22 of the White Paper, in which the Commission states that the creation of a board would have three principal benefits, namely:
"It would provide for railway users a more direct and rapid contact with the railways of an authoritative nature; it would assist the staff by removing their feeling of remoteness from the management; and it would increase the efficiency of the departments by introducing more effective supervision and co-ordination on the spot and by encouraging initiative from below."
These seem to me to be most arresting reasons, because, otherwise, we might have a dictator in a chief regional manager.
Paragraph 6 (a) of the White Paper states that
"The British Transport Commission is a policy forming body."
That implies that it is not a supervisory body. I wonder to whom the chief regional manager will be responsible, for example, in Scotland. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West stopped short in his quotation at a material point. He omitted the final sentence about the boards:
"In this, they resemble the boards of the former railway companies."
Mr. Steele: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us what opportunities the staff or even the general public had to discuss matters with the old railway company boards?
Sir D. Robertson: I imagine that, as an old railway servant, the hon. Member would be more capable of telling the House.
Mr. Steele: In language which would be un-Parliamentary.
Sir D. Robertson: It seems to me to be very clearly laid down in the White Paper that these boards will be executive and will not be concerned with day-to-day management. No board of directors of the old companies would be concerned with day-to-day management, for instance, as to whether the 4.5 p.m. train to Helensburgh was late or on time, but it would take a very active part in supervising general management. That must be the duty of any board.
Mr. Manuel: Tell us one.
Sir D. Robertson: Give me a chance. I shall be very pleased to do so. I am trying to clear up this point. The Minister will confirm or deny the attitude which I am taking on this very vital issue. I assert that the boards must be executive. They must have powers of control over the chief general manager. They will be responsible to the Commission. The chief general manager will be responsible to the area board. The Commission will be responsible to the Minister.
Mr. Sparks: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman—
Sir D. Robertson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. I have been interrupted continuously since I started. I do not mind interruptions, but this is a vital point. I feel, from an experience which I have already had in the case of the transport users' consultative committee in Edinburgh, that a facade has been set up purporting to be of great value to the consumers whereas, in fact, it is of very little value indeed.
I found that the committee concerned with consumers' interests was located in the railway headquarters offices, and the secretary was an old railway official retired on pension, and a most admirable man, but surely that is wrong. If one is protecting the consumer one does not want to house oneself beside the enemy. Surely one wants an independent secretary, such as a young chartered accountant, not in that building at all but situated outside and entirely divorced

89
from it. If the White Paper is only going to create a body of part-time people who sit down at a table twice a month and listen to the general manager saying what he has done, then I cannot support it at all, for that would seem to be entirely divorced from the long-established traditions of good management, beginning at the top and going right down the scale.
Mr. D. Jones: The hon. Gentleman says it is wrong that the secretary of a transport users' committee should be a railway official and that meetings should be held on railway premises. Has he offered any objection to the decision of the Government to amalgamate the Ministries of Agriculture and Food?
Sir D. Robertson: My experience is a very recent one. The House has been in session for only a few days following the Summer Recess, and it is a matter to which I should probably never have referred at all but for the debate. The answers which I got from the secretary to the case with which I was dealing were the answers which I had already got from the regional manager. The secretary was telling me the railway case that I had already learned from railway officials. I am calling the attention of the House to this because it is a matter of importance. We do not want a repetition of that kind of thing. We have to have either a board of management or a board of stooges.
There is nothing unique in what I am saying about the chain of administration. It runs right through any big business in any country, or should run through big business when Governments are, unfortunately, landed with nationalised enterprises, which I do not support for one moment. However, we have them, and we are trying to make the best of them. No one wants to make the railways pay more than I do. But we have a set-up which is neither decisive nor authoritative, and I cannot imagine that that was the intention of the Minister. When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was speaking, I had some doubt as to whether what I believed after reading the White Paper last night was correct or not. I hope we shall hear more from the Minister in that respect.
As a Highland Member, I have had some knowledge of the feelings of the people upon the subject. We have heard
90
very little about the people so far in this debate, yet they are the ones who are chiefly concerned, being potential passengers or freight users. In my area, at Inverness, we have had almost a revolt. A transport defence committee has been formed because of the treatment that we have received at the hands of the chief general manager in Scotland, which is entirely at variance with the policy announced by the very eminent soldier who is chairman of the Commission, who visited Inverness in the spring and said that there would be give-and-take.
Everyone knows how burdensome the penal rates are upon those of us who live as far from the centre as Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland and Caithness. The Inverness Chamber of Commerce was told that there would be give-and-take, that farmers could come along and say, "I have so many beasts to go to Carlisle or to London," and the fishermen could do similarly, and that arrangements would be made which would be favourable and there would be no inexorable "Take it or leave it."
The reverse has happened, and that is why a committee representing all interests—the Aberdeen and Inverness Chambers of Commerce, all the farming organisations, the fishermen, and so on—is now sitting in Inverness working out its own salvation in respect of transport because the people there have not met with success in their dealings with British Railways.
Mr. Sparks rose—
Sir D. Robertson: This is too important a matter for any interruptions.
That community is suffering. They sent representatives to Parliament. The Highland Members have done their best for the people, and I am sure that the Government did their best for them; but we ran up against an obstacle— "It is the British Transport Commission's duty." The Labour Party arranged for that when they passed the Act of Parliament. When we met the chairman, who greeted us with great charm and courtesy, he was reluctant to interfere. It all comes down to a dictatorship, one official controlling the actions of all other officials, saying "Take it or leave it; that is the rate."
I do not know whether hon. Members know about the case of the Thurso through-coach which has been stopped. The passengers are now decanted at

91
Georgemas, a lonely, desolate, moorland halt without any services at all—no porters—within six miles of their destination, after a journey which may well have taken them 30 hours. The people of Caithness rose in revolt, on behalf not only of themselves but also of others coming to the area. We have had technicians coming from Devon who have been travelling all the previous day and night, and then within six miles of their destination they have been decanted at Georgemas.
The through-coach service had existed for 50 years; I travelled on it to Thurso when I was a boy. An official has now come along and brought an end to the practice, so this community has had to suffer in that manner. Is that day-to-day management? Would not a board of good Scots citizens, sitting in Edinburgh, once a fortnight, have responded immediately to letters in the "Scotsman" and other Scottish newspapers?
Mr. Callaghan: Many of us are very sympathetic towards the case which the hon. Member is making, but how does he relate this to the Act, which he supported all through the House of Commons, which enjoined on the Commission that it had to pay its way, that it had to be competitive and that it did not have to provide a public service in the sense in which it was construed under nationalisation? The hon. Member ought to be a Socialist and not a Tory.
Sir D. Robertson: No, I opposed the nationalisation Act. I walked miles through the Lobbies opposing it.
Mr. E. G. Willis: The hon. Member referred to something that he said had been happening for 50 years—
Sir D. Robertson: I was saying that a through-coach to Thurso had been in operation day in and day out for six days a week for 50 years, and that now, at the whim of the general manager for Scotland, it has been stopped. No doubt the general manager had a good motive. Probably he felt that he could save money by doing it, but I challenge the Commission to hold a public inquiry and show how much money it will save as a result of it.
Mr. Manuel: My hon. Friend on the Front Bench has instanced the way in which an injunction is laid upon the British Transport Commission to make the railways pay, but we remember that in 1953 British Road Services had a profit of £8,900,000, which the hon. Gentleman himself deliberately and willingly agreed should be taken out of the coffers of the Transport Commission, thereby deliberately laying on the shoulders of the people of his constituency higher freight rates and higher fares.
Sir D. Robertson: It may well be that I am guilty of all the things of which the hon. Gentleman accuses me, but I am quite certain that I should do the same again.
This is a very important question of making the railways pay. My right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay), in his very fine speech, indicated that some unpleasant things would have to be done, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport indicated assent. They were referring, I think, to the closing of railway lines. I am wholly in favour of closing down any lines that are not necessary where a better and more efficient service can be given by road.
The question of transport is as important to me as it is to any other hon. Member, because in the greater part of my area we have no railway at all. We have only one spidery line going up the east coast and running two trains a day each way between the terminal points of Inverness and Wick. A fortnight ago, at 9 o'clock in the morning, at Invershin I stood waiting for the passenger train which puffs up slowly all the way from Inverness to Wick. For nine hours of the day there is no passenger train at all. The lines are almost idle.
There is a magnificent road, which was built in the days when labour was much less costly, but we were told by the Minister of Transport or his predecessor that we can never have another trunk road in the north of Scotland because of the millions of pounds that it would cost. Here is this railway line, losing thousands of pounds a week to British Railways, who would be delighted to get rid of it.
Let us face this matter rationally. It takes eight hours for a passenger on the Royal Highlander to travel from

93
Inverness to Wick—the whole of a working day. A generous Government gives me a free ticket to travel on it, but I cannot afford the time to use it. I prefer to hire a car and get there in less than half the time. Our people in the north of Scotland are subjected to receiving their mails a day late. Newspapers printed in England are delivered at half-past six in the evening, mails are delivered late at night or on the following morning, but the whole life of the people in the north of Scotland is upset by the very poor service and the very slow trains.
Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Having heard this terrible account of the state of the railways and of transport in the north of Scotland generally, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is pleased with what his Government now propose should be done for the north of Scotland in regard to transport? Is he satisfied with the policy of his own Front Bench in this matter?
Sir D. Robertson: Certainly I am. I have made that abundantly clear.
All I am saying—and every hon. Member ought to know the facts—is that large areas in Britain are very badly served by British Railways, whose duty it is to serve them. I have spoken of the situation in my own constituency. I have an alternative to offer the House in regard to this idle and almost unused railway, which is losing the Transport Commission vast sums of money, which means, in fact, that it must look for revenue to the more populous areas of the country.
In bygone days, I felt that, if there was ever any justification for the nationalisation of the railways, it must lie in universal services, and the submission I made to British Railways was that they must look to the big cities and the traffic to be obtained there to cover the costs of operating in the remote areas of the country. In an age when road transport, particularly passenger transport, is developing tremendously, it would be folly for us in this House to blind ourselves to the possibilities. We have seen what has happened in the last few days at the Motor Show, which was attended by vast crowds. We see residential districts in London in which cars are parked day and night, and we see our roads being used more and more.
94
Is it not a constructive proposal to say to the Minister that he should turn this idle and almost unused railway into a magnificent trunk road on which passengers, mails and goods of all kinds may reach their destinations in half the time and probably at half the cost? I am certain that the Transport Commission will be very glad to investigate the possibilities, and I am saying deliberately that there will be people in my constituency, like the education committee referred to by an hon. Gentleman opposite—I do not know what they are alleged to have said; I am certainly not their representative here, and what I am saying is what I think myself—who will oppose it.
I am sure that everyone in the House and the public outside want to see prosperous railways, without which we cannot have a prosperous country, but we have to face the fact that there are areas in which, probably, the railways cannot be made to pay. Once the situation is altered by the conversion to an autobahn, a "free for all," open for motor traffic for 24 hours of the day and night, we could use the stations for receiving parcels and goods coming in for transport, and there would be no difficulty in finding better employment for the poorly paid railwaymen. Indeed, I should like to see some of those in my part of the country employed at Dounreay, where much better wages will be paid. No one would suffer, and, as far as I can see, everyone would benefit.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell the Minister, who is, unfortunately, not with us at the moment, that the answer which he gave to a Question from me on this subject last week was really not worthy of his Department. It was a typical Departmental negative from people who are very good at holding down a job, who do not come into the office until 9 o'clock and go again at 5 o'clock, spending the intervening time in producing nothing.
I should also like to hear from any other hon. Member—and I would sit through the debate to the end—who would oppose the proposal I am making, because, in my view, it is a sensible one. I have put this proposition at a number of public meetings in my constituency, and not one of my questioners opposed it. One man asked whether it would not be better to electrify the line. Every

95
one here knows that that would be uneconomic in a sparsely populated area.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to clarify the position of the area boards. Are they to be directors, as is indicated on page 2 of the White Paper, like the directors of the old railway companies, or are they just to be busy people from all walks of life, listening to what the regional manager tells them, without any powers of criticism, direction or control? If that is the case, I certainly would not support the proposal.
6.48 p.m.
Mr. David J. Pryde: While listening to this debate, I have been reminded of Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned. I have read the White Paper, and I listened to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary with something like despair. We get nothing out of the White Paper, except the information that there has to be a switch-round of jobs—"jobs for the boys," as someone on this side says. I am not concerned about that, because the spoils are to the victors in any case; they always are.
As far as the counties of Midlothian and Peeblesshire are concerned, I have 66,000 electors to consider, and their great concern is that they should be provided with an adequate railway system, which is not what they are getting today. I do not know who is to blame for that. I can only hold the Government of the day responsible. I notice from the White Paper that this matter has been submitted to various organisations such as the Central Consultative Committee, but not to the Scottish Transport Users' Consultative Committee, of which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) spoke.
I should like to correct his summing up of the Scottish Transport Users' Consultative Committee, an organisation with which I am very familiar. It is composed of able and competent men, and the fact that they meet at 23, Waterloo Place, means nothing. I can assure Scotsmen that the chairman, secretary and other members of the committee are men of independent opinion which they are not afraid to voice. I do not always agree with them and I fight them very often. This body at the moment is handling all
96
the grievances about Scottish transport. It is doing it in my constituency. Midlothian and Peebles possibly has the most grievances of any constituency in Scotland, the Highlands not excepted.
I have here the names of 33 stations which have been closed to passenger traffic, 16 of them permanently. There are eight branch lines closed to passenger transport, four of them closed altogether. There are wide spaces in our rural areas where privately-owned road transport will not function. The suggestions made by the ex-Minister of Transport, the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) are of no use in regard to this matter. We were never better served than when we had a good railway service. The farmers in Peebles-shire will take a great deal of convincing that the policy now being pursued is the right one for agriculture.
The British Transport Commission has to act along certain lines but I challenge the Government to prove that the Scottish railway system cannot be adequately run to serve everyone, and to pay. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland has just demonstrated the great difficulty in the Highlands. In Midlothian we have a special grievance. Let me give an instance of the lunacy of the present policy.
This policy demands that, as from the first day of November, no one resident in Dalkeith, Eskbank, Bonnyrigg and Rose-well, which are four very populous and growing districts of Midlothian, shall get a train out of the City of Edinburgh after 6.26 at night, except on Saturday. See how the lives of these people are affected, if they want to get to Edinburgh. Those districts house more of the professional people in Edinburgh than any others. Those people require to get to their work at a certain time in the morning. Now that the 6.53 morning train service is withdrawn, those passengers will be driven to the bus routes, which are not always convenient.
Those railway stations are now the bases of great housing developments in Midlothian. It should be far easier to travel by train than it was two, three or 10 years ago, but the professional people are driven to the bus routes. They wait for a bus, which comes along loaded. The people have to compose themselves—even in the elements, because there are

97
no bus shelters in the whole constituency of 710 square miles—and try to get on to the next bus. They have to apologise when they get to work by saying that they could not get on to the bus. What a difference on the railway system. There is always a nice waiting room, and whoever heard of passengers being left standing on the station platform?
We are asking tonight for a recasting of the policy of transport. Why has electrification of the rail-car system not been tried in these Scottish areas? We are eight, nine or 10 miles away from Edinburgh, yet in many cases are still waiting for a supply of electright light, let alone electric power. I am appealing for a recasting and review of transport in Scotland. Without a rail transport system, all we shall get is the assassination of industry. The psychology which dominates the transport industry is, "Pull a heavy weight once a day for a long distance." I ask for more trains, run as they should be to suit the people, so that they shall not have their lives ruled by someone who knows nothing about transport.
6.58 p.m.
Mr. Alan McKibbin: The White Paper refers to railway reorganisation, but I can see no reference,to the shipping part of British Railways. The Heysham steamers which run on the Belfast and the Larne-Stranraer routes are part of British Railways, and are most important parts to Northern Ireland. British Railways have recently taken over the Larne-Preston Ferry. Very large quantities of raw materials from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, and finished goods back to Great Britain, go by these routes, which are also largely used by passengers and tourists. In fact, these lines could be described as the most important veins carrying the lifeblood of Ulster.
There is very strong feeling among the people of Northern Ireland, particularly people engaged in the tourist industry, that excessive profits are being made by the shipping end of British Railways to offset the losses on the railways. This may or may not be true, but it is impossible to make out from the annual accounts whether it is true or not. Paragraph 36 of the White Paper says:
98
"The Act requires that the scheme of reorganisation shall provide for the compilation and publication in respect of each of the areas"—
which, I hope, includes the Irish Sea—
"of such statements of operating costs and such statistics as may be specified under the scheme."
I ask the Minister to let us know what regional manager, or what part of the reorganisation scheme, will be responsible for these lines which run to Northern Ireland, and whether separate accounts will be available annually to show whether the Commission is making excessive profits or losses on them.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. Percy Collick: I listened today with very great interest to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, because I was hoping to learn from him some real justification for the scheme embodied in the White Paper. I am hound to say, however—and I am not at all sure that when he reads his speech tomorrow he may not agree—that I completely failed to find anything at all in his speech which justified the Scheme.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman was particularly unfortunate in the examples he gave, because when he was referring to one part of the functions of the area authority, he explained to the House that, whereas, among other things, the British Transport Commission would reserve to itself the determination about the construction of the permanent way, its standards and the rest, the area authority would have the responsibility of determining what lines should be relaid and what line replacements should be undertaken in its area.
I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to say what advantage that would be to the general reorganisation of the railways in this country. I think that when the hon. Gentleman rereads his answer, he will find that it was completely unsatisfactory, because, in fact, there is no answer. I can see no advantage to railway operation in the fact that an area authority is to decide whether a line is to be relaid rather than that decision should rest with the Commission.
I regard the whole of the White Paper as an exceedingly unsatisfactory document. I do not think one need be surprised about it because, after all, how has it come about? It is particularly

99
unfortunate that, in recent times, whenever we have a White Paper dealing with transport, the Minister who has to defend it is not the Minister responsible for its initiation. We had that experience in the previous debate, and we are in exactly that position today.
The new Minister of Transport will no doubt say tonight what he wishes to say in justification of this Scheme, but I think that he is the last person who can claim any individual responsibility in connection with the White Paper, as he has only so recently assumed office. I do not know what the memorial to the last Minister may be at the Ministry of Transport. There will not even be Belisha Beacons by which to remember him. "Wrecker" is the best term that I can think of in which to describe him, as he completely wrecked the possibilities of an integrated transport system in this country.
I hope that the present Minister will at least have a little better record than that by the time he goes out of office, but I think that it is most unfortunate that on his first appearance as Minister he should have to defend a White Paper of this kind. I have much sympathy with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson): I always enjoy his vigorous speeches in these transport debates, and I always think that in matters of transport he should be sitting on this side of the House instead of opposite.
Sir D. Robertson: Do not believe it.
Mr. Collick: I do believe it, although I know that he himself does not.
Whenever the hon. Gentleman speaks on transport, he always speaks of the problem of the Highlands of Scotland. Anybody in transport knows what that problem is. Transport in the Highlands cannot be made economic or profitable. Why does this House permit the payment to MacBrayne's of a subsidy of £360,000 a year? The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that as well as I do. It is simply because in the Highlands, owing to their lack of density of population, railways cannot be made profitable. But the hon. Gentleman is a Tory. He believes that the principle of private profit is the right one. He says, "If you cannot make a profit on railways, close them down."
Sir D. Robertson: I think that that is pretty well the view of the British Transport Commission, too. Would it not be better to do that in this age? I cannot help thinking that the hon. Gentleman is living in the past. Tremendous improvements in road transport have been made in 1954.
Mr. Collick: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that I am living very much in the future. He knows perfectly well that it is not possible to make transport in the Highlands economic. He believes in profit-making, and that is the motive of private industry. I am a Socialist, and I do not believe in it. I want to see railways in the Highlands, because I believe that the people of Scotland are entitled to have them, and that it is perfectly right and proper that dense areas like London and Manchester should be perfectly willing to subsidise transport in the Highlands.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland does not believe that. If he did, he would not be on that side of the House. I ask him to back me in trying to persuade the Minister to do something to aid the finances of the railways, and before I sit down I hope to give other reasons why he should. If the Minister were really concerned, as he should be, about the real problems which face British Transport and British Railways, he would not be wasting his time introducing a White Paper of this kind. He would be devoting his attention to what every transport man knows are the real problems, and with which this miserable White Paper does not pretend to deal.
Why is this arrangement so unsatisfactory? That is perfectly easy to understand. The party opposite has an intense hatred of nationalisation. We understand that quite well. Ever since the nationalisation of the railways became an accomplished fact we have heard speeches from the benches opposite in every transport debate acclaiming the supposed virtues of decentralisation. It is consequent upon that, and the adoption of that outlook by the party opposite, that the Tory Minister of Transport—concerned not so much about what ought to be his job, the efficient organisation of transport—tells the British Transport Commission, "Please give me a scheme in which area authorities are established in railway organisation." The British

101
Transport Commission, if I guess aright—and this is perhaps merely a shrewd guess —knows that there is no real place for any such organisation in the modern scheme of railways, but is under orders to produce such a scheme.
Being under such orders, it does its job, and I suppose that it has made the best of a very bad job. It has produced a scheme which is embodied in this White Paper. The previous Minister of Transport had not the foggiest notion of what he really wanted, apart from the fact that it was something to do with decentralisation. The British Transport Commission produces its scheme and sends it to the Minister. The Minister looks at it and says, I suppose, "I do not know that we are very much wiser now that we have got it. Please tell us a little more of what you mean by this." That is all explained on page 2 of the Report.
The Minister says, "I am not quite clear what you mean. Where does the responsibility of the area authority begin in relation to the British Transport Commission Please tell me a little more clearly what this all means." In paragraph 6, and in the subsequent paragraphs, the Commission says that it is the policy-forming body, but it then goes on to say that the area authority is the policy-forming body. All I can say is that anybody who has had any responsibility at all in running a national organisation knows that if there are to be two policy-forming bodies, then, sooner or later, whoever tries to put the scheme into operation will come a cropper.
In this House we are perfectly entitled to argue whether the railways should be privately or publicly owned. That is a perfectly legitimate field for controversy. In 1945, and subsequently, the House made its decision on that subject, but I ask the House seriously to ponder this. It is all very well to decide an issue of principle of that kind, but is this House really being fair to a big industry like railway transport—complex and technical as inevitably it must be—by telling a body like the British Transport Commission what its organisation is to be? Is it right that we should tell that body that there must be area authorities?
I say that if Parliament has charged the Transport Commission with the responsibility of running the railways, it is the Commission's job to do it, it should be
102
left to do that job, and Parliament should hold it responsible to create what scheme the Commission thinks best. When Parliament starts telling industry that it must organise in this, that or some other way, it is doing industry a very great disservice. I suggest that this Scheme is not a service to transport or to the railway industry but essentially a disservice, and I believe that the future will justify that assertion.
I want to see as, I am sure does every hon. Member, the railways doing a first-class job. There is the technical skill to do it. When so much is said about decentralisation, hon. Members opposite should remember that the Transport Commission is clearly not itself opposed to decentralisation. Paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Statement in the White Paper states:
"But it was never intended that the railways should be organised permanently in this centralised manner, and before 1951 steps had been taken to delegate additional responsibility to the Regions."
There is, therefore, no dispute on that issue.
It is clear that the Transport Commission itself finds it desirable and it has all the power necessary to carry it out. There was no need to introduce this Scheme to do anything of that kind. The Transport Commission had full power to do it, it was already doing it, and the Government, therefore, cannot justify themselves on that score.
I had some sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon. He was not in a position to say anything new about this. He could not give us any intelligent reason why the Scheme was necessary. There can be no justification for saying it is necessary by basing the arguments on decentralisation, when the Commission already had all the powers it needed. I think that Parliament would have been well advised to have held the Commission wholly responsible, and not to sub-divide responsibility in this chain of events, as it is now doing.
I could spend much time in telling the Minister some of the problems which should be engaging his attention—problems which call aloud for treatment. All this business really means is that we are going to bring in 36 men on to area boards, yet hon. Members opposite allow themselves to believe that this, in some miraculous way, will achieve something

103
not yet achieved for the railways. Anyone who believes anything of that kind at all is living in a fool's paradise. We should be paying close attention, not to the possibility of what 36 men may or may not do but of what 600,000 railway men may or may not do. That is a far more vital problem, and the Minister might do better by giving some attention to it.
Ten months ago we faced the possibility of a railway stoppage at Christmas. In the end, the British Transport Commission undertook, by agreement, to look into questions of rates of pay and standards and to give a new evaluation to the work of the railway staff. Ten months have passed and the locomotive men, drivers, firemen, cleaners and electric-motor men are still awaiting a decision. Whether or not the reason is that the Transport Commission has been too preoccupied in producing this White Paper I do not know, but ten months have passed and still the main line locomotive drivers are paid a miserable pittance—little more than the pay of a highly skilled typist.
If we think that we can go on like this without facing the possibility of a crisis we are wrong. If, in a few weeks, we hear of a further threat of trouble from our locomotive men, do not let us say that we have not been forewarned and that it has nothing to do with us. The transport problem here is one which should be engaging the attention of the Minister. It is no part of the British Transport Commission's case to say that the claim put forward for main line locomotive men is anything outrageous. In the opinion of some of us, if it errs at all it is a little too modest.
The British Transport Commission's problem is where to find the money to pay for the claim. Anybody who knows the economics of the Transport Commission must appreciate that it has difficulties, that this is a recurring problem which, until it is solved, means we cannot perfect railway reorganisation. I was talking to a main line engine man only this weekend. He has just finished 49½ years' service as a locomotive man. He has received a letter from the Commission in which one of its officials tells him:
"Upon reviewing your staff record I observe you have completed 49 years and three months
104
railway employment. I would like to express my appreciation of your services and trust you will have the best of health and every good fortune in your retirement."
That is very good. At one time such a man would never have received such a letter at all. But what follows? Too many people seem to be under the misapprehension that our main line engine men retire on some adequate pension, but a further letter that this man has just received says:
"A pension of 3s. a week has been granted to you by the British Transport Commission "—
as from a certain date—
" and will be paid every four weeks.
It continues:
"The British Transport Commission reserve the right to reduce or withdraw this pension at any time…If you or your wife are in receipt of a State old age pension it is suggested that, in order to avoid underpayment of income tax, you should advise your local Inspector of Taxes that you have been pensioned and give him full details of the amounts received."
Three shillings a week after 49½ years' service. That is the way this country treats its locomotive enginemen. The Minister talks about being concerned about the railways. If he is, I invite him to deal with that sort of problem. The Conservative Government have no very great record in the way they deal with old-age pensioners. We all know that, but there is a chance here for them to deal with this type of case.
Let nobody on the benches opposite or anywhere in the House think that my main criticism is against the Commission. Let it be understood that I have sympathy with the Commission, even when considering this sort of case, because much the greater part of that man's service, and of the service of many other railway-men, was spent on the railways when they were privately owned.
Mr. Sparks: That meant getting nothing.
Mr. Collick: In most cases in those days the men did not even get 3s. a week. Let it be said to the credit of the Commission that it has a scheme now whereby in the future—in the long future—a man like this, who does 40 years' service, will have a pension of 30s. a week. That is a little improvement for which we are very grateful to the Commission.

105
Let me deal with another aspect of the matter with which the Minister ought to be a little concerned. I know how busy Ministers are, and I sometimes wonder how many of these reports are read by Ministers. The Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways makes a report to the Minister and to Parliament every year on the matter of railway accidents. In his recent report he said:
"Three accidents due to insecure engine brake gear, have emphasised the paramount importance of conscientious attention to detail in day-to-day maintenance work and in the daily and weekly examinations. Such examination of engines in the limited time available requires the vital parts to be kept free from accumulations of oil and dirt. The recruitment of cleaners continued to show a slight improvement, but the present strength is still barely half that which is required to maintain the high standard of cleanliness and smartness which is so much desired and was taken for granted under the more favourable conditions of past years."
Here the Chief Inspecting Officer makes clear that the staff of engine cleaners in the locomotive sheds is still 50 per cent. undermanned. The reasons for that are abundantly clear to those who know the problem. The conditions are such that they will not attract the staff. I have taken occasion again and again to warn the House, and do so again today, that this country will find itself in a very difficult position not far hence unless more attention is paid to the recruitment of staff for the more highly skilled branches of railway operation.
I could take hon. Members to a depot not many miles from this House where in the last four months more than 30 drivers and firemen have left the service because of unsatisfactory conditions. We cannot go on facing that sort of thing without doing something about it, and my view is that the Minister would be much better employed looking into those sorts of problems and doing something about them than fiddling about with a miserable White Paper of this kind.
I come to another matter with which he should be dealing. Anybody who takes occasion to visit the Continent during holidays must be impressed by the capital development work going on on railways overeas. Consider what is going on in dear little Austria—Austria with a population of only 6 million. It would do the Minister good to have a look at the new West Station in Vienna, and see what the Austrians have done there.
106
Let him go to see the main-line electrfication going on in little Austria. Let him go to see the new road being built between Vienna and Salzburg. I think that his miserable road programme is by comparison a disgrace to himself and the Government. Unless the Government do something to increase capital expenditure on the modernisation of British Railways we shall be left well behind.
What is the good of investing millions in technical improvements to the last degree in industry if we leave transport unfitted to carry the requirements and products of industry? All my lifetime there has been talk about Lime Street Station at Liverpool being, rebuilt, and about Liverpool Street Station being rebuilt. We were to have had a new Euston ever since I have had anything to do with railways. Where are the new Eustons and new Liverpool Streets and the new Lime Streets?
Mr. H. Hynd: Waiting for the new area boards.
Mr. Collick: Waiting for the new area hoards, as my hon. Friends says.
I wonder whether the new area board in the Midland region is to have the power to decide that we should have a new Lime Street Station in Liverpool. I should almost be in favour of voting for the area boards if I thought it would and that we should have the new station; but there is not the remotest chance of that. because tucked away in the White Paper we are given the information that the Commission, quite rightly, keeps control of the purse.
If the Minister really wants to do something for transport, let him make available to the railways the capital necessary for their re-equipment and modernisation. They need it, because they are out of date. Their buildings are completely unfitted for modern conditions. If he really wants to do something for transport that is worth doing, let him have a good road programme. I tell the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland that I do not mind if a railway is turned into a road. Why not, if the people there want it? I am a bit doubtful about it, though.
I dislike altogether the policy that some of my hon. Friends sometimes support of closing branch lines. I do not agree with closing branch lines. If

107
there is a case for them, let them remain; but if they are to remain let the Minister do the only possible thing there is to do, and allow the losses on one part of the lines to be carried by the gains on others, and if necessary subsidise lines. I am not afraid of the word "subsidise." We subsidise private industry of all kinds. What is there wrong in subsidising socialised transport? If we are Socialists we ought not to find anything fearful in subsidies. If the Minister wants to do something worth while I invite him to deal with those sorts of problems, instead of the fiddling proposals of this White Paper.
7.28 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Thomas: One cannot help but feel sympathetic towards the views expressed by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick), because his knowledge of railways and their problems is very deep and wide. Although I cannot agree with his reasons for opposing the Scheme, I feel much more apprehension about it than does my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), who said he felt some apprehension.
Is delegation of the kind envisaged in the Scheme, is this organisation now suggested, capable of improving the present position and of solving quickly and efficiently the great problems which the hon. Member for Birkenhead outlined? Frankly, I must express my personal disappointment, for I take the view that, while this Scheme will not create the friction in its own immediate organisation which the Commission desires to avoid, the area boards are likely to throw sand in the wheels and cause friction in the existing managerial set-up in the regions.
In paragraph 23, on page 10 of the White Paper, the Commission says:
"Under the Interim Organisation the Commission have reserved to themselves only the minimum powers necessary to enable them to ensure fulfilment of their responsibilities…"
The paragraph concludes:
"The extent to which further powers can be delegated by the Commission is now limited and the conditions for their delegation will need careful consideration."
I suggest that the introduction of area boards consisting of a number of directors might throw a small spanner into
108
the works, which, are at long last, beginning to turn smoothly.
One factor which I feel will cause friction is the transfer of the powers now delegated to the regional general managers out of their hands to these boards. What are the responsibilities of these boards? We find them in paragraph 27. I do not want to go through them one by one, but, on analysis, we find that they are the powers and responsibilities now undertaken by the railway general managers—the "dictators," as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) described them.
I rather like this dictatorship system; it is beginning to be effective, and one advantage of it is that it has given once again to all the men in the Commission's employment, from the humblest grades to the top, a measure of confidence, because they know who is responsible, whether it is the yard foreman or the divisional superintendent. They know that they have contact with the person responsible and that he can give them a decision which is to their advantage and helps in the expeditious operation of the railways.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland quoted the example of a through-coach which had been taken off a train at the whim of the regional general manager. I generally agree with my hon. Friend, and I certainly agree with him on the principles of business organisation which he announced, but I want to ask him a question: does he expect the House to believe that a responsible regional general manager, merely for the sake of being unreasonable—because that is what he implied—destroyed a service which had been operating for so long? If that were so, does he honestly think that the British Transport Commission would not have taken it up long ago?
Sir D. Robertson: I think I should clear this up immediately. The regional manager did take this action, for he has unlimited and unbridled power. He took off a through-coach, which had been running for 50 years, at the end of a very long journey by day and night, and his action caused great suffering to many people. As a result of representations from this House to the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport, from the Thurso Town Council and the Caithness County Council, from other

109
local authorities and countless people who wrote to the "Scotsman "—because the whole country was indignant about it—the through-coach was restored a few days ago. It had been removed on the grounds of economy. In my speech, I challenged the British Transport Commission to hold any public inquiry to show whether that economy was worth while. I say that it was not.
Mr. Thomas: I take my hon. Friend's point, but it does not change the facts nor does it change his argument that these regional general manager are little dictators. My hon. Friend is saying that there is already too much power in one man's hands.
Sir D. Robertson: Far too much.
Mr. Thomas: Let us analyse it. I suggest to him that the power and the responsibility now vested in the regional general manager is considerably less than was in the hands of the regional general manager before the war.
Sir D. Robertson: There was then a a board of managers.
Mr. Thomas: Even so, it is considerably less.
Today, the manager has nothing to do with the road passenger services, with the docks and inland waterways—which were owned by the railway companies before the war—or with the hotels. In this Scheme there is an extraordinary arrangements about dining cars, for instance. If ever there were anything which indicated duality of control and overlapping, it is in that paragraph. Today, the general manager has been divorced of all those responsibilities; all the services which, in Army parlance, I would call the A and Q side of the operation, have been taken out of his hands. The question of charges is at Commission level. All the engineering policies are at Commission level. The legal services, secretarial services and accountancy are at Commission level. His responsibilities today are nothing like those which he had personally in his hands, even with a board, before the war.
If these area boards are brought into existence, I believe that they will merely take unto themselves the power of decision now in the hands of the regional
110
general manager. That power has been in his hands for 12 months, and nobody has suggested today—except in one case —that the general managers are less efficient because they have these powers.
The introduction of these area boards at this stage merely places another obstacle in the way of the improvement and development in the railways which, since the end of the war, has been too long delayed. I believe that most of those impediments to railway development and progress are due to the House, on both sides. The whole of the great railway industry has been the subject of party battle for far too long. I reinforce the appeal of the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) in a previous debate —I am sorry that he is not here: let us give this industry a bit of peace and stability so that it can get on with the job. I am afraid that this scheme will merely cause an impediment and hindrance at the level which is the highest level of chief regional managership.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro took up a point mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary on costing and statistics. I am sorry that my hon. Friend is not here. I entirely disagree with him on the point and I am at variance with other of my hon. Friends about it. My hon. Friend said that these statistics were not required in order to compare one area with another. He said that we want them to enable the area staffs themselves to know and to get some measure year by year of the improvement or otherwise of the efficiency in their own areas.
I put it to my hon. Friend—and he was with the railways for 20 years, while I only spent the first seven years of my working life on the operational side—that he knows, as well as I do, that the general manager and all those interested in the measure of their efficiency have masses of statistics from which they can obtain the information which they require without putting the Commission to the unnecessary expense of having, as it is bound to work out in the end, another clearing house.
We have only to look at the position of the areas as they were pre-war. Circumstances varied. The amalgamations were obviously a good thing, but there is no doubt that the North-Eastern area in terms of profitability, suffered because of the area from which it gathered its traffic

111
was more sparsely populated than other areas. I say that profitability and even the costing is not the measure of efficiency that we want. I hope that my hon. Friends on this side will not press for it. There are already a mass of statistics, and the public will let the railways know and the railway officials know whether they are operating efficiently or not.
Mr. G. Wilson: I apologise for not having heard all my hon. Friend's observations, but I understand that he is against pressing for statistics on the ground that the statistics are already available. The point is that the outside public, the Minister and everyone else should be able to judge whether one region is doing better in one year than in previous years, and not only the officials of the railways.
Mr. Thomas: I think the public can discover that for themselves now. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) pointed out, the figures are available between areas, and these area figures are available to the staff. I hope that the present organisation will not be burdened with the enormouse expense of another clearing house. I can see that under certain circumstances area boards are a good thing, but only if they take their proper place in the chain of command.
I hope that the form of legislation which is required to put this Scheme into effect will be so worded that, while it will give the Commission power to build up these particular bodies when necessary, the Commission will give the present scheme a real trial, because it seems to be working well at the moment, and only bring in this sort of a supra-management body as and when it finds it necessary to relegate further functions and further powers to the regional areas.
7.44 p.m.
Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): We have just listened to a very refreshing speech by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. L. Thomas), but I thought he rather spoilt it by his last sentence or two—but perhaps one can understand that. He will know that in the White Paper it is stated that the establishment of the area boards must come into operation within three months of the regulations being approved by the House.
Mr. L. Thomas: I know the point which the hon. Gentleman is making, but the area authority can be one person.
Mr. Popplewell: I quite agree with the hon. Member, and I must revise what I said because I think now that the whole of his speech was good because when he suggests that the area authority should be one man, the general manager, I am with him completely.
The Parliamentary Secretary's opening observations on this subject this afternoon were rather peculiar. He said that there was no ideological differences between both sides of the House on this particular point. Surely, having listened to the debate up to now, he has realised that there are tremendous ideological differences between both sides of the House. It is evident that the only thing that has accentuated their decision on this particular matter is because the party opposite has pledged itself to a further carve up of our nationalised railways undertaking.
In trying to find a way out of it, as some of my hon. Friends have said, they approached the British Transport Commission and asked them to give them a Scheme. In that Scheme they have issued a directive saying that area authorities must be established. That was in accordance with the 1953 denationalisation Act which they put on the Statute Book. During the passage of that Act, we asked them for a definition of the duties of these area authorities and also tried to glean some information as to what further authorities it was proposed to establish under that Act, and what their duties would be.
One would have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary, in moving the Motion that we take note of the White Paper, would have cleared up some of these difficulties and questions that we are putting to him. What have we got? It is rather interesting to note—and I hope that the Minister will listen—that the Parliamentary Secretary is reduced to defining the powers of the area boards as being concerned with the length of permanent way that will be renewed each year and the general overhaul of locomotives. To give the Parliamentary Secretary credit, I must say that I think that was a slip of the tongue.
Mr. Molson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent

113
me. I tried to make quite plain that the general standard of the maintenance of the permanent way and of rolling stock is a matter for the Transport Commission. The actual carrying out of that policy is a matter for the area boards.
Mr. Popplewell: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said earlier today. I was trying to give him an opportunity of correcting himself. I think he is trying to infer that the area authorities might suggest to the administrators—the chief general managers—that a certain subject should be undertaken by these particular bodies. That is not asking the House and the Transport Commission to accept what he said earlier, that the area authorities would be able to instruct the chief general manager or chief mechanical engineer what he has to do in that particular direction.
Let us remember that if there is an accident these people will have to face up to that issue at a Ministry of Transport inquiry. If Ministers in this House cannot define the duties of the area authorities, I suggest that there is no necessity at all for their appointment. Previous speakers have rightly pointed out that if these men, who have no knowledge of railway organisation but purely an outside knowledge of business requirements, are to work in a part-time capacity and instruct experts on this essential undertaking how to carry out their job, there will be a tremendous amount of friction. The Transport Commission is adamant in its dislike of this set-up.
We realised when we passed our Act in 1947 that the structure which we then imposed was not necessarily permanent. In 1951, the Commission intimated to the Minister that there was need to change from the three-tier system. The Commission evolved a scheme, but the Minister refused to allow it to operate until October, 1953, when it was put into effect. The net result of this scheme has been a tremendous increase in the efficiency of our railways.
The Minister now has his new proposals. Does he propose to upset the headquarters arrangement, established by the Commission in accordance with his own Scheme, whereby, instead of using Broadway, everything is concentrated at 222, Marylebone Road, with the heads of
114
departments available to give information and to compile statistics so that the Commission may define its policy and make assessments accordingly? Will the chief regional managers have access to Marylebone Road for consultation and settling matters at a regional level, as is now done expeditiously?
What will be the duty of the area authorities in this direction? Will they be called in as intermediaries between the chief regional managers and the Commission? The Parliamentary Secretary tried to suggest that this would be part of their job. Reading between the lines, one visualises that there is nothing that the area authorities are being asked to do that cannot be more quickly and more admirably done under the present arrangements and by the present staff.
It is said that the new Scheme will provide quicker and more direct contact with railway users. But already representatives spend the whole of their time in going out and seeking traffic. They already have direct contact with users and their requirements, and are able to bring to bear the physical possibilities of the railways to meet the needs and demands as they arise. The existing transport users' consultative committees are useful bodies, but there is ample scope for increasing their usefulness- by means of additional publicity so that the public knows what is taking place.
Another object of the Scheme is said to be to assist staff relations by removing feelings of remoteness of control. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) has rightly pointed out some of the things that could assist staff relations. I suggest to the Minister that it would be wiser for him to give to the Commission the power to meet the very reasonable requests being made by the staff, instead of doing as the Minister's predecessors did as soon as they took office. Although an overwhelming case for an increase in fares had been put up to the Transport Tribunal, the first action of the Government was to refuse it. This prevented the Commission from meeting the just requirements of the men.
It is evident that the Ministry and the Government as a whole are still prepared to allow railways and transport generally to remain the Cinderella industry, bolstering up all other industries, and to prevent them from establishing that efficient niche

115
that they could well do if given any encouragement at all.
Some of my hon. Friends have referred to the necessity of capital development. Time after time the Government have denied to the railways the essential supplies that were necessary for technical development. Only now are the railways being allowed a measure of development with electrification and diesel locomotives. The need has existed for a long time, but the Government have preferred to keep the railways in their Cinderella state.
In the proposed organisation of area authorities I visualise a set-up that will be a great deterrent as far as the efficiency of undertakings is concerned. Questions of management and policy, wages negotiations, conditions of employment, design and similar matters, are to be left in the hands of the Commission. If the men who are appointed to the area authorities are worth their salt, why are they to have no say whatever? It will be extremely regrettable if they prove to be a constant thorn in the side of the Transport Commission.
I ask the Minister to let the present Scheme, which has been working for about a year, have a fair crack of the whip. If he were to do this and were to afford encouragement, as well as fostering the joint consultation side, which is now again being developed, we would get the railways to something like their proper state.
It is nonsense to talk of competition between the regions in the ordinary commercial sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) rightly pointed out how absurd it was to compare, for instance, the figures relating to net ton miles per engine hour—which, I suggest, is the best criterion for any state of efficiency—between one region and another. There are so many factors involved. It is not just a question of region by region in the repair shops competing for efficiency, such as a product say from Derby to be compared with one from elsewhere. There may be a case for that, but that does not require any area authorities.
When we come to consider the men concerned, they like to think that they are being dealt with as decent human beings, on a proper level. For that reason we suggest that the Commission
116
should be allowed to go ahead with its work. It will get all the esprit de corps that is possible. Questions as to whether a region should have a separate uniform or different coloured engines does not enter into it. The Commission itself is quite alive to that particular line, and it does not require such organisations as are proposed here for that.
This scheme is simply a question of "jobs for the boys." When the Minister was on these benches he declared that the people interested in these nationalised industries were quislings and that they—meaning the then Opposition—would know how to deal with them when they came into office. But what is the position now? He is being a complete quisling to the Department he represents. Does he care for efficiency in the railway industry? Does he care for efficiency in transport? Why does he not let the men who understand and know the job get on with it without all this interference?
The Scheme refers to the matter of dining car and refreshment room staffs. What does it suggest? All railway users know that dining cars and refreshment rooms cannot be divorced from railway administration. They are part and parcel of it. What is suggested in the Scheme? In addition to the cumbersome area authorities it is suggested that the Hotels Executive should continue to be responsible for dining car and refreshment room services and it is to appoint a person who would associate with the chief regional manager. In effect, equal power is being given to that individual with the chief regional manager for dining cars and refreshment rooms, and if there is any point in dispute it would have to be settled by the Commission itself. Is that not a lot of duplication and absolute nonsense?
These are some of the things which the Minister would do well to give further consideration to before he finally introduces his particular regulations. I hope he will give sufficient thought to them and that he will drop the whole Scheme as being an imposition on the authority and something which will nullify the work of those who, at long last, are commencing to build up our railway system into a decent and efficient organisation.
It takes a long time to deal with railways. It was about 10 years before the

117
1921 Act reached maturity. The present nationalisation scheme has not had an opportunity to develop. It has not had even three clear years to mature. We nationalised the undertaking and instituted a certain formula in order that the Commission could take it over and go ahead with it. We said, in effect, to the Commission, "Go ahead and prepare your scheme in the light of developments and determine what is the most efficient for the system."
But then a change took place. The present Government came into power. The Commission was prepared with its scheme, but the Government were determined to denationalise transport and they prevented the Commission going ahead to attain that degree of efficiency that it knew it could achieve if it were given the power. How could it go ahead with plans for road haulage or railway reorganisation, as it wanted to do in 1951, when the Minister was preventing it from doing so?
Even though it was faced with many difficulties, the Commission built up a transport system of which we ought to be very proud. Chambers of trade and commerce, businessmen up and down the country, are seriously perturbed because the Government are denationalising road haulage. If the Government will not take any notice of us on this subject, I hope they will take some notice of their supporters, the businessmen. They know that an efficient system has been established for road haulage.
The Government should end their proposals about road haulage. If we could get agreement in that particular direction at this juncture we should be delighted, because what is taking place in road haulage is nothing less than tragic for our economy. The same can be said of railway reorganisation. Drop this dogma, this doctrinaire approach that has no support from anyone who actually understands the job.
8.6 p.m.
Mr. Norman Cole: We on this side of the House think that a reorganisation scheme as envisaged by the 1953 Transport Act is going to be for the advantage of the railways. There is going to be advantage in the promotion of friendly rivalry and competition between the various areas. We think that the various areas and those who work in them want to see such a
118
scheme. In the end not only will the areas be better for it, but it will be to the public benefit in every way, including greater efficiency and everything that goes to make that up.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) said it was not to be expected that the 36 men forming these boards could work miracles. We are not expecting them to work miracles, but we expect that they will be an important and integral link in this rivalry which will come as a result of this Scheme, and which will be to the permanent improvement of our railways.
Mr. W. R. Williams: Are we to understand from this line of argument that the hon. Member does not agree with the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson)?
Mr. Cole: I do not know whether the hon. Member means my hon. Friend the Member for Truro or my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. L. Thomas), but if he listens to my speech he will see how far I agree with the Scheme and how far I disagree with certain points.
I am quite certain that some sort of scheme is necessary, and what is more, that the British Transport Commission has not been entirely opposed to some sort of a scheme like this. On page 12 it refers to the degree of esprit de corps which has already grown up in the regions. In other words this is a natural human element. Call it competition, call it esprit de corps, call it whatever one likes to, but it is there and by this Scheme we are trying to encourage it and give it full sway.
I cannot agree that the area boards are going to have no duties. I see that no fewer than six sets of duties are set out on pages 11 and 12 of the White Paper, one of which is to encourage this esprit de corps and also to ensure attention to the welfare of the staff in all its forms. May I point out that the Commission itself—and this refers to the point I made just now—says that some individual identity would stimulate local pride in the regions? Whether that takes the form of uniforms or the colour of the carriages does not matter very much, but it recognises this point of individual pride in the regions. I am sure that any hon. Member who knows the average person will appreciate that point of view.

119
Up to the present in this debate, although we have heard a lot about the constitution of the area boards and their functions, little has been made by the opposite side of the House of the point that one reason why a scheme was laid down in the 1953 Transport Act was to encourage the natural rivalry existing between one man and another working in different regions to try to show that his region is as good or better than the others. I believe that if we get to that stage, we shall have a better railway system.
In passing, may I mention that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) did not show his normal debating vehemence? I got the impression that the hon. Gentleman felt that he was making bricks without straw, and he did not exhibit that critical faculty which we have learned to expect from him. That makes me all the more certain that this Scheme will go far towards giving us what we want. The hon. Gentleman complained that the boards would have too much power because they would be responsible for the spending of £445 million a year, that is, all but £1 million of the total budget of the B.T.C. Yet his hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) complained that the boards would not have enough power.
I suggest that when the House rises those two hon. Gentlemen should get together and decide whether they think the boards have too much or not enough power. Personally I think it is reasonable to expect these boards to have the power to spend this money. Why is the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East so worried about it? The gas and electricity boards spend comparable sums of money in their regions.
Mr. Steele: I think my hon. Friend took the view that this money would not be spent by the boards. I was asking the Government what powers the boards will have. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us. His hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) did not know either.
Mr. Manuel: Will the hon. Gentleman also remember that there is a big difference between producing gas and running the railways?
Mr. Cole: I would not attempt to debate with the hon. Gentleman the production of gas; I am sure he is more expert on that than I am.
Since, however, my remarks were directed particularly to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, I was interested to see that his hon. Friend found it necessary to explain the difference in their point of view? The fact remains that there was a difference between them as to whether the boards had too much power or too little. I am satisfied that it is an index of the authority of the boards that they will be allowed by the B.T.C. to spend 99 per cent. of the annual budget of the Commission.
My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that the B.T.C. had already engaged in further devolution, and the items given in the Third Schedule to the White Paper give details of the statistics it is proposed to publish. Here I want to make a request to my right hon. Friend the Minister, because I understand that useful suggestions made by hon. Members will be considered for possible adoption.
In the presentation of the budgets by the various area boards to the B.T.C., it will be necessary to produce figures to show why they want to spend that money in the next financial year. As those figures must be available for the B.T.C., I am worried about Article 9, which deals with the amount of statistics which the Commission is able to publish. I do not wish to press the Commission beyond what it can feasibly do, but if it is able year by year to decide on the respective efficiency of its areas, either in comparison with each other or in comparison with the previous year, it must have a yardstick at headquarters. If so, why cannot that yardstick be made available to the general public?
It is not enough for the regional managers to know how efficiently their area is working vis-à-vis another area or the previous year. The railwaymen working that area should know the respective standard of efficiency of their area. And that brings me back to my first point about friendly rivalry between one area and another. If those statistics are made available to the public, automatically they will be available to the railwaymen, and then the 650,000 railwaymen we have heard about will know how their area is faring compared with another area.

121
We have heard that because there are differences of running in various areas comparative figures cannot be published, but in the science of statistics that is not a valid reason for non-publication. There can always be weighting for different areas—for instance, the Scottish area versus the Midland area—and without comparative statistics we cannot find out how one area is doing compared with another.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will realise that on this side of the House we are pleased to see this Scheme. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) said, we think it goes a long way towards what we wanted to achieve under the 1953 Transport Act. We want it to go forward, we think it will be for the good of the railways of this country and that, in the end, the public at large as well as the railwaymen, will benefit thereby.
8.19 p.m.
Mr. W. T. Proctor: The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) seems to have great faith in the use of statistics, but I think that the job of the railwaymen and transport workers is to shift the traffic, not to produce statistics. I could give the hon. Gentleman an instance where, for the sake of statistics and in order to avoid recording that a train was travelling with only two wagons on it, the wagons were left in a siding and the traffic was thus delayed, purely for statistical purposes.
I beg the hon. Gentleman to remember that statistics are costly and that what we really require is that people should do the work. As for the point that the railwaymen in southern England will be thrilled if they are told, by means of a dose of statistics, how their operations compare with the Scottish operations I say that it is utter nonsense.
Mr. Cole: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent what I said. I did not say that the railwaymen of southern England or any other part would be thrilled to be com-
pared with their Scottish colleagues. I said that necessary allowances could be made for the respective differences.
Mr. Proctor: I understood that the hon. Member wanted railwaymen in one part of the country to compete with those in another. Unless they are given a bit
122
of a thrill, we shall not have competition of that sort. To produce statistics of the number of train miles run in the north of Scotland will not ring a bell. I beg the Minister to take no notice whatever of that proposal that it is possible for the railway region to compete.
The right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) said that the interests of transport users were the real issue. The real issue is the interests of the nation as a whole, and in the nation I include the railwaymen and the people who are moving the traffic and doing the work. The right hon. Gentleman also said that there was a better spirit abroad in the nationalised industries than there was a little time ago. I certainly agree.
One of the reasons for that is that the men who now constitute Her Majesty's Government have called off their unscrupulous campaign against nationalisation and are operating some of the nationalised industries instead of traducing them. One of the first duties of the Minister of Transport should be to apologise for the scandalous and deplorable speech at the Tory Party Conference when he denounced the men who were devoting themselves to the nationalised industries as "Quislings" and said that they would be taken care of in the future. Now he has to ask them to pull their weight and do their best. Such is political life in this country that I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have the courage to apologise for his attack upon them.
Railways have been regarded as monopolies in this country. Before the introduction of other forms of transport they were a virtual monopoly. The mistake that the nation made was to treat the railways as monopolies long after they ceased to be monopolies. The nation prevented the railways from using roads, dealing in road transport and thus developing into transport companies and not remaining purely railway companies.
When the Labour Government came into office we rectified that situation and brought road and rail transport together by means of nationalisation. That worked very well. We were getting on towards balancing the budget and creating a system of transport unequalled in any other country in the world. The success of the British Transport Commission in introducing a proper road transport

123
system was astonishing. The present Government came into power and were determined to wreck that achievement.
The great crime which the present Government have committed is that they have wrecked the work done by the previous Government in bringing together all forms of transport and using them efficiently in the interests of the nation. The story, however, does not finish there, because it is difficult to finance railways if they are run on their own, and the Government have taken away a profitable section of the transport industry and handed it back to private enterprise. losing millions of pounds of public money in the process.
We must face the fact that the railwaymen will not allow their wages to be depressed to balance the budget of the railways. In these circumstances we may be faced with the necessity of having to subsidise the railways as a result of the policy which the Government are now pursuing.
It was a pleasure to listen to the courageous and forthright speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. L. Thomas). It is a pity that the Minister of Transport was not present to hear it but no doubt he will read every word of it and observe the wisdom of the criticism that was made. The hon. Member has had actual experience for seven years on the railway, and not in a railway solicitor's office. It is remarkable that there is no support whatsoever for this Scheme forthcoming from any Member with transport experience.
I can understand hon. Members opposite becoming a little disturbed about the Scheme. As a community we have to face the fact that no one has found the ideal solution to the problem of the management of big industry. Neither private nor public industry has discovered it, and we are always looking for a solution that will give us real efficiency. The great thing that we want in a big industry is the passionate support of every person working in it. I cannot say what contribution this Scheme will make towards that end.
Much has been said about decentralisation, and by that I do not mean decentralisation in administration, because we are all agreed on that. We on this side of the House have agreed that decentralisation in administration is
124
necessary and good, but the Tory Party has been holding out to its followers the possibility of decentralisation of executive authority.
The party opposite has suggested that new boards would be set up to run the railways in a completely independent fashion. Hon. Members opposite must know that that is utter nonsense. It would be impossible to give a board in Scotland complete authority to do what it liked unless one also demanded at the same time that that Scottish board should find the money. We know that if a board was given complete authority and financial responsibility at the present time the situation would be absolutely intolerable for the people of Scotland. It is nonsense to suggest it, and the Government have not proposed it, although they suggested to their followers that that was their policy.
The British Transport Commission, under this Scheme and under the present Government, is more powerful than it has ever been. As proof of this I quote paragraph 27 of the White Paper, which states that
"The responsibilities which the Commission would place upon the area authorities in relation to the railways would be
(a) to exercise as organs of the Commission general supervision of the railway system within their areas, and particularly to ensure that the policies laid down by the Commission were faithfully executed; —"
That is a lovely example of independence.
Article 5 of the Scheme, which is described in the margin as "Delegation to Area Authorities of railway functions," states:
"(1) Subject to the provisions of this Scheme and to such conditions and limitations as the Commission may impose, there shall by virtue of this paragraph be delegated to each Area Authority the function of ensuring that the policies of the Commission in relation to that part of their undertaking which consists in the operation of the railways are carried into effect—"
and so on. All that is provided is that the area boards shall carry out the instructions of the Commission.
Previously the Minister of Transport had power to appoint the Railway Executive. He has handed over complete power of all appointments in this Scheme to the Transport Commission. Therefore, the Commission, as a centralised authority.

125
is more powerful now than it has ever been. That is the kind of decentralisation that the Tory Party has brought into being. I am surprised that some back benchers opposite have not had the courage to denounce the Scheme.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I have not yet had the opportunity to speak and I should like to pose this question to the hon. Gentleman, as he will not be able to reply to me later. Do you agree—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Order. The hon. Member has no right to ask me a question.
Mr. Rees-Davies: I was really addressing the question to the hon. Member through the Chair.
I should like to pose a question. If it be so that this removes accountability from Parliament to the Commission, does the hon. Member think that there should be an amendment to the Scheme?
Mr. Proctor: I leave the hon. Gentleman to get the answer from his own Front Bench. I will not make any suggestion to get him out of his difficulty.
What hon. Gentlemen opposite are hankering after is the old system of boards of directors responsible for the railway undertakings. The old system of boards of directors is impossible in a nationalised industry. We cannot have financial policy dealt with on a regional basis when we have a central responsibility for finance. Under the old system of boards of directors, when the railways were independent private authorities, the boards were manned by some railway experts but very often there were people who had a dual interest—an interest as shareholders in the railways but also an interest in steel, coal, and other great industries. I have no doubt that they brought business and influence with them.
They had an interest in the railways from a financial point of view. But the danger of the present system is that when people are brought in from outside as representatives of other industries they have no financial interest in the railways. Their sole financial interest is in the concerns which they represent. That is a dangerous procedure.
There is one way in which this Scheme may do a little good. I refer to the
126
representation of railway workers on the boards. Railway and transport workers operating on the boards may make a valuable contribution to the management of the industry. I suggest to the Minister that he should not be afraid to appoint people on a part-time basis. There is nothing wrong in a guard, a shunter, a stationmaster or anyone else spending part of his time in considering railway affairs on a board and making a contribution from his knowledge of transport, and still performing his ordinary job when not engaged on the board.
I take the view that the closer we can get the trade union movement and the workers generally interested in railway and transport management the better it will be. It would be possible for spare-time members to be contacts with the trade union and labour side of the industry. I envisage the position that they could attend branch meetings of the staff and make a real contribution. Other than that, I see no possibility of the Scheme being of any use at all.
I beg the Minister not to allow good railway and transport time to be wasted in the collection of statistics. In pre-war days it was really terrible to see the immense volume of statistics which had to be produced by the railway companies for the satisfaction of the Board of Trade and other Departments of the Government. When the Transport Act was passed I was deeply concerned about the situation. The Tory Party then, as now, were clamouring for statistics. A development during the war was that statistics were cut down to about one-fifth.
Under the Act there is provision for the amount of statistics that the companies were compelled to produce during the war. We considered what should be done. I pressed my hon. Friends to leave out the provision but they thought that we should let it slip through and that perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite would not notice that they had only one-fifth of what they had before. The result is that the statistics are cut.
The cost of producing statistics just for people to look at is immense. The Commission should be free to produce all the necessary statistics, but to make the production of statistics a statutory duty may mean that these statistics will continue to be produced long after they are needed.

127
I knew a transport operator who had five lorries in the pioneering days. When he had a load to transport anywhere, he used to come to the railway company's offices and ask us what the rates were. This was very handy for him, for legally, the railway companies had to give him the information, and that gave him an idea of the cost of the traffic and how much he could undercut.
I once asked him "Have you any idea of the cost of the various operations which you are carrying out?" The operator replied, "No, and I am pretty certain that it would bankrupt me to find out what the cost is. I should want about three clerks to find out the cost. It is cheaper for me to guess it than to bother about finding out what the actual cost is." That applies to a very great extent in this instance. We are going mad on statistics. The job is to shift the traffic, and rather than go in for statistics, we ought just to count up at the end of the day.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: It is a pleasure to reply to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) because he alluded to what I regard as the important point under the Scheme, namely, the subject of accountability to this House and the guidance which the House has been able to give in such matters to the Commission in the past and will give in future if the Scheme is amended in a certain way. It is an even greater pleasure to have the opportunity of having the Minister reply to the debate, because he has very considerable constitutional knowledge and, whether or not he agrees with them, will appreciate the points which I am going to put.
I want, first, to deal with a point raised by some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. L. Thomas), about the regional general manager rather than a board being the authority. I believe that very much too much is placed upon the shoulders of these men today, and that it would be to their advantage and benefit to have an advisory board able to assist them and, to some extent, having certain executive powers.
I had recently to write to the regional general manager of my own area, with the support of the chairman of the Corn-
128
mission, to get an appointment to speak to him about a matter of considerable urgency in my constituency, railway electrification there, electrification already having been completed to a neighbouring constituency. The earliest date—I make no complaint about it—on which he could see me is more than a month hence. Do hon. Members think that a man who has the burden of work that these regional general managers have is in a position to carry the whole of the burden alone? Would it not be better for him to have assistance? I do not think that we should pass on to these men too much power.
Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman is complaining because the regional general manager is unable to see him on the date which he desires about a small scheme of electrification. Do I take it that the hon. Member is advocating that part-time members meeting once a month or so should have authority to authorise electrification schemes?
Mr. Rees-Davies: The subject of electrification may be a small matter to the hon. Member, but I can assure him that from the point of view of an area board in the Southern Region the subject of the priority of electrification covering the whole of a county is an important matter. It is a matter on which I should have thought that a manager or a board should be able to give priority to see a Member of Parliament or someone else wishing to make representations about it. I go no further than that. I believe it to be an advantage to have a board, because a board could be of assistance to the manager in an advisory capacity. I do not believe that a man should be given powers which, in fact, require him to do jobs which he has no time to do.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) referred to the Minister as not being responsible for the initiation of this Scheme of which we are taking note today. That is quite right, but we in this House are responsible, if need be, for its amendment, or, at least, for making suggestions for its amendment, because if it goes through by means of Statutory Instrument, it must be approved or defeated without amendment.
The question which the hon. Gentleman posed was, "Is it right that this

129
House should tell the Commission its policy?" and the hon. Gentleman said, "No." I should like to alter the question and put it this way, "Is it right that this House should give some guidance to the Commission as to its policy?", and to that my answer is, clearly, "Yes." If this Scheme goes through without amendment, it is quite true, as was said by the last speaker, that the Commission will have a great deal more power than it has at present. I do not think it right that there should be a two-way movement of ideas; I think there should be a three-way movement of ideas. I believe that this two-way movement of ideas, to which expression was given by the Parliamentary Secretary, is based on a wrong principle. It is based on a flow of ideas between the area boards and the Commission, but I want also to see this flow coming towards this House and away from it.
In support of that, I wish to quote the very admirable resumé in the statement made by Lord Hurcomb, Chairman of the Transport Commission at the time he was speaking, to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. The sentiments expressed in this White Paper are not imposed in the Scheme itself, if we read it carefully. By the purpose of the Scheme itself, the Commission is to become a law unto itself, and that is an affront, though not an intended one, to the Parliamentary system in this country. If this Scheme goes through in its present form, Parliamentary and Ministerial control will suffer, and that is something which neither side of the House ought to allow to pass merely because of a lack of close study of the provisions of the Scheme.
This is the way Lord Hurcomb put it:
"There is a very real problem ultimately of accountability to Parliament on the part of these corporations. I have been able myself to think of no better solution than some kind of committee … The committee would do much to satisfy the very legitimate demand of Parliament for a greater knowledge than can be got in debate about the affairs of one of these great corporations."
Lord Hurcomb continued:
"One of the very greatest handicaps under which anyone in my position suffers is that he gets no opportunity of stating his own case or of explaining what are his difficulties direct to M.Ps."
130
From such a group of M.Ps., Lord Hurcomb pointed out, very natural questions might arise. For example, they might say, "Are your methods of maintenance right?" and, "What is the technical advice you proceed on? Have you ever brought in an outside person or compared your results with what is done in a foreign undertaking?" Lord Hurcomb continued:
" All those sort of things, if I may venture to say so, I think it would be natural and proper for a committee to raise, and it would be helpful indeed to the undertaking to have an opportunity of explaining the position and it might be good for it to have the necessary challenge now and then in some respects."
Lord Hurcomb ended by saying:
"I would not in any way shrink from such a procedure. I can see some very substantial advantages in it from the point of view of the undertaking."
There Lord Hurcomb was dealing only with control as between this House and the Commission as a whole. Let that be clear. But that control is, in fact, being snatched away by this Scheme. Let me point out where. First of all, the Minister has the power to amend this Scheme, although he has imposed upon him a duty to consult the Transport Commission. He can have all the necessary amendments made, and let us also remember that, at this stage, this is entirely the Scheme of the Transport Commission and has not been amended by the Minister at all.
The points in respect of which I would suggest amendments are not those involving managerial control, but would be constitutional amendments affecting the accountability to this House and the opportunities for this House to be kept in touch with the Commission. If hon. Members will look at paragraph 9 (1) of the Scheme they will see that it says:
"The Commission shall compile and publish as respects each area such statements of operating costs and such statistics as the Commission, with the approval of the Minister, may specify."
There has been a lot of argument from the other side of the House about this matter, but it was quite unnecessary. As this matter stands, there is no obligation whatever on the Commission to compile and publish any statistics. It need not take any action on paragraph 9 (1) at all and there is nothing to indicate that it has any intention to produce any real scheme. In fact, the document is a scheme to make

131
a scheme. It is not a scheme. As such, it is a sham. The reality is only in what follows.
The only way by which this may be amended is by saying that there must be such a statement of operating costs "as the Minister shall specify, after consultation with the Commission." That would be the proper way to get Parliamentary accountability and to keep control by this House over operating costs. I am not going to say what is actually provided, or to say how comparisons shall be made between one area and another. I do not claim that experience. There are hon. Members of the House who have that experience and who could make those suggestions. I am upset to see a Scheme which leaves the matter entirely in the hands of the Commission without guidance—I stress the word "guidance"—in that respect. There is no obligation there, and it is in no way mandatory.
Mr. Callaghan: I think we are all following the hon. Member's remarks with great interest. He has left out the words which indicate that the Commission has to have the approval of the Minister. No doubt he did that by inadvertence. Would he address himself to the further point that, as the Commission is required to be competitive, the matter of what it publishes should be left to its discretion so that its competitors shall not have the advantage of knowing the Commission's operating costs?
Mr. Rees-Davies: I am not prepared to be drawn into that argument. It turns on the question of efficiency.
The problem whether a nationalised industry, plus the Minister, should not publish accounts for reasons of secrecy is not to be solved in this House. We are trying to deal with a Scheme which has to have wide flexibility. I entirely agree with the opening statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that it has to be so flexible that over the years ahead we shall not have to come back to this House for another scheme. What we must ensure is a three-way movement of ideas instead of a two-way movement, with accountability to the House of Commons and to the Select Committee, so that, no matter what Government may be in power in the future, there will be objective Parliamentary control. I say that sincerely, in no party spirit whatever.
132
Paragraph 7 (1) of the Scheme says:
"There may be set up such authorities other than area authorities as the Commission, with the approval of the Minister, may specify."
Again, I do not think that this is strong enough. It seems to me that it should be for the Minister to specify, with the approval of, or after consultation with, the Commission. Then, again, paragraph 8 says:
" Subject to the provisions of this Scheme, the Commission may delegate to any authority set up under Article 7 of this Scheme, subject to such conditions and limitations as the Commission may impose, such functions …"
There is no mention of approval or consultation with the Minister there. It may be right that it should be for the Commission to impose conditions, but there should be at least approval by or consultation with the Minister.
The same point arises in the Schedules. We find in the Second Schedule, paragraph 1:
"Each area authority … shall consist of a chairman and not less than two nor more than six other members, all of whom shall be appointed by the Commission."
Why "by the Commission"? There is no reason why the normal practice should not be followed and why appointments should not be made by the Minister after consultation with the Commission.
If these few amendments are made—they are only constitutional amendments and ones which the Minister is justified in putting to the chairman—they will be consistent with the views of Lord Hurcomb. So far as one knows, Sir Brian Robertson's views are the same as those held by Lord Hurcomb. No difference has been expressed in regard to them. If, therefore, it is Lord Hurcomb's view that there should be consultation with Parliament, that it would be useful to have the guidance of this committee throughout the whole of their work, and if, also, it is good for him to have the opportunity to come to us, then I venture to think that we might translate that into a wider idea.
There is no evidence in the Scheme of the sincerity on the part of the British Transport Commission as a whole to carry out the devolution contained in it. It may be so or it may not be so, but it is not in the Scheme. Paragraph 19,

133
on page 10 of the Explanatory Statement, says:
"…as much freedom and flexibility as possible should be allowed to the Commission in developing the future organisation."
Flexibility is translated as meaning flexibility for the Commission. I should like to see the paragraph read as follows:
"…as much flexibility as possible should be allowed between the Commission and the areas proposed to be set up and subject to proper Ministerial control and Parliamentary accountability."
I view the Scheme in, the sense of leaving the matter of flexibility, managerial control and financial responsibility to the Commission, but I venture to think that it requires amendment in both ways in order to secure the idea expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, and that the two-way movement should be a three-way movement in which all should have their effective part to play.
8.53 p.m.
Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: We have today listened to a long debate on railway reorganisation, and one thing which has stood out during it is the poverty of argument emanating from the Government benches in support of their general transport policy. I have sat here throughout the debate and have listened to practically every speech that has been made. One remarkable fact is that one speech from the benches opposite actually got down to realities. It was the speech made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. L. Thomas).
It can, I think, be said without exaggeration that in that speech the hon. Member for Canterbury was even more scathingly critical of his own Government's transport policy than anything that might have been said in speeches from this side of the House. Of course, the railway descent of the hon. Gentleman may, perhaps, account for that fact. He knows something about railways, and his well-known father took an outstanding part in the organisation of the trade unions on the railways.
This body of proposals arises inevitably from the policy of the Government. I would not say that it is really the policy of the British Transport Commission. It arises out of a responsibility of, and an obligation placed upon, the Commission by the Government under the Transport Act, 1953. That Act placed upon the
134
Commission a responsibility to introduce a scheme of reorganisation. Section 16 required the scheme to provide for the setting up of the area authorities, adding that the area authorities could be individuals or bodies of persons.
There was, therefore, no question of leaving it to the Commission to decide whether area authorities were the best method to improve the organisation of our railway system. The Commission had merely to do what it was told to do in the Act by this Government, and it has now produced this Scheme as making the best of a bad job.
The Scheme's real core lies in paragraph 26. The more one reads that paragraph the more one is convinced that the Commission really does not believe that this Scheme will work for very long, or succeed in its object. In railway history over the last 40 or 50 years, the outstanding fact is that the first great measure of reorganisation followed—in my opinion inevitably—on the experience of the First World War. The second great step in that direction followed on our experience of the Second World War.
This Scheme, which the Transport Commission had been forced to produce, turns the wheel backwards. It is a reversion to the old ideas and ideals which were given voice to by an hon. Member whose constituency I cannot bring to mind.
Mr. Maclay: My constituency is Renfrew, West.
Mr. I. 0. Thomas: No, it was a Tory Member—the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) —who spoke even worse rubbish.
Mr. Maclay: That is impossible.
Mr. I. 0. Thomas: When I listened to that speech I thought that I was attending a juvenile debating society. One would have thought that all that was necessary was to split up the railway organisation, and to give those concerned special uniforms, a little train to play about with, and all the rest of it. A speech further divorced from reality could not be conceived.
If this Scheme goes through it will be an experiment that is bound to fail. There is no reality in it. Even though it be put forward as a scheme for the

135
devolution of authority from the Commission into the regions, the Commission itself, in all essentials will inevitably need to have a last word. And that will be a good thing. If, and heaven forbid that it should happen, an international upheaval occurs again, the people, and especially the Government which have the misfortune to be in power at that time, will curse the day when any scheme of this half-boiled character was ever put into operation.
The one thing we want in this country is a properly unified and co-ordinated system of transport, not merely of rail transport but of all forms of transport, instead of the atomic thinking about transport that has been characteristic of the Government, starting with the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, who was Minister of Transport. I hope that the Government's policy in colonial affairs will not be of such an atomic nature under his leadership as has been their policy for transport. This is not a scheme for the reorganisation of transport. It is a scheme for the disintegration of transport. I hope it will not come about. If it does come about it cannot have a very long life.
9.1 p.m.
Mr. David Jones: Earlier today I thought it would be appropriate to describe the right hon. Gentleman as a poacher turned gamekeeper, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) gave a description of him as the "arch-Quisling" come to judgment that seems more appropriate to the occasion. The original of this Scheme was presented to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor about May this year. It was presented to Parliament by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in July. The Order abolishing the Railway Executive and introducing the interim organisation came into operation on 1st October last.
Eleven months have elapsed between the time this document saw the light of day and that at which it comes to the judgment of this House, so that this House may pronounce upon it and in order that the next steps may be taken and the British Transport Commission can go ahead. In my view, and, I think, in the view of my hon. and right hon. Friends,
136
that is not playing fair by the Commission.
The present Secretary of State for the Colonies, when he occupied the position of Minister of Transport, said:
"Any detailed scheme for railway de-centralisation must, of course, be prepared by railway men, and I am not posing as a railway man, nor am I claiming that the Government of the day, in the Bill before Parliament, are attempting to draw in any great detail the form of de-centralisation which they have in mind, but this I do say: it is right that the Government of the day should lay down certain fundamental criteria."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1414.]
At least seven speakers—I think I am the eighth—in this debate who have had experience in the various departments of the railways have, with one notable exception, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), been critical of this setup. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor invited a scheme drawn up by railwaymen. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will have some regard for the criticisms that have been made of the Scheme by the clerical staff, the locomotive staff, the traffic staff—people who have spent long years of their lives on the railways and who know the railways from the inside, and who are, therefore, entitled to tell the right hon. Gentleman what they think is wrong with this Scheme.
The more we see and hear of the working out of the Transport Act, 1953, the more we become convinced that it was born in hate and is being worked out in disillusionment. As reported in HANSARD, column 1590, the Minister of Transport said, on 3rd December, 1952:
"It is our hopes that it will be possible to finish with the procedure of disposal by the end of the year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 1590.]
That was in December. I do not suggest that he meant 31st December, 1952, but I believe he meant 31st December, 1953. We are now nearing 31st December, 1954, and about 8.000 of the lorries have been sold.
The Minister will no doubt be conversant with what the world outside, particularly the Press, has had to say about the scheme which his predecessor put forward. I am not sure whether his excellent public relations department has called his attention to what the technical Press has had to say about the scheme.

137
In case the department has not done so. I will remind him.
This is what the "Railway Gazette" said, on 16th July, 1954:
"The White Paper gives little detail of these boards, but their creation would not seem to be either necessary or desirable. A great deal has been said about the need for, and the intention of, granting much greater autonomy and responsibility to the Chief Regional Managers. This we consider to be fundamentally sound, but, in our view the effect of creating boards is not in the least likely to assist this process. Either the boards will tend to become managerial in their functions, which will be bound to reflect adversely on the position of the Chief Regional Managers, or they will intervene between the Chief Regional Managers and the Commission, which will whittle down his direct access to that body, and thus reduce his authority, or they will be negligible parties of nonenties who will serve no useful purpose and thus had better never to have been created."
By no stretch of the imagination can the "Railway Gazette" be thought anything other than friendly to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government in most of its criticisms. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree, too, that the "Economist" cannot be regarded as very hostile to the present Government; but the "Economist" finds live area boards under the conditions laid down difficult to imagine and even more difficult to set up.
"The counterpoise between the Commission, the boards and the manager will be vague and difficult"
it says.
"Modern Transport" thought that there might be a tendency for the boards to usurp the authority of the Commission and, in striving for independence, to deprive the railway system of many benefits of unification. It said that the Chief Regional Managers should be responsible solely to the Commission, which must beware lest it finds itself saddled with six railway executives instead of one, one reason for abolishing the Railway Executive having been the removal of one layer in the management of nationalised railways. The right hon. Gentleman proposes now to restore that layer.
The following week the "Railway Gazette" returned to the topic:
"Further study of the proposals for reorganisation of the railway put forward in the White Paper, on which we commented last week, does little to dispel misgivings as to the suggested interposition of the regional boards between the B.T.C. and the Chief Regional
138
Managers…Apart from the fact of the regional boards, the very existence of which must prejudice the autonomy and responsibility of Chief Regional Managers, the Commission has emphasised that day-to-day management is to be left to the Chief Regional Manager and that the reorganisation of railways should be developed from the principles of the interim organization…"
I could go on to give the right hon. Gentleman comments by many other newspapers, but I thought I would content myself in the main with expounding the views of the technical Press. No doubt the Minister will have read the communication sent to him by the Trades Union Congress, or rather to his predecessor, so far back as 24th May. It has already been indicated what the Trades Union Congress think about this proposal. In particular, it considers that the area boards can serve no useful purpose.
"The duties allocated to the boards in the Scheme are, or can be, adequately performed by existing railway officers and the interpolation of the boards between the Commission and the Chief Regional Managers introduces an additional and unnecessary link in the chain of authority."
The General Council of the Trades Union Congress, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, is a responsible body, with a large number of people on it who have a great fund of knowledge and experience in the administration of industry, and who appreciate the need and necessity for an up-to-date railway system in this country to provide the arteries through which the economic lifeblood can flow to every part of the country. Therefore, what it has to say on this problem of railways seems to me to be very pertinent to the position.
The right hon. Gentleman may not have had very intimate consultations with the Central Transport Consultative Committee. His predecessor had some consultations with it. Indeed, on a previous occasion, the Central Transport Consultative Committee had some adverse comments to make upon the lack of notice which his predecessor had taken of some of its recommendations. The Central Transport Consultative Committee had something to say about what area schemes should contain. It said, in paragraph 5 of its annual report of 1953:
"we further recommended that the Commission, when preparing their schemes of reorganisation, should give us an opportunity of commenting upon their proposals before these were published. We had specially in mind: — (1) the preservation as far as practicable of the present regional boundaries of

139
the Railways. (2) The continuation of the control of wagon supply throughout the country by a central authority "—
The next paragraph is, I think, very important—
"(3) The setting up of a central organisation by the Commission to ensure that the economies and advantages of employing standardised units, both mechanical and otherwise, would be continued."
I think that the Minister ought to have some regard for what the Central Transport Consulative Committee has to say.
Indeed, the Commission itself had very grave doubts about this scheme—but, unfortunately the Commission was influenced—and it says so in paragraph 23, on page 10 of the White Paper:
"The Commission have in this connection studied not only the Act itself, but also the debates which took place in Parliament, and they have had in mind the special reference made to the case of Scotland."
It is no use hon. Gentlemen on the back benches opposite denying any responsibility for this Scheme. The Commission had to look over its shoulder and not only consider the contents of the Transport Act, 1953, but had to have regard, as it says in the White Paper, to the comments which were made in Parliament. I wonder whether that is the reason that area authorities are contained in the Scheme, in spite of the fact that the Commission felt that it would have been far better, having removed the third tier, as the Press described it, by the abolition of the Railway Executive, not to have imposed now a further third tier.
At least it can be said that while the Railway Executive was in existence the Minister had the opportunity, after consultation with the Commission, to make the appointment. But if this Scheme goes through in its present form, the whole of the 36 members, or as many as are appointed up to 36, will be appointed by the Commission and the right hon. Gentleman will have no control whatever over them. To that extent, at any rate, the position into which we now drift is worse than the original position.
The Commission states that it considered the debates that took place in Parliament. But in its 1952 Report the Commission had already conveyed its intentions about reorganising its method of control. From the introduction to the Report one gleans that in 1951 the Commission had submitted proposals to the
140
Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay).
"So far as railway reorganisation was concerned "—
said the 1953 Report—
"the Commission had, as mentioned above, already reached the conclusion that the three-tier organisation of Commission, Executive and Region was no longer suitable to flexible and commercial methods of management, and had communicated their views on this matter to the Minister at the end of 1951. The Government decided that any necessary changes must be dealt with under legislation, and the Act accordingly placed upon the Commission the duty of preparing a scheme for railway reorganisation for submission to the Minister."
I wonder whether that has any relationship to area boards of management, and whether the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West is not after all the nigger in the woodpile, who was not prepared to allow the Commission to go ahead with reorganisation in 1951 because he felt that the reorganisation which the Commission would establish would not allow his business friends to be put upon the area boards.
Mr. Maclay indicated dissent.
Mr. Jones: The right hon. Member for Renfrew, West shakes his head, but having regard to subsequent developments we are entitled to take that view.
Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member must realise that at that period a new Bill was under contemplation and there was bound to be a hold up of some things to see how the organisation would fit into a new scheme.
Mr. Jones: There was no new Bill.
Mr. Maclay: We cannot discuss something which was never made public, but clearly only a part of the proposals dealt with railway reorganisation.
Mr. Jones: If the right hon. Member hides behind Cabinet secrecy, I am entitled to express my point of view. But the White Paper on railway reorganisation was not submitted until May, 1952, and the ultimate Bill was not mentioned until the Gracious Speech at the beginning of the Session towards the end of 1952, 12 months afterwards.
I begin sometimes to wonder who was the author of the 1953 Transport Bill. I hold in my hand a book called "The Transport Act, 1953," by a gentleman called H. S. Vian Smith, and on the front

141
cover he is described as the Secretary of the Home and Transport Division of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. It says he was:
"closely concerned with the passage of the Act from its conception to its receiving the Royal Assent. As the representative of industry he took an active part in the discussions with the Government which led to its final shape, and few people are better qualified to explain the purpose of many of its most important sections."
No wonder the right hon. Gentleman repudiates his responsibility. Now we have the Association of Chambers of Commerce claiming the parentage of this—I am afraid it is not a Parliamentary word, otherwise I would use it.
The Commission, in paragraph 26—and apparently the Minister agrees with this because he commends this White Paper to the House, and one assumes that in commending it without amendment he agrees with it—says:
"The experience of the Commission between 1948 and 1953 has shown how essential it is that the authority of the Commission in the scheme of organisation should be absolute."
Further it goes on to say—and here again is the fear that has been behind almost every paragraph in this White Paper—
"There is a danger that by the establishment of boards as the area authorities an element productive of friction and lack of cohesion may be introduced."
The railway trade unions, to whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Labour paid magnificent tribute last December for their statesmanship in difficult circumstances, are concerned about the provisions of this White Paper, and they have said so in no uncertain way. They have voiced their opposition to the scheme, and who are better fitted to do so? The whole of the livelihood of their membership and the welfare of the families are wrapped up in the railways, and they have memories of inter-war years, when the cry for economy went out from the boardrooms of this country.
Do the Government mean the "economy" of those boards of directors which are very dear to the heart of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Indeed, in the White Paper there is a reference to the area boards being responsible for economy. What kind of economy? They
142
are responsible for appointments. Are they going to be responsible for dismissals, too? Is each separate unit in this country to have to carry its own redundancy in the way it did before the war, or is there to be some central Organisation to cover the problem if the present trade buoyancy should suffer a recession in six months' or 12 months' time, as might very well be the case?
If these area boards are to be responsible for economy, does it mean that they are going to determine the size of the staff, irrespective of considerations in other regions? But if, in spite of this apprehension, the area boards are to be proceeded with. we agree with this sentence:
"The Commission are, therefore, strongly and unanimously of the opinion that they alone should appoint the persons who would constitute the area authorities."
Indeed, we feel especially strongly about that, because we would not want the right hon. Gentleman to have the job of appointing 36 Quislings. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quislings?"] He made the charge that the people who undertook this work in nationalised industries would be Quislings, so presumably the right hon. Gentleman would have pleasure in appointing 36 Quislings, such is the fate of Parliamentary life in this country.
Mr. Renton: Would the hon. Gentleman describe the part-time members of the area boards for gas, electricity and coal, and the regional hospital boards as well as others of a similar character, in that way?
Mr. Jones: It was not me, it was the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport who described them as quislings. I thought they were doing a magnificent job and I still think so.
All I am saying in that connection is that we ought not to impose this third tier of part-time people. I am not saying that part-time people in their proper place are Quislings, because I think they do a good job. However, we on this side of the House are of the opinion that if area boards are to be appointed, they should be appointed in accordance with the methods laid down in paragraph I of the Second Schedule to the 1947 Act as it would give a much better basis. We

143
believe that the membership of those boards should be drawn from
"persons who have a wide experience and have shown capacity in transport, industrial, commercial or financial matters, in administration or in the organisation of the workers."
Article 5 (1, b) of the Scheme provides that area boards should have the function of:
"promoting initiative in improving the services and facilities afforded to the public on the railways, and in effecting economies."
Who better can be found to undertake this work with the least possible injury to the man on the job than someone who has had long experience in the organisation of the works?
If the Minister wants to secure loyalty and esprit de corps, both he and the Commission had better take fully into their confidence the organised workers. The best way to secure that is to give them responsibility, not to talk about giving them different uniforms in different regions. What the railwaymen of this country want is a decent uniform, not a different uniform.
I shall conclude by agreeing with those who have said that regional rivalry will not be secured by painting the coaches in the different regions a different colour. What happens in the case of the train running from Edinburgh to King's Cross or the train from Newcastle to Plymouth, when it runs through all the regions? Who will have the pride of colour? What utter nonsense to talk about a different uniform. I have no doubt that the next time one of the chief regional managers goes on a visit to the West of England in a special train, he will get all the men to line up on the platform as he goes by in order to see that their buttons are clean. It is a decent uniform they want, not a different uniform.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that unless this Scheme is altered and the area boards are eradicated from it, we shall reserve the right, when this Scheme again comes before the House, to vote against it. As the weeks and months go by and the consequences of the 1953 Act unfold themselves, it becomes plainer than ever that the fanatical attitude of the Government in applying a doctrinaire principle to this industry was taken up primarily to satisfy their paymasters in the country.
9.30 p.m.
The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I often think that debates on a Motion to take note of some document or other are the most valuable that we have in this House. In the nature of things there is less need for emphasis on divisions of principle between us and perhaps a greater willingness on both sides to concede that the black is not quite so black or the white so white. One also has the chance to make use, as the House is wise to do, of the wealth of experience and practical knowledge which exists on both sides of the House on topics of this sort.
Therefore, it seemed to me, and I have heard practically every speech which has been made today, that from the point of view of those of us who are concerned with the future of our railway system the debate has been very valuable. I hope to deal with a good proportion of the very large number of points, many of them helpful and constructive, which have been put. It might be convenient if I deal first with one or two major issues of principle and then, as far as I can, with the practical and detailed points.
I was glad to hear from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that the Opposition, in his own words, favour devolution and decentralisation. As I understood his very interesting speech, he and his hon. and right hon. Friends favoured a move towards decentralisation of control in our railway system. His quarrel was not with that main objective but rather that he disagreed with the particular methods which we are employing to effect it. Against that background it would be helpful if we could debate the matter not on the basis of whether, in general, control ought to be decentralised, but rather on the point of whether the methods put forward by the British Transport Commission and commended to the House in the White Paper by my right hon. Friend the present Colonial Secretary are, broadly speaking, sensible and useful.
I do not want to introduce undue polemics into the debate and therefore I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) in quoting who were in favour and who against these proposals. The hon.

145
Member quoted, quite legitimately, certain newspapers but, as the White Paper makes clear, there have been very wide consultations in this connection with a number of organisations which are set out in page 4 of the White Paper.
It is a fact that, broadly, with the exception of the T.U.C. and its Scottish opposite number, and certain reservations by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, a considerable number of important bodies have indicated a good deal of general agreement with the Scheme. Perhaps significant is the fact that that view has been taken by the Traders' Co-ordinating Committee on Transport, which includes and acts for a large number of important organisations.
I do not propose to debate this matter on the basis of what other people have said on the merits of the Scheme, but rather to seek to convince the House that those merits are merits which the House itself should broadly accept. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East asked me—and he has been good enough to indicate that he would like an answer —to clear up any doubt there may be as to where, under the Scheme, the chain of command will go. I willingly respond. The chain of command will be from the Commission to the board and from the board to the chief regional manager. That clear chain of command will not prevent, or interfere with in any way, the ordinary staff consultations which in any great organisation take place between the staff officers of the supreme and the staff officers of the subordinate body.
Many hon. Members have had experience of the operation of Army staffs. While the chain of command runs from the higher to the lower commanders, there is a constant contact, to and fro, between the various branches of the staffs at the various levels. That is a principle of organisation which goes fairly wide in large-scale organisations and, after all, here we are concerned with an organisation employing in this respect about 600,000 people. That is the chain of command.
The main argument has been as to the value, purpose and composition of the area boards themselves. I will deal with
146
those aspects of the boards in that order. Take, first, their value. I beg the House to think about this. It seems to me that it must be useful in each area to have working in close contact with the chief regional manager a number of people of wide general experience, of knowledge of the affairs of that area and of understanding of its problems in the widest sense.
I suggest that hon. Members should put themselves in the position of a chief regional manager. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) that these men have done an enormously strenuous and difficult job in recent years. If one put oneself in their position, would it not be a great help in one's job to be in contact with and able to refer to a number of people of good general experience, of common sense, and of understanding of the needs and feelings of the people of the area in which one was working?
If I put myself in the position of chief regional manager I should find it a great comfort and help to have the support of this kind of board. These boards will act not from the point of view of day-to-day executive management but both from the point of view of policy in its local aspects and of general guidance both to the regional manager and, by way of report on local conditions, upwards to the Commission.
I have been asked again and again what these boards would actually do when one got down to brass tacks. It is traditionally dangerous to pick out a particular example because the mere fact that one picks it out so often causes people to attribute to it peculiar, special and disproportionate importance. However, it might help to indicate one or two examples of the sort of things which one of these area board would do. To take one example, suppose it felt that the interests of the area demanded a really drastic revision of the railway timetables in that area. That is a matter which affects vitally—
Mr. Manuel: Good gracious. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman do better than that?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That affects profoundly the whole social life of the neighbourhood. If, for example, one alters the timing of the suburban railway services of a great urban area that has a profound effect on the social life of the area. I

147
am surprised that hon. Members who claim to understand these matters do not agree. That is a most important matter. calling for—
Mr. Collick Mr. Collick rose—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I really would ask the House to accept this. It calls for not only a knowledge of the technique of railway operation, but a knowledge of the economic and social needs of the area.
If hon. Members do not like that example, let us take another. We are hoping that when the new charges scheme has gone through the normal processes and been approved, the Commission will have very great freedom in arranging the rates. There, again, is a matter where local application, as certain speeches today have indicated, may have profound social and economic effects. I suggest that the application of such charges under the much freer system may be a matter which it is very appropriate indeed that an area board should be able to consider and decide upon within local limitations.
Those are only two examples. It will be appreciated that they are examples where—I beg the House to forgive me for repeating it, but it seems to us to be so important—it really is useful to have a board composed of people who are in contact with all the manifold activities of the area in which they work and have a knowledge of how the operation of the railway system acts and reacts upon the lives of their fellow citizens.
Mr. Popplewell: Will the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry; I cannot give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The hon. Member has made a good many interventions. I have 18 minutes left in which to answer a great many questions. If I give way to him I shall not be able to answer some of the other points which have been raised. The House will know that I am not normally unwilling to give way, but I ask the hon. Member to forgive me on this occasion.
The next question raised relates to the composition of the boards. I feel very strongly, as does the Commission, that the members of the boards should not be appointed on the basis of representing particular and special interests no matter how important those particular and
148
special interests may be. It is true, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East reminded us, that the 1947 Act proceeded on a different basis, but when one considers the functions that these boards are to perform, it seems better to have people appointed for their personal qualities and personal abilities rather than because they represent, and for the reason that they represent, particular interests. I must say that I think that members so appointed will feel somewhat freer to use their knowledge and discretion in helping the deliberations of the boards than if they represent a particular interest.
The specific point was raised, naturally and very properly, of the appointment of representatives of organised labour. As I have said, there is no intention to make appointments in the capacity of representative of any particular aspect of our life, but it is clear that in these days the trade unions occupy such a position in the life of the country that no body performing functions of the nature that these boards perform, which I have attempted to describe, would be sufficiently broadly constituted if trade unionists were omitted from the field of selection. The Commission is, in my view, quite right in standing out against representative boards, but I have been told by the Commission that it is counting upon the services of experienced trade unionists to assist it on its area boards.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick), the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell), and other hon. Members, went perhaps a little outside the narrow boundaries of the Scheme and raised some extremely important questions relating to the general administration of the railways and, in particular, the vital subject of investment, development and modernisation. No doubt, if I were to follow up their points on this Motion, you would call me to order, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps I can say this. I have been informed by the Chairman of the British Transport Commission that he hopes to present a plan for the re-equipment and modernisation of British Railways before the year ends. This plan will be of a drastic and exhaustive nature, based upon a reassessment of the future rôle of the railways in this country. A great deal of careful preparatory work has been necessary, and the plan is now before the Commission.

149
I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West, or the hon. Member for Birkenhead in political recriminations on the question of the provision of capital for the railways, but if I wanted to do so I could point out that it seems to have been the policy of all Governments since the war to give priority in capital investment to fuel and power, and to leave the transport industry somewhat towards the end of the queue. I only say that because I thought the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West was less than fair to my right hon. Friends when he referred to the starvation of the railways. There is, of course, an enormous amount of work to be done by way of modernisation, and the statement I have just made to the House as to the present position will, I hope, reassure hon. Members that we do intend to get on with this as soon as we can.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East had a little fun about "jobs for the boys," and he concocted the rather curious argument that this proposal involves an increase of the patronage at my disposal. I do not follow that argument. Under the Transport Act, 1947, the right hon. Gentleman who filled my present office had at his disposal some 63 appointments to the Commission and the six subordinate Executives. Under the provisions of the 1953 Act, under which this Scheme is made, that number is reduced to 24, and it is, therefore, really quite wrong for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that there is any increase in patronage in a development which has, in fact, reduced the amount of patronage to some 40 per cent. of what it was when the hon. Gentleman left office.
I am glad of that, because I feel that, as a matter of general political philosophy, it is a bad thing to concentrate in the hands of Ministers of the Crown too many appointments of this nature. I think it is right, when setting up these area boards, to place the appointment of their members not in the hands of Ministers but in the hands of the Commission, and, in that respect, I venture to differ both with the hon. Member for The Hartlepools and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies).
Mr. D. Jones: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. I said that the new set-up would
150
take away from him a number of appointments, and we think that right.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman; I am glad there is nothing between us. He appears to share our view that it is desirable to keep the number of appointments in the hands of Ministers down to as limited a number as possible, and, therefore, in this Scheme we are following that principle. I shall still have to settle with my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet afterwards.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) and a number of other hon. Members dealt with Article 9 of the Scheme and the provision of statistics. Hon. Members opposite seem to shy away from the production of any more statistics than are produced at present, but it is an important aspect of the matter to which I have been giving a good deal of attention in recent weeks. I fully share my hon. Friend's view that, if it were possible to devise a system of statistics or operating costs which could give a clear and reliable index of relative efficiency as between one area and another, there would be an overwhelming case for adopting such a system.
The difficulty is to find a system which really does that. Even before the war, when the four main-line companies were in private hands, 70 per cent. of the receipts of the railway were subject to a pooling system which depended upon a number of arbitrary assumptions. Since then, centralisation has gone further. For example, there is, under this Scheme, a centralised wagon pool. I am not sure that a straightforward profit-and-loss account would necessarily teach us very much. I am going further into this question, because the Commission and I are anxious to provide and publish statistics which will really enable the House and public opinion to judge sensibly on these matters.
My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary pointed out at an earlier stage of our debate that the Commission has appointed a commitee—my hon. Friend used the appalling phrase "working party," but I prefer to call it "a committee" —of a technical nature to work out a scheme for the giving of statistics which will really help in this connection. Meanwhile, if my hon. Friends will refer

151
to the Third Schedule of the Scheme they will see that a substantial amount of figures will continue to be given. I undertake, with the approval of the House, to pursue with the Commission the provision of further figures which will help in this respect.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) raised a number of important points on paragraphs 7, 8 and 10 of the Scheme. Paragraph 7 enables the Minister to appoint authorities other than area authorities, and my right hon. Friend asked what was in contemplation. There is no immediate intention of making use of this provision but as time goes on the Commission may desire to delegate to a non-area body such matters as control of the wagon pool to which I have referred. That would be more a matter of administrative convenience but in view of the terms of the 1953 Act it seemed to the Commission and to me right and straightforward to put this matter under that Act rather than to rely on the powers of the Commission under the Act of 1947.
I was asked a number of details by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro about the delegation under paragraph 10 of powers to area boards other than on railway matters. In particular, I was asked as to the possibility of bus services being placed under area authorities. I can reassure my hon. Friend. If he will look at the Scheme he will see that what may be delegated is the functions of the Commission. The Commission's interest in bus services consist, as my hon. Friend will know, of its ownership of the shares. I understand that that function of ownership is not one that may be delegated under this paragraph. Apart altogether from that point, ownership of the companies gives the Commission very wide powers over those companies. The real effect of this provision is negligible.
As I understand, it would be possible to place the bus companies that the Commission owns in a very close relationship with the area boards. This Scheme could not add to that power. In any event, in view of the reference to functions, it is improbable as a matter of law, I understand, that it could do so. It is possible, however, that there may be certain minor activities which, as time goes on, the Commission may desire to put under the
152
area authorities, and I think it is extremely important that it should be free to do so without it being necessary to produce another scheme.
My general approach, and the Government's general approach, to this matter has been this. We are here concerned with a great trading organisation, and it would be wrong if when that organisation wants to make adjustments, which experience dictates making in the case of all great trading organisations, too close and definite a scheme approved under Statutory Instrument by this House were to tie the Commission down so that even small adjustments could not be made without reference to this House, and, therefore, might well not be made at all.
As my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, we have sought to give flexibility to the Scheme because we are not here dealing with a Government Department or a direct exercise of Government authority, in which case, I concede, it is generally proper for there to be the strictest limitation of the powers given. We are here concerned with a great publicly-owned trading concern, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious not to cripple that concern by too close and detailed a regimentation of it under the scheme. I am sure, when one looks upon it as a trading concern which has to fight and live in the competitive position of today, that it is absolutely essential that it should not be tied down too tightly.
My right hon. Friend asked two other questions relating not to the Scheme, but to the transport users' consultative committee. I noted his point both about the Secretariat and about the Transport Commission members of the consultative committee. Coming from him, these observations require very careful consideration, and I am very grateful to him for making them.
I ask the House to look at the Scheme in this light. A good deal of hard work and thought have been given to trying to evolve a Scheme which will help our railway system to operate efficiently in the very difficult situation which it faces. Anyone who knows anything about our railway's knows that they have been through a rather difficult time. War and the aftermath of war, political changes, and so on, have created their problems. None the less, we have the asset of the

153
finest technical knowledge and of the best railway staff in the world. We believe that, given proper freedom to use that asset, the railways can bring about their own recovery.
This Scheme is designed in all honesty and sincerity in an endeavour to try to assist in that move towards greater freedom and flexibility in railway administration which we believe to be essential for the success of our railways in the fiercely competitive conditions of the latter part of the the 20th century. It is in that spirit that these proposals have been conceived, and it is in that spirit that I know the House will consider them.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on the Railways Reorganisation Scheme presented to Parliament by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Command 9191).

HOSPITAL ENDOWMENT SCHEMES, SCOTLAND
9.59 p.m.
Mr. A. Woodburn: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh and Associated Hospitals Endowments Scheme) Approval Order, 1954 (S.I., 1954 No. 1296), dated 27th September, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th October, be annulled.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I propose to discuss, at the same time, the general principles of the other four Prayers which are on the Order Paper in my name and those of my hon. Friends.
Mr. Speaker: Is that procedure agree- able to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman?
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith)indicated assent.
Mr. Speaker: Then I think it would be for the convenience of the House if that procedure were followed.
Mr. Woodburn: We have tabled these Prayers not, of course, because we want them to be accepted by the House. The last thing we should want is that we should ask Her Majesty the Queen to annul the Orders which have been placed before the House.
154
One purpose is to mark an important step in the completion of the task which was set the Hospital Endowments Commission in Scotland to distribute the endowments referred to it under the 1947 Act. A second purpose is to give the House and the Government an idea of what, from a public point of view, are the desirable improvements in hospital amenities and other services which are expected to flow from the distribution of these endowments; in some cases their restoration and in others a spreading out of the endowments.
First, I believe myself—and on behalf of the House, so far as I can speak for it —that it is desirable to express our thanks to the Hospital Endowments Commission for its good work, and especially to Sir Sydney Smith, who was the chairman and who has carried out the supervision of this matter. It is fortunate that this Commission was set up at a time when it became necessary for us to consider establishing an organisation in Scotland for the development of research. Sir Sydney Smith was a member of the small group of surgeons, heads of hospitals and heads of universities who met me to consider the setting up in Scotland an organisation for the co-ordination of research.
Sir Edward Appleton, who became the chairman of that advisory council on research, recently gave up that position on the formation of the Scottish Hospital Endowments Research Trust. I think we ought to express our appreciation of the work which Sir Edward Appleton did. It has led eventually to the establishment of what, I 'believe, will be an organisation that will lead to tremendous results in Scotland in the future.
As I say, it was fortunate that the Hospital Endowments Commission was meeting at the same time because, of course, research work requires money. This was obviously a very desirable object for the Commission to consider when allocating the funds placed at its disposal by the nation when making it responsible for the running of the country's hospitals. By the 1953 Act the House allocated an income of £120,000 a year to the Scottish Hospital Endowments Research Trust. Sir John Erskine, now the chairman of the Trust, has reported that it is in good heart and has already started to extend research work.

155
We now come to the other part of the Hospital Endowments Commission's responsibility, which is the distribution of this money throughout the different hospitals in Scotland. In these Orders the Commission itself has laid down the general principles that have guided it in making these allocations. I am sure the House will agree that those principles are perfectly sound. Suggestions are made in the Orders for the use of endowments. Several are mandatory—presumably because they come from the original purpose of the funds. The Orders lay down that these will be part of the schemes to which they shall have regard in allocating the moneys; for instance, for medals for nurses and for various other desirable purposes.
I am certain that all of us would endorse these purposes, so there is no point in my enumerating them, but the House tonight has an opportunity of suggesting other possibilities, and one of the first things we should consider recommending to the hospitals is that part of these funds should be used for raising the esprit de corps and spirit of enthusiasm in the nurses of Scotland. That is desirable because it is important to recruit nurses.
Nurses, in the old days, were paid largely by honour and they got very little money. It was possible, of course, to get many nurses who were prepared to make that sacrifice. That is not possible today. It has been possible in the last few years to raise the emoluments of nurses, and from the material point of view they are probably in a better position now than they ever were, but that is not enough without the desire for service, which is, perhaps, the mainspring of a girl's devotion to the nursing profession.
We are very fortunate in the nurses we have, and we can pay them honour for the splendid work they do, but many more nurses are required, especially for some troubles the recruiting for the nursing of which is not so easy. Therefore, it is desirable to encourage the spirit of faith in the nurses, and I think that the proposed awarding of these medals is a good thing.
There is no point, however, in confining that proposition to the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, and I think that this scheme should be extended far
156
beyond the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. It may be possible to make a general acknowledgment of our appreciation of the nurses by providing an opportunity for sending the best nurses from, say, Glasgow and Edinburgh and Aberdeen once a year to a conference, or to a public exhibition illustrative of nursing work and acknowledging the services nurses render to the community.
We can never repay the nurses for all they do, but at least the public could acknowledge its gratitude to them, and I think some way should be sought of expressing that public acknowledgment. I remember that Tom Johnston brought schoolgirls to Edinburgh to engage in a baking competition and preparing a meal, and the Queen then, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, presented the prizes. There is no question but that that kind of celebration provides an incentive to people, gives them encouragement to carry on with their work.
I think there could also be travelling scholarships for nurses, to take them to other parts of the country and even other parts of the world, so that they could see nursing and hospital work elsewhere.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I was very patient while the right hon. Gentleman developed his first proposition, but there is nothing in these Orders about this suggestion, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we may discuss now only what is in the schemes.
Mr. Woodburn: These endowments are for a very wide set of purposes, and are handed to the hospitals to carry out all kinds of work. It is quite true that the ones I have mentioned are specific, but I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that, as I am advised, the width of the possibilities in the uses of these endowments is practically unlimited, and that, apart from the five or six specific items, the endowments are entirely at the discretion of the boards of management. Therefore, I would respectfully submit that it is possible for us to suggest some possible uses for the endowments.
The greatest possibility of improvement in hospitals lies, I should say, in the conditions of the out-patients' departments. Waiting at hospitals is still a great problem. I agree that there is a difficulty about time-tables.

157
In most waiting rooms which we have seen there is a Spartan severity which adds to the fearsomeness of the experience of patients who come to a hospital partly in apprehension and partly in hope. If they have to sit for a long time in waiting rooms, something might be done to brighten the rooms. The patients do not know whether they will have to wait minutes or hours before the arrival of the surgeon, and when they are counting the minutes in such an atmosphere it becomes distressing for them.
The best conditions which I have seen in my travels have been in the Crichton Royal Institution, Dumfries, and, curiously enough, in the Dumfries Infirmary, where there was a system of appointments, where the waiting room was laid out in an extremely attractive fashion and where little tables were provided so that people could sit around them awaiting their turn without having to sit on hard seats and stare at blank walls.
The Royal Infirmaries in Edinburgh and Glasgow recognise the problem, but have great difficulties through congestion and lack of buildings, with no room to expand. Now that money is available there must be some possibility of improvements, however. Reception nurses might be appointed with the duty of seeing that patients are given an idea as to when they will be called, so as to relieve their minds.
It might now be possible to make even the existing waiting rooms much brighter and more hospitable. The Westminster Hospital, for instance, gives a very different impression from that given by the rather Spartan accommodation in some places, which was provided largely because, when the hospitals were built, no money was available for luxurious accommodation.
It might be possible to provide a brighter tea-room so that if patients are to be kept for an hour or two they can be allowed to go to the tea-room. I do not see why there should not be a public address system by which they could be called to the ward, or wherever they are required, some time in advance of the physician or surgeon wanting to see them. I will not go into many details, but I throw these out as suggestions for consideration. There might be better suggestions.
158
These funds will make it possible for hospitals to consider these problems in quite a different way from that in which they were considered previously when no money was available. In those days the money had to be devoted to the hospital itself and to the purpose of healing. That is now the responsibility of the State. Even during my time in office it was clear to me that the State would not quickly be able to fulfil all its responsibilities-; in other words, with the hospital budgets then developing, the time when these amenities could be provided was getting further and further away and the State was in the same position as that of the hospitals in the past in that it could not afford to do these things. The hospitals now have this money through the boards of management to use at their discretion for the benefit of the hospital, the staff, outpatients and others.
It would be wrong to conclude without paying tribute to the work of these great hospitals. I have had personal experience of the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and I have visited hospitals all over Scotland. Some of my colleagues have had more recent personal experience of Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and they have nothing but the highest praise for the treatment which they receive. I have had a letter today from a lady who has undergone an operation, and she says,
"I have had a marvellous rest and every one tells me that I look a picture of health. The kindness and attention which I have received here is wonderful and I cannot speak too highly of the Royal Infirmary."
That could be repeated about almost every one of our Scottish hospitals, and we ought to pay tribute to the care which is shown there, sometimes in very difficult conditions. Those of us who have had personal experience of it can reinforce that tribute with great warmth. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) have spent a considerable time in the care of the surgeons. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy has perhaps had more experience of these hospitals than any other of my hon. Friends, and I am quite sure that if he had been able to be here he would have spoken with deep appreciation of what has been done for him.

159
These funds should give us an opportunity of warming up the precincts of the hospital and providing a little necessary upholstery. It should provide the means of warming the dry bones of the Spartan system which we had to endure when every penny was devoted to buildings and nothing to amenities. Here we have an opportunity to develop, and I hope that as a result of this step forward in Scotland the distribution of this money to hospitals which, in the past, had no money for this purpose will make a complete difference to in-patients and out-patients, and that those who visit the patients will recognise the benefits which flow from this change which has now been made.
10.16 p.m.
Mrs. Jean MannI do not wish to detain the House very long on a subject on which, I think, we are more or less agreed. We are very glad to acknowledge that there are such things as endowments, and doubtless each of us would have a different way of disposing of endowments. On the whole, I think that we might agree with the provisions here, but there are three points which I should like to mention.
The first is, what sort of instruments are our surgeons using in Scottish hospitals? Are they thoroughly up-to-date? Are the surgeons criticised or frowned upon if they ask for instruments in keeping with those which they had used in, let us say, Westminster Hospital? If certain instruments are necessary for Westminster Hospital, then I think that it is wrong to expect some of our Glasgow surgeons to go on using outmoded instruments, simply because they were good enough for the surgeons of 20 or 30 years ago.
I know that it probably means capital outlay and not just ordinary revenue expenditure. It may mean capital expenditure for an instrument costing £500. If it is necessary, I think that the endowment fund might be expended to modernise the instruments which are in the hands of our young surgeons in the hospitals in Scotland.
The second point is in regard to the expenditure on medical research. Paragraph 12 of the Order states:
"Before deciding to expend on any one research project any sum exceeding £1,000 the Board shall consult the Advisory Committee on Medical Research in Scotland."
160
We are all very glad to know that attention is being directed more and more to the necessity of research, but should not the scope be narrowed and the amount increased? I think that we ought to explore new channels, because we have largely conquered many of the past terrors by means of the sulphanamide and antibiotic groups, and I think that research could be narrowed to coronary and other distressing ailments that are taking away, not only old lives but young ones. I hope that instead of there being a widespread expenditure on research, we might narrow it into channels that at the moment are proving distressing to the medical profession.
On the Order relating to the Glasgow South-Western Hospitals Endowments Scheme, there are awards to nurses which I find myself comparing with the awards for the nurses in connection with the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh
Commander Galbraith: Surely the hon. Lady realises that these are the continuations of endowments given for that purpose to the hospital, and which are being continued for that purpose.
Mrs. Mann: I am glad of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's help in pointing that out—it is just as I thought; but I must draw attention to the fact that there is a sum of £1 as a prize for a nurse in Shieldhall Hospital,
"to be known as the Sister Barrie prize"
whereas in the Edinburgh Order the first item is the sum of £100
"on the provision of medals, prizes and scholarships …"
What have the Edinburgh girls got that the Glasgow girls have not got?
Mr. E. G. Willis: They have an endowment.
Mrs. Mann: Edinburgh has a certain superiority, apparently, over Glasgow, even down to the distribution of awards to nurses. To hand out £1 as a prize to a nurse is rather insulting. I can imagine her telling her friends that she has been awarded the Sister Barrie prize. Her friends would congratulate her and say. "Oh, congratulations! How much?" Then, the nurse might say, "A lousy £1, but if I were in Edinburgh, the award might rise to 100 guineas."

161
The second item in the Edinburgh Order is the sum of £10 per annum
"on the provision of a prize for a student nurse in the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh to be awarded for proficiency in the theory and practice of dietetics …"
The study of dietetics is, of course, important, but not so very important in the profession of a nurse, because she should not be in the kitchen.
Mr. Willis: Surely it is the continuation of an endowment.
Mrs. Mann: I suggest that the continuation of the £10 might be reduced to £5 and that the girl in the Shieldhall Hospital, who at present gets £1, might get £5 also.
Commander Galbraith: The honour is not in the amount of money, but in getting the Sister Barrie prize.
Mrs. Mann: Now that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has enlightened me so far, can he further enlighten me as to why the prizes are so mean in Glasgow but on a more appropriate scale in Edinburgh?
Mr. Thomas Steele: Glasgow is no mean city.
Mrs. Mann: It is, according to these awards.
Then, in the Glasgow Order there is
"The sum of three pounds for the provision of prizes for nurses in the Southern General Hospital …"
That hospital has been doing marvellous work. It caters for every class of the community and has a splendid staff of nurses. Such a sum for professional prizes is humiliating. I am merely asking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman if it is possible to bring these awards more into line with present-day practice.
The last item is another £2 10s. for the nurses in the Southern General Hospital to be known as the Catherine Marson prizes. These are totally different from the four items in the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, the first of which is £100, the second £10, the third £10, and in the case of the fourth, the board is from time to time to decide the conditions governing the award of the Affleck medal.
I want to make an appeal to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell us in his reply why it is not possible to raise
162
the standard value of the prizes in Glasgow to that of the Edinburgh ones. I am fully convinced that the nurses in Glasgow are at least equal to the nurses in Edinburgh. I will not stimulate controversy by making a statement any stronger than that.
10.27 p.m.
Mr. George Lawson: I should like to sound a note of apprehension about the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann). The apprehension arises on her suggestion about the income derived from this fund and its possible uses. One of the first arguments she advanced was that it might be used to assist some young surgeon to obtain the instruments for his profession. As I understand it, that is very far from being the use to which it should be put, and I should be very much concerned if the money were used for any such purposes.
I hope the money will not be employed for the normal purpose of running a hospital. This money cannot be used at the discretion of the board of management, with certain limitations, and it is with those in the paragraphs defining the use to which the money can be put that I am concerned, and on which I wish to speak for a very short time this evening. I agree with the main limitation that has been imposed, for although it is in two parts it is really a single limitation. The first part lays down that a board of management shall not be permitted to spend a sum exceeding £1,000 on any one research project without consulting the Research Advisory Council for Scotland.
The second part of that limitation states that no board of management shall be permitted to spend a sum exceeding £1,000 on any one building project or on any other project that is not a simple replacement of some piece of equipment or plant. Those limitations are wise. I think, for example, it is wise to control the research work engaged in by one group of hospitals, more especially as in Scotland we shall be setting up an institute which will be concerned with this question of research. It seems wise that, before any group of hospitals engages in any research work of a character which is going to cost more than £1,000, there should be consultation. It does not mean that the hospitals would not be permitted to engage in that work. It is in order

163
to avoid duplication of research work that this wise provision is introduced.
Similarly, with the single expenditure on any one item of a sum exceeding £1,000, it seems wise that the hospital, or group of hospitals, should be obliged to consult the regional hospital board. Again it does not follow that the board will disallow this expenditure, but it is wise to have that type of consultation, so I approve of this limitation.
On the other hand, I am delighted to read in the Orders that the boards of management are to be allowed to spend the funds or income obtained from the funds—not the capital, of course—more or less at their discretion. Until I was elected to this House, I was a member of a hospital management board covering the Royal Victoria and associated group of hospitals in Edinburgh. The members of that board showed a great concern for the well being of the group of hospitals under their charge, but there is no doubt that their scope of action was limited, in the sense that everything they spent, or proposed to spend, came under the close scrutiny of some higher authority.
The income from these funds will work out at about £2 per bed per annum, and will at least provide a measure of scope for initiative on the part of those boards. I have sufficient confidence in them to believe that they will spend the money on projects of a character designed to enhance the well being of the patients primarily under their charge. I can think of many things upon which they might spend money, items that would not normally be covered. For example, those hospitals which have inmates who stay for a long period might improve the library service at the disposal of those patients, especially hospitals concerned with infectious diseases which find that it is not easy to get a sufficiency of books.
It may be that on the basis of such money they can provide means for enabling patients to entertain themselves. It may be that they might help to provide occupational therapy, for which it is difficult to obtain the tools. It may be that they can help nurses. I should not like the money to be spent in, say, providing modern beds for nurses, although I am aware that it is sometimes difficult to persuade young nurses to sleep in old-fashioned ones, because I think it is the
164
duty of the service to provide suitable beds for them. However there are no doubt many other small things which could be added to the amenities of a hospital to make it attractive both to nurse and patient.
May I stress the point of leaving to the discretion of the boards of management the spending of this income as they think fit? We hear a great deal in present-day society about bureaucracy. Those who talk of the despotism of bureaucracy in our society are doing an unwarranted injustice to our civil servants and, apart from that, I suggest that they fail to recognise the great extent to which our social services are dependent upon voluntary assistance.
They fail to recognise the extent to which our social insurance services are dependent upon those large numbers of appeal tribunals functioning day in and day out throughout the country on an unpaid basis, with the exception of the legal man who is there as chairman. They fail to recognise the very large number of people engaged in running this voluntary hospital service, the large number of members of the boards of management who are not paid at all, save for fares and similar expenses. That is voluntary service given in the running of our society.
I think that this provision will be good for democracy. I am pleased that it has taken this form, and I am happy to have this opportunity of commending, from my own personal knowledge, slight though that may be, the excellence of the service being rendered by the many voluntary workers in our hospital service.
10.36 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Oswald: It is not my intention to burden the House for very long, having regard to the fact that this is a short Scottish debate and that many Scottish Members travelled all last night and are still here at this late hour. However, being privileged to represent the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, which is in my constituency, I should like to pay tribute to the whole of the staff of that institution. I say that with every respect, because, both medically and surgically, the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary is known all over the world.
Like those of my colleagues who have already spoken, I have been looking very closely at the provision of prizes for nurses, and to the fact that the sums

165
enumerated in the Order are a continuation of endowments for specific purposes. My only criticism is that those prizes, even in the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, are, in my opinion, quite insufficient and offer no real incentive after the magnificent work performed by the nurses in that institution. These nurses cannot be classified as industrial workers; they can in no way qualify for piece work, bonuses or output or tonnage allowances, which might otherwise be at least some incentive, although they have a tremendous amount to do after the hard day's work is done.
Paragraph 10 (a) says that each year there shall be applied
"the sum of one hundred pounds on the provision of medals, prizes and scholarships"
in the plural, and yet only £100 is allowed, whereas elsewhere specific sums are given for individual prizes, in one instance for a student nurse, or for the benefit of nurses in the Royal Infirmary as the board sees fit.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) pointed out that something might be done to provide amenities during waiting periods for patients who might have to wait for attention when undergoing treatment. I am happy to say that two weeks ago I learned that a considerable amount of research on this subject has gone on in the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, and it is hoped to have a full report ready in a very short time.
Perhaps there could also be a speedier turn-round—if I might use an expression used very largely in dockland—of patients awaiting attention in the dispensary after having been given medical or surgical treatment. Patients have to wait before being attended to by doctors or surgeons, and then after treatment they have to spend a considerable time waiting in the dispensary before being supplied with the appropriate medicines or instruments to assist them to recuperate.
I think we ought if we can, to persuade the Minister to see that a greater sum of money is spent on the maternity hospitals. A considerable sum might, for instance be spent on the great Simpson Memorial Pavilion, the annexe to the Edinburgh Infirmary to improve conditions for all, including nurses, patients and members of their families and friends who wait. In this respect, I am thinking of the young
166
husbands who, waiting for the news to be broken that they have become fathers, are in many instances worse than the patients. I welcome the suggestions in these Orders, and hope that the Minister will examine the suggestions made from this side of the House with the intention of seeing that they are brought to fruition at an early date.
10.41 p.m.
Mr. E. G. Willis: I should like to make one or two points briefly about the Orders dealing with the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and associated hospitals. I think that a good job of work has been done here by the Commission, but I cannot understand why the almoner's fund should disappear. It is a useful fund, which could have been continued. I support the suggestion from this side about the use of money to try to improve the status of nurses.
My third point relates to paragraph 13. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) that paragraphs 12 and 13 are necessarily good. Paragraph 12 deals with the amount to be spent on medical research, and in spending it the board consults the advisory committee on medical research. That is understandable, because it is only an advisory committee and has no power to stop the money being spent. But, in the case of any project or acquisition on which the board desires to proceed, or for the provision of any one piece of equipment which involves expenditure of more than £1,000, the board must obtain the consent of the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board. I think that this power might have been left with the hospital management board.
In the case of the Edinburgh Infirmary and associated hospitals, the size of the endowments indicate the esteem in which the institution is held in the south-east of Scotland. The management board, I think, is well fitted to be trusted with the job of spending more than £1,000 without having to obtain the consent of the regional board, and it seems to me that for the infirmary not to be able to spend more than £1,000 for a piece of equipment without obtaining the consent of the regional board is unwarranted. If paragraph 13 had read, "The Board shall not, without consultation with the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board" —that would have been sufficient. I can under-

167
stand consultation to avoid duplication, but having had that consultation, it could be left to the good sense and discretion of the hospital board, which for many years has administered this institution in an admirable manner, to spend the money properly without the need to obtain consent being imposed.
10.45 p.m.
Mr. William Hannan: We all try to be brief when it comes to this time of night, but remarks made earlier have provoked a thought or two which I should like to express. I should like to return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann). She drew attention to the small sums which are mentioned in paragraph 8 of the Schedule to the National Health Service (Glasgow South-Western Hospitals Endowments Scheme) Approval Order.
There is a sum of £15 for the provision of prizes for nurses in the Southern General Hospital. It would be interesting to know how many nurses are involved, and also how many are involved in the further prize of £2 10s. for nurses. The House should note that the word is in the plural in each case. What sum is likely to accrue to any one of the nurses concerned?
There is a proviso in the Order that
"…nothing contained in this section shall preclude the Board from perpetuating the name of any endowment included in the Endowments Fund."
That would mean that the board cannot alter the name of any fund; but there appears to be no power to prevent the board changing the purpose of a fund. Is it not possible to provide under the Order that one or two trusts could be combined to ensure bigger prizes for nurses? We should be interested to have some information along these lines from the Joint Under-Secretary.
10.48 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I am sure that the House is very grateful to the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and his hon. Friends for initiating a debate on these schemes with reference to endowments. Before I speak generally on the subject in reply to him, I should like to take up
168
one or two points that have been made in the debate, particularly that made by the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) and those who followed her, with regard to those endowments which are mentioned as prizes for nurses.
The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) clearly understood that these are endowments which are being continued. I would draw the attention of the House to Section 8 of the 1947 Act, which requires the Hospital Endowments Commission to have special regard to
"(a) the spirit of the intention of the founders or donors of the endowments to which the scheme relates and in particular to conditions intended to preserve the memory of any person or class of persons;…"
It was for that reason that I drew the attention of the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie to the prizes which she did not consider much of an honour. I pointed out that the honour was connected with the name of the endowment.
There is nothing to stop the board of management from giving other prizes with the endowments. It is left entirely to their discretion. Therefore, I do not think that there is need to beat that horse any more. The board are free to extend the prizes. The endowments specifically mentioned are in continuation of the wish of people who gave sums of money for that purpose, probably many years ago.
I should like to join with the right hon. Gentleman—and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would also join with him—in paying a tribute to the work done by Sir Sydney Smith and his colleagues; and I gladly pay a further tribute to Sir Edward Appleton for the work which he has done, joining with all those, both inside this House and elsewhere, who have expressed their thanks to him.
I think the House will find that the Endowments Commission has done its work in a very fair-minded way. It has tackled that work with the utmost impartiality, and it has been greatly helped by the full measure of assistance afforded it by the hospital management boards, to whom the endowments were transferred under the 1947 Act. As hon. Members may know, the principle of allocation for the hospital endowments was settled

169
by that Act—under which the Commission was constituted with power to transfer endowments from one board of management to another, or to a regional hospital board. Then we had the Hospital Endowments Act, 1953, which set up the Hospital Endowments Research Trust, and extended the powers of the Commission to enable them to transfer endowments to the Research Trust. The general principles governing this were mentioned by an hon. Member tonight and are contained in the memorandum which has been circulated and are, therefore, presumably known to hon. Members.
The Commission has established that every board shall have a reasonable Endowments Fund at its disposal, and the regional boards will have small sums in their possession to meet contingencies as they arise, and the Research Trust will get something in the region of £100.000 a year from the total of about £450,000 a year. I think the House will agree that, in handling this vast amount, the Commission must have consideration of various matters. It is not just a matter of simple arithmetic. No board of management will be left with less than £2 a bed, and many boards will have considerably more than that. The Commission is a responsible and impartial body, entrusted with this work by the 1947 Act, and I am glad that the feeling of the House is that it should have left the boards with full discretion and not tied them down, except in some respects concerning research and new buildings and equipment.
As the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) indicated, we do not want to waste money on research work. We have a lot set aside for that purpose now, and the kind of work which we should like to see going on is that being done in different hospitals at present. If there is a desire to go beyond this £1,000 limit, it is only right that the advice of the advisory committee should be sought. If it is a question of a lot of money, then the regional board concerned should be consulted. If thousands of pounds are to be spent on, say, a new building, there might otherwise be interference with the work of the regional hospital board.
It is not the intention to divert endowment income to meet what is called
170
ordinary hospital expenditure. The funds will undoubtedly provide a very useful source of expenditure on marginal items —things which, while perhaps not necessities, add to the comfort of patients and staff.
Mr. Willis: The point I made was that in order to spend more than £1,000 on new equipment, it was not simply a question of consulting the regional hospital board but of getting permission. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument was that it was reasonable to expect consultation. I agree, but it seems to put the board of an institution, such as the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, in a rather absurd, a rather derogatory, position to say that it must go to somebody else.
Commander Galbraith: I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I do not want to argue the case with him now. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire mentioned many matters on which he thought endowments might be spent. I thought that they were all very excellent ideas, but it will be for the boards themselves to decide. No doubt the publicity given to his remarks will convey to the boards the kind of thing that he would like to see the money being spent on.
Tea rooms, public address systems, improved out-patient waiting rooms and all that sort of thing come under the heading to which I referred. No doubt they will be in the minds of the boards. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) spoke about the almoner's fund having been discontinued. The general powers under the scheme cover that already, and no doubt if the almoner wants money for a purpose which the board approve the money will be forthcoming.
I conclude by again expressing my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends for initiating the debate, which I think has served a very useful purpose.
Mr. Woodburn: I thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MORELLE LIMITED v. WATERWORTH (JUDGMENT)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]
10.59 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Ever since I was elected to represent Brixton in 1945, I have had complaints from constituents about the activities of a very elusive property owner masquerading under various names from accommodation addresses. The best known of these fictitious names was D. Brady.
The course of events has revealed the existence of a slum empire, cunningly operated, with a degree of victimisation and villainy startling in scope and ruthless in its operation. When warrants for the arrest of Brady for non-compliance with court orders, obtained by local authorities under the Health Act, became numerous, the Brady nom de plume was discarded.
In order to guard and preserve the slum empire and keep it in being, a regiment of limited liability companies was formed, some registered in this country, some in Dublin. When it was necessary to bully, blackmail and swindle tenants or prospective purchasers of the slum properties in question, English companies threatened proceedings against the unfortunate victims. When, however, a local authority found it necessary to take proceedings to recover rates, for example, it was either impossible to find out the real owner, or it was discovered that the ownership had been transferred to an Irish company outside the jurisdiction of the British courts. The head and centre of the complicated mass of trickery was discovered to be Arthur Bertram Waters, of 16, Alleyn Road, West Dulwich.
I came to the conclusion that the way to get at the slippery rogue who was the real owner of these properties was to "smoke" him out of the labyrinth in which he had lurked so long. For this reason, I took every opportunity to advise my constituents, whether tenants or purchasers, to stop paying rents or mortgage repayments. The most effective way to deal with a slum racketeer is
172
to hit him where it hurts most—in his pocket. Even if Waters ends in prison, that would not necessarily recompense all the people whose lives and living conditions he has made miserable and intolerable for many years, and whom he has swindled and blackmailed.
When the slighted tenants and purchasers became sufficiently widespread, Waters had to come into the open so far as to appear as plaintiff at the Lambeth County Court to protect his ill-gotten gains. I am glad to say that while he may have been able to escape the net of the criminal law, the learned judge proved to be a nut too difficult for Waters and his legal advisers to crack, even on appeal. If I may say so without undue complacency, the campaign upon which I embarked has so far yielded more satisfactory results than the combined efforts of Scotland Yard, the Director of Public Prosecutions, or the Law Officers of the Crown. It culminated in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Morelle Limited v. Waterworth on 16th June.
The plaintiff company was Irish, being one of many operated by Waters. Ever since I have been trying to find out what the Law Officers of the Crown intended to do about this judgment, in which Lord Justices Singleton, Denning, and Morris upheld the decision of the learned judge at the Lambeth County Court. The law has now been made clear, as will be seen from extracts from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which I shall read.
Lord Justice Singleton quoted the judgment of the county court judge, in which the county court judge said,
"Before a company can hold land as part of its permanent possessions a licence in mortmain is necessary; the principal Acts are those of 1888 and 1891. Under those Acts land may not be held by a corporation save-by licence from the Crown unless the company is incorporated or registered under the Companies' Act. Companies not incorporated or registered have no right to hold land unless they have a licence."
Lord Justice Singleton, in his judgment, said,
"I agree with the county court judge, and in my view the appeal should be dismissed."
Lord Justice Singleton, in his judgment, expressed himself as follows:
"The case gives rise to some interesting speculations, which have been mentioned. One.

173
is that if the company has not a place of business in this country it is rather difficult to serve it with notices under the Housing Acts or under other Acts."
He went on to draw attention to Section 407 (1, c) of the Companies Act, 1948, and to the provision requiring that:
"… the names and addresses of some one or more persons resident in Great Britain authorised to accept on behalf of the company service of process and any notices required to be served on the company."
That applies, of course, to any company carrying on business in this country.
Lord Justice Singleton went on to say:
"If the company has no place of business in this country and is an oversea company, I do not know how notices could be served so as to be effective. That may be the reason for an oversea company holding property here remaining without a place of business in this country. It may be, too, as was suggested, that it is regarded by the company as being some help to them in regard to revenue questions, although I hope that the revenue authorities can look after that side of the matter; and it may be that if the company has no place of business in this country, the collection of rates by the local authority is made more difficult in the case of house property such as this. … If an oversea company wants to do business in this country, and to do it properly, there are no difficulties."
When Lord Justice Denny expressed his views in the matter, this is what he said in the Court of Appeal:
"Here is a foreign company which does not establish any business office in England and does not register itself in any way. By so doing it puts itself in a position, if not to defeat its obligations entirely, at least to make it most difficult for its dues to be collected from it. It makes it difficult for the tenant to recover on the landlord's covenants. It makes it difficult for the rating authority to obtain rates, or the housing authority to see that the houses are kept in proper condition, or even for the revenue authorities to obtain their proper taxes. So far as all these matters are concerned, it is like unto a dead hand. We have a modern application of the law of nearly 700 years ago. The transfer to this company is void without a licence from the Queen, and no licence has been granted. In the old days the forfeiture was not automatic, but under the wording of this statute it is quite clear that the forfeiture is from the date of the assurance, so that it operates at once without any entry by the Crown; and the tenant can take advantage of it, because he is liable to the Crown for the rent from that date."
That is what was laid down in the Court of Appeal.
Arthur Bertram Waters is still operating from 77, Gloucester Place, W.1,
174
assisted by a solicitor who, in his full-time employment, is called Alan George Bainton, whose conduct will, I hope, be investigated by the Law Society, and another employee called W. Leslie.
Let me read a notice which was pinned up at the office at 77, Gloucester Place, which, I hope, will deter honest people from having any dealings with Waters and his gang. This is what the notice says:
"To all staff. When answering the telephone, don't say anything until the caller has given name and address. If the caller refers to sales advertisements for houses, obtain the telephone number so that the negotiator can establish contact. Don't give any information about property. Say the gentleman dealing with the matter is out and you will tell him about it."
That shows the methods followed by this company in the conduct of its business.
The Attorney-General and his predecessor have said repeatedly that they must have time in which to consider the implications of the judgment to which I have referred. How much more time does the right hon. and learned Gentleman want? He is surely not going to grant a licence to this rogue landlord who is no longer entitled to collect any of the rents or mortgage payments on the properties affected by this judgment. All these properties have been forfeited to the Crown.
My constituents, as well as the Lambeth Borough Council and many other local authorities in the London area, are surely entitled to know where they stand. They want to know for how much longer the Government are going to disregard the law as laid down by the Court of Appeal. My constituents who are closely affected by this judgment are law-abiding citizens. I hope that in his reply the right hon. and learned Gentleman will indicate that he, too, is a law-abiding Attorney-General, resolutely determined to pursue the public interest by giving practical effect to the decision of the eminent judges to whom I have referred.
It may be that it is awkward, difficult and tiresome for the right hon. and learned Gentleman suddenly to find himself the owner of a derelict slum empire, but that is what has happened. I hope that the Attorney-General will be able this evening to make some announcement as to the action that, in my submission,

175
he is bound to take in the light of the decision to which I have referred.
11.12 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Col. Lipton) began his speech with an indictment of a man named Waters. I wish to make it quite clear that I do not appear at this Box for the purpose of saying anything at all in defence of that man.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman then went on to say that he thought that his campaign had been more successful than the combined efforts of Scotland Yard, the Director of Public Prosecutions and of the Law Officers. I naturally have no objection to the hon. and gallant Gentleman seeking to pat himself on the back if he can accomplish that physical exercise. But it is only right that I should at least attempt to satisfy him that his implied criticism of Scotland Yard and of the Director of Public Prosecutions is ill-founded, as indeed, I believe, is his criticism of the Law Officers.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not mention that Mr. Waters has, in fact, been prosecuted twice. He was convicted on the first occasion, and the conviction was quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The fact that it was quashed was not the fault of Scotland Yard, the Director of Public Prosecutions or of the Law Officers. Mr. Waters was then prosecuted again in respect of other alleged offences, and, on that occasion, the jury found him not guilty.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman then went on to assert that the law had been made quite clear by the decision in Morelle Limited v. Waterworth, and he said that that decision established beyond doubt that all the properties to which he had referred had been forfeited to the Crown. He said that it might be awkward for me to find myself
"the owner of a derelict slum empire."
I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not consider me in any capacity to be the Crown. I assure him that I am not the owner of any derelict slum empire. I fully appreciate the doubtful position of the other tenants of Morelle Limited and of the companies
176
connected with Mr. Waters which are registered in Eire, and I hope to be able to make a statement with regard to the position in the near future.
The judgment to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred was published on 23rd July, and it has very far-reaching and unexpected implications which it is really not possible to ignore. It affects many other interests than the interests of the tenants to whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, and not least it affects the Crown. The effect of the judgment is not confined to companies registered in Eire, and it does not extend to all companies registered in that country. The Mortmain Acts lay down that land assigned to a corporation in mortmain without a licence shall be forfeited, or subject to forfeiture, to the Crown, and for this purpose a corporation includes foreign States, limited companies, and chartered bodies.
As I say, a corporation includes all those varieties of organisations. There are, of course, some statutory exceptions. Companies, including oversea companies registered under the Companies Acts, are excepted; many chartered bodies are given a general licence, and the corporations within the meaning of the Mortmain Acts which are now principally affected are foreign States, livery companies and a very few unregistered oversea companies. The first point I want to make is that the effect of this judgment, if it is correct, is not confined to companies registered in Eire. Of course, it does not apply to individuals, even if resident abroad.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal came to some as a surprise and has, I think, been subject to a certain amount of criticism in the law papers. Until this decision an assignment in mortmain was thought to be restricted to freeholds and leaseholds which were colourable as freeholds, that is to say, a lease for a term of years so long as to be clearly an evasion of the Acts. In practice, that meant a lease for 99 years or longer. Now this decision has held that the Mortmain Acts apply to include all leases.
Secondly, forfeiture, until this decision, was believed to be at the option of the Crown, that is to say, that on an assignment in mortmain the land was subject to forfeiture at the option of the Crown and that the forfeiture did not operate until the Crown sought to exercise the option.

177
Now under this decision, the court have held that forfeiture is automatic. That has many obvious and serious implications.
Many corporations have taken short leases in good faith without a licence. Many corporations, acting in good faith. have applied for a licence after acquiring the freehold, and the Crown has remitted forfeiture. If the decision of the court is right, in the first case, the leases are vested in the Crown, even if they are short leases by companies acting perfectly bona fide in their belief of what the law was thought to be before this decision. So perhaps are the freeholds vested in the Crown, because the remission of forfeiture may not operate to vest the Crown's title in the petitioning purchaser.
But these are not the only implications. In consequence of this decision, the Crown may in law be the owner of a great deal of property of which it has never heard, and in many cases this property may be in the form of leases subject to onerous repairing and other covenants which the Crown certainly would not have accepted if it had had any choice in the matter. Indeed, one must recognise that the tenant who has failed to observe repairing covenants may be able to avoid his liabilities by assigning to a corporation towards the end of the term, so that the title and his liabilities, in view of this decision, pass automatically to the Crown.
In deciding whether or not this decision is correct and binding upon the Crown, regard must be had to all these matters. and the hon. and gallant Gentleman may perhaps agree that possibly a decision of such far-reaching implications should in any case be referred to the highest court in the land. But, of course, the Crown was not a party in the decision in Morelle v. Waterworth, so the Crown could not take that case to the House of Lords. Nor were any arguments advanced on the hearing of that appeal on behalf of the Crown. I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that a decision to embark on litigation and pursue the litigation right up to the House of Lords is not one that should lightly be taken. Views differ among many people as to whether, if an appeal were taken to the House of Lords on these very matters, the decision of the Court of Appeal would be upheld or reversed.
178
As I said when I began, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was not published until 23rd July. I know that some time has elapsed since then. Some people have had the good fortune to be on holiday. There has been the Long Vacation for most barristers. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this matter is being most closely and carefully studied at the present time and as a matter of urgency, because one well appreciates the doubts and uncertainties that now exist until some decision is in made.
I hope that I have been able to convince the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there are considerable implications following upon this judgment, and that before one decides whether or not to seek to get the matter tested in the highest court in the land, it is essential that the matter should be most closely and carefully reviewed. As I have said, I sympathise with the other tenants of Morelle Limited and all these other companies associated with Mr. Walters, but I must point out that the Mortmain Acts were not intended to be a weapon for use against wicked landlords. Their object was to keep land on the market, to prevent the creation of something like a monopoly in land. We know that in fact the Court of Appeal has held that the Acts in this instance defeated the claims of Morelle Limited in an action in which they were plaintiffs, but it really was not the object or intention of those Acts that they should be used as weapons against wicked landlords.
The criminal law exists, civil proceedings can be taken. As I have said, criminal proceedings have already been instituted in connection with these properties. I said the other day, in answer to a Question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that I would gladly consider any further evidence he may like to make available, if he could make any available, with a view to seeing whether any charge would lie in respect of any other matters, but one cannot proceed merely upon a judgment in the county court.
There is, of course, the possibility, which I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman recognised, of either forcing Mr. Waters in one of his capacities to institute an action himself, or, it would

179
seem to me, of some of the tenants themselves instituting civil actions in the county court. However, I will say no more upon that now, because that really is not the main point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in this debate. He was concerned to know what was happening in view of the decision in Morelle Limited v. Waterworth. I hope I have said enough to convince him that the matter is extremely difficult and corn-
180
plicated, upon which the views of many lawyers may differ; and I hope I have also convinced him—and I hope he will accept my word for it—that the matter is being closely and carefully considered at the present time as a matter of urgency.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.

PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  National Assistance
  National Assistance
  Departmental Staff (Political Activities)
  Departmental Staff (Political Activities)
  Pneumoconiosis (Medical Panels)
  Pneumoconiosis (Medical Panels)
  Retirement Pensioners (Increments)
  Retirement Pensioners (Increments)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Old-Age Pensioners (Christmas Bonus)
  Old-Age Pensioners (Christmas Bonus)
  TRAVEL VISAS
  TRAVEL VISAS
UNITED NATIONS
  Technical Assistance (British Contribution)
  Technical Assistance (British Contribution)
  Secretariat (Oath)
  Secretariat (Oath)
  Nuclear Weapons (International Control)
  Nuclear Weapons (International Control)
  EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY (BRITISH ASSOCIATION)
  EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY (BRITISH ASSOCIATION)
  BRITISH FORCES, GERMANY (OCCUPATION COSTS)
  BRITISH FORCES, GERMANY (OCCUPATION COSTS)
  GERMANY AND AUSTRIA (FOUR-POWER TALKS)
  GERMANY AND AUSTRIA (FOUR-POWER TALKS)
  MOSCOW EMBASSY (COMMERCIAL OFFICER)
  MOSCOW EMBASSY (COMMERCIAL OFFICER)
  SUEZ CANAL BASE (SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS)
  SUEZ CANAL BASE (SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS)
  BROADCASTS, ATHENS RADIO (PROTESTS)
  BROADCASTS, ATHENS RADIO (PROTESTS)
  DIPLOMATIC POSTS (LOCAL ESTABLISHMENT)
  DIPLOMATIC POSTS (LOCAL ESTABLISHMENT)
  TREATY RATIFICATION (PONSONBY RULE)
  TREATY RATIFICATION (PONSONBY RULE)
  SOUTH-EAST ASIA DEFENCE TREATY COUNCIL (COST)
  SOUTH-EAST ASIA DEFENCE TREATY COUNCIL (COST)
COAL
  Situation
  Situation
  By-products
  By-products
  Domestic Supplies
  Domestic Supplies
  NATURAL GAS
  NATURAL GAS
  MINING SUBSIDENCE, (DISCUSSIONS)
  MINING SUBSIDENCE, (DISCUSSIONS)
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Milk
  Milk
  Bread (Subsidy and Profit Margin)
  Bread (Subsidy and Profit Margin)
  Danish Bacon
  Danish Bacon
  Beef (Price)
  Beef (Price)
  Eggs
  Eggs
  Dock Strike
  Dock Strike
  Irish Pigmeat
  Irish Pigmeat
  Non-Departmental Appointments
  Non-Departmental Appointments
  Prices
  Prices
HOSPITALS
  Operating Theatres, Portsmouth
  Operating Theatres, Portsmouth
  Mentally Defective Children, Durham (Accommodation)
  Mentally Defective Children, Durham (Accommodation)
  Tuberculosis Patients, Merioneth (Accommodation)
  Tuberculosis Patients, Merioneth (Accommodation)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Health Service Technologists (Pay Claim)
  Health Service Technologists (Pay Claim)
  Doctors (Group Practices)
  Doctors (Group Practices)
  Disabled Ex-Service Men (Motor Cars)
  Disabled Ex-Service Men (Motor Cars)
  PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMITTEE (REPORT)
  PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMITTEE (REPORT)
  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
  GOA (GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIONS)
  GOA (GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIONS)
  U.N.E.S.C.O. STAFF (DISMISSAL DEMAND)
  U.N.E.S.C.O. STAFF (DISMISSAL DEMAND)
KENYA
  Death Penalty
  Death Penalty
  Mau Mau Terrorists (Surrender Offer)
  Mau Mau Terrorists (Surrender Offer)
  COLOURED PEOPLE, UNITED KINGDOM (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)
  COLOURED PEOPLE, UNITED KINGDOM (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Old People (Phillips Committee Report)
  Old People (Phillips Committee Report)
  Appropriation Account (Pensions)
  Appropriation Account (Pensions)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Sand and Gravel (Reserves)
  Sand and Gravel (Reserves)
  COPYRIGHT LAW (FILM SCRIPTS)
  COPYRIGHT LAW (FILM SCRIPTS)
CIVIL AVIATION
  Night Weather Records, Gatwick
  Night Weather Records, Gatwick
  Visibility Frequencies. Gatwick and Cliffe
  Visibility Frequencies. Gatwick and Cliffe
  AFRICA (DEFENCE ORGANISATION)
  AFRICA (DEFENCE ORGANISATION)
EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Hostels
  Industrial Hostels
  Chief Inspector of Factories (Report)
  Chief Inspector of Factories (Report)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
  2.35 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
  Moved, That the House do resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not know whether or not I am in order in saying a few words on this Motion, but perhaps I may have the indulgence of the House, as I think it may save some time if I say now what I have in mind and it will preclude the necessity of my saying it on the various Amendments to be moved. I should like to point out that the Bill which we are going to discuss is a very different Bill from the one originally introduced. From the Marshalled List of Amendments it appears that probably four out of every five clauses are being amended by the Government. I venture to say that there is hardly a single clause which will not have been amended at some time in the progress of the Bill since it was first introduced in another place. There are 161 Amendments on the Marshalled List, of which 119 are Government Amendments. I mention this point, not necessarily to make any complaint, because the Government are entitled to produce the best Bill they can, but as indicating the enormous complexity of the subject and the difficulty of drafting.
  There are two things that I should like to say on the difficulty of drafting. Some of us, without the assistance of the Parliamentary draftsmen, have tried our own hands at drafting Amendments. In view of the difficulties which the Parliamentary
  852
  draftsmen have themselves found in getting the right language, I hope that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will be tolerant of the Amendments that we have put down, and will not make capital of the fact that some of them are badly worded, as I am sure they are. In some cases we have put down Amendments, not because we expect them to be accepted in the form in which they have been put down (and this is what I feel is worth while saying at this stage, rather than on each Amendment) but in order to raise an issue, and perhaps in the end to get some compromise or agreement that the matter will be reconsidered before the next stage. For instance, in some cases where we have moved to delete a paragraph or a subsection, we realise that, strictly speaking, we ought to have put something in its place. We have not found it possible to do that: first, for the reason that I have already given; and also owing to lack of time, because we have had so little time in which to handle this matter.
  The only other thing I want to say—and I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not mind my saying it—is that I hope the fact that there are so many Government Amendments on the Marshalled List will not preclude those Amendments which are put forward by other noble Lords from being adequately and sympathetically considered, in so far as they are worthy of consideration. On the Second Reading I made the point as forcibly as I could that this Bill contained a large number of anomalies. The reply of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to that, as I understood it, was: "I agree that there are anomalies, but the Bill would have to be very much longer than it is if we tried to remove all the anomalies." I do not mind having a longer Bill if that is necessary to do justice and to be fair in respect of the people for whom we are legislating. I hope that the reason for refusing an Amendment will not be the difficulty of drafting, or the fact that the Bill may become even longer than it is. Having unburdened myself in that way, it will not be necessary for me to say this all over again in the case of each separate Amendment, and certainly not to apologise for the inadequacy of the language of some of the Amendments which we propose to move.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I say a word or two in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. The first thing I would say is that I am sure the whole House is grateful to him for what he has just said. With regard to the number of Amendments, there is, at any rate, the consolation that nobody can say that the Government are not recognising the importance, in their view, of your Lordships' House as a Revising Chamber. On the second point, I hasten to assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that this afternoon, and indeed, at every stage of the Bill, we shall look at the substance of his Amendments, and we shall not allow ourselves to be deflected, nor shall we take debating points as to the drafting. We appreciate the difficulty of every noble Lords who is in a private position and has not the advantage of the Parliamentary draftsmen, and I assure the noble Lord that he need have no fears on that point. With regard to the other point that he made, I can only assure him of this: that everything he says this afternoon, and every Amendment he moves, will be most carefully considered and regarded, and I hope that at the end of the day he will feel that sympathy was not lacking.
  On Question, Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 1 [Payments by reference to established claims]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment, but as it is designed to rectify an obvious mistake may I just say one or two words upon it? The intention is that the modifications set out in the First Schedule to the Bill should affect all claims on the £300 million fund, whether or not the claims have already been determined. The calculations have, in fact, already been made and in many cases agreed with those concerned. The modifications in the basis of assessment for claims laid down in Part VI of the 1947 Act are necessary to remove inconsistencies and anomalies which experience has brought to light. With one exception they affect only a small handful of cases. The exception is paragraph 10 of the Schedule, which is designed, as noble Lords opposite will no doubt have realised, to implement an undertaking given in December, 1950, by the then
  854
  Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Rule 3 of the Rules specified in Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919, would be disregarded in assessing claims in respect of extension land held with industrial and commercial buildings. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 24, leave out from ("been") to ("that") in line 25 and insert ("if those provisions had at that time had effect in relation thereto,").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Claim holdings, their areas and values, and apportionment of values between parts of areas]:
  LORD MANCROFT: This is also a drafting Amendment. It has been represented that the words in the Bill which it is proposed to replace are inadequate as a description of the scope of the Second and Third Schedules. I will not weary the Committee by attempting to describe the Second and Third Schedules, with which you are doubtless familiar, but I submit that the new Amendment goes a long way to meet that difficulty. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 46, leave out from ("for") to end of line 2 in page 4 and insert ("treating the claim holding as divided into two or more claim holdings and extinguishing any of those holdings or reducing the value thereof").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: This again is a drafting Amendment. Its object is to make clear beyond doubt that, for the purposes of Part I of the Bill, the value of a claim holding is its value after the operation of the Second and Third Schedules to which I have referred. As your Lordships know, these two Schedules refer to dates before the commencement of the Act although, of course, they are variable. I think this is a tidier way of dealing with the matter. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 14 at end insert—
  ("(5) References in this Part of this Act, other than in this section, to the value of a claim holding are references to the value of that holding immediately before the commencement of this Act.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Payment where development charge incurred by claim-holder or person from whom he derives title (Case A)]:
  LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is designed to remove a slight anomaly—one of the anomalies to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred just now and to which I referred on Second Reading. The anomaly is in Clause 3. As subsection (1) stands, a holder of a claim holding is, by virtue of paragraph (b), entitled to a payment if he is the owner of an interest in any land covered by the holding and a development charge was incurred in respect of that land by a person from whom he derives title to that interest. The normal case will be where a previous owner of the freehold paid development charge and the present owner bought both land and claim from him. As the clause now stands, the latter would be entitled to a payment in the same way as the previous owner would have been. There may, however, be cases where the development charge was paid by a lessee, who subsequently surrendered his lease and assigned his claim to the freeholder. The Amendment provides that in such cases the freeholder will similarly be entitled to a payment under the clause. I think that is obviously equable, and I hope that the Committee will agree to it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 44, at end insert ("or whose interest has subsequently become merged in that interest").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  LORD SILKIN: I do not rise for the purpose of objecting to this Amendment, but of expressing some surprise that it should have occurred to the Government only at this late stage in the Bill that this kind of case has to be provided for. I see that there are scattered through the Bill a considerable number of Amendments on this question of merger, and I wonder why this point, which seems an elementary one, was not thought of during the stages in another place and was not incorporated in the large number of drafting Amendments moved on the Report stage there. I do not know whether the noble Lord who moved this Amendment can tell me this, but it is a matter of great surprise to me: What would have happened if there had been no House of Lords?
  LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord has taken the words right out of my
  856
  mouth. I cannot tell him why the point was not thought of before. Perhaps this is the first opportunity of putting the matter right. I cannot answer his question, but I can echo strongly his sentiments—how lucky we are to have the House of Lords to put it right!
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Payment where land compulsorily acquired or sold at price wholly or partly excluding development value (Case B)]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (6), to insert:
  "(7) Where an interest in land is the subject of a compulsory acquisition or sale such as is mentioned in subsection (3) of this section and—

  (a) on or after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, but before the date of the compulsory acquisition or sale, another interest had become merged with that interest otherwise than by effluxion of time; and

  (b) the person entitled to the interest compulsorily acquired or sold was at the date of the compulsory acquisition or sale entitled to a claim holding or claim holdings which related to either or each of the merged interests,

  this section shall apply as if those interests had not merged but had been separately acquired from or sold by the person entitled to the interest acquired or sold; and the compensation payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition or, as the case may be, the sale price shall be treated as apportioned between those interests accordingly:
  Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prejudice the operation of the proviso to subsection (4) of the next following section."
  The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the first of a group of Amendments designed to allow for the possibility of a merger of interests having taken place between July 1, 1948, the date by reference to which claims on the £300 million fund were made, and the date of the transaction in respect of which payment should be made. For your Lordships' information, the other Amendments are on page 13, line 16, page 15, line 11, and page 17, line 10. Your Lordships will appreciate that entitlement to a payment under Clause 5 depends on the owner of a claim holding having sold the interest in land to which

  857
  the holding related for a consideration wholly or partly excluding development value. This essential condition cannot be satisfied where two interests existed on the appointed day but had merged prior to the transaction—for example as a result of the surrender of a lease—because the claim holding or holdings will relate to the interests which existed on the appointed day. In addition, the formula in subsection (4) for calculating the amount payable will not function properly.
  The Amendment seeks to overcome these difficulties by providing, in effect, that for the purposes of the clause the two interests shall be assumed to have continued to exist separately, though both in the ownership of the actual owner, and to have been separately sold by him at the time of the actual sale. The compensation or price notionally received for each interest is to be found by apportioning the compensation or price actually received between the two interests. If the erstwhile owner owns a claim holding in respect of both the original freehold and the leasehold, he will, of course, be able to claim in respect of both. I think Perhaps this Amendment does, belatedly, the noble Lords opposite might say, deal with a point which required to be dealt with, and I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 30, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment, but I think it would be convenient if I drew your Lordships' attention to the fact that cases where the consideration on a sale of land took the form wholly or in part of a rent-charge are covered by Clause 10 of the Bill, as proposed to be amended to-day, and should therefore be excluded from the present clause. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 45, at end insert—
  ("(9) Without prejudice to section ten of this Act, paragraph (b)) of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply in relation to a sale in consideration wholly or partly of a rentcharge").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 [Supplementary provisions relating to compulsory acquisitions and to sales]:
  LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, in the proviso to subsection (2), after "forty-eight" to insert:
  "and at the date of the sale the development specified in the certificate had not been completed."
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next, which marches with it, are little more than drafting. The definition of "restricted value" in subsection (2) provides the norm, the common denominator, by which the payment made in respect of a private sale is to be assessed. Anything already received over and above the restricted value is, under Clause 5, subsection (4), to be deducted from the value of the claim holding in arriving at the sum payable. The purpose of the proviso to subsection (2) is to adapt these provisions to cases where part or the whole of the land sold was the subject of a certificate issued by the Minister, under Section 80 of the 1947 Act, when it was known, in the planner's charming jargon, as "dead-ripe land." The principal effect of such a certificate was that the development specified in it could be carried out free of development charge, and the corresponding development value was excluded from any claim on the £300 million fund. This development charge exemption was something for which the owner would quite properly have been paid by the purchaser, and it is therefore necessary to add the value of the exemption to the restricted value in order to arrive at the amount of the payment properly due.
  The value of the development charge exemption is obviously the amount of the development charge which, but for the exemption, would have been payable in respect of the development specified in the certificate; this is the basis on which the proviso is drafted. But if part of the development had been carried out before the sale, the value of the exemption would be limited to the amount of the charge which would have been payable in respect of the remainder of the development; the value of the completed development would be included in the restricted value. The purpose of the two Amendments to which

  859
  I have just referred is to modify the proviso in this sense. The whole definition of restricted value affects only private transactions: it does not apply to compulsory acquisition. I hope that this explains the Amendments. I beg to move the first Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 12, after ("forty-eight") insert the said words.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  LORD SILKIN: I do not know whether this is the best place in which to raise a point which I want to raise at some stage of the Bill. The noble Lord referred to land to which was attached a certificate under Section 80 of the 1947 Act, dead-ripe land. The question I wanted to ask was in what circumstances does the question of a claim holding arise? I have a note to raise the point on a later Amendment, but it will do just as well on this one. As I understand it, a person who held a dead-ripe certificate was exempt from development charge and normally made no claim. I think perhaps he could have made a claim if he had wanted to, but the whole purpose was that he had no claim if he made it. Therefore it is extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that anyone with a dead-ripe certificate would have an established claim. In those circumstances, assuming that his land had been compulsorily acquired, or that he sold it at a price less than the market value, he would, if he had made a claim, have been entitled to be compensated under Clause 5 of the Bill. But if he has not made a claim how does he get his compensation at all, and where is it provided in the Bill that the person who holds a certificate under Section 80 is entitled to be treated as if he had made a claim?
  LORD MANCROFT: We are not talking about compulsory acquisition here.
  LORD SILKIN: It does not matter, since Clause 5 deals both with compulsory acquisition and with cases where the land was sold at less than its true value. I have been looking at this Bill to see how it deals with the case of a person who has a "dead-ripe" certificate—I hope that I am making myself clear. He could not, in the nature of things have made a claim; therefore he has no established claim. But the whole of this Bill deals with people who have an established claim. How then does he get his com
  860
  pensation? I can elaborate the point, but it seems to me quite simple, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord, either now or in due course, could give me an answer. If he cannot do it now, he will have an opportunity on a later Amendment. Perhaps I can raise it then. The same point comes up again in a later Amendment.
  LORD MANCROFT: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I have got his point; I can see what he is driving at. Would he allow me to look into it. I can deal with it better on a later Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 20, leave out from first ("of") to ("if") in line 21 and insert ("so much of that development as had not been completed if it had been completed and").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  3.0 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved to add to subsection (4):
  ("Provided that where the whole or part of any liability or prospective liability which was or, as the case may be, would have been taken into account in calculating that restricted value had ceased to exist before the date of the compulsory acquisition or sale, the Board, or, as the case may be, the Lands Tribunal may, if they think it just and proper so to do, waive in whole or in part, as may appear to them appropriate, any reduction otherwise falling to be made under this subsection.")
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment, I am afraid, is rather technical in its character, as your Lordships will see, but I hope I can say without fear of contradiction that it is one with the object of which, at least, noble Lords opposite will not disagree. Subsection (4) is concerned with cases where the restricted value of land as found under Part VI of the 1947 Act was a minus quantity, or would have been a minus quantity if the land had been the subject of a separate claim. A minus restricted value would result whenever the value of the land restricted to its existing use was less than the rent or other charge to which it was subject. Perhaps I can best illustrate that rather paradoxical situation by attempting an example. Supposing an acre of building land worth, say, £1,000 was let on

  861
  a long lease at £40 a year. Restricted to agriculture, that land might be worth only £5 a year, in which case the lessee's interest would, on the restricted basis, be a liability to the tune of about £35 a year. Capitalised, that would give a minus restricted value of, say, £700
  One result of the acquisition of the lessee's interest was that he was freed from any further liability to pay the rent. That being so, he ought not to receive any part of his Part VI claim which resulted from the minus restricted value, because that minus value was the result of the now extinct liability. The subsection therefore provides for the amount of the minus to be subtracted from the claim. The erstwhile lessee will they be paid for the positive value of his interest and no more. So far, so good. This provision will not, however, function fairly if the liability which gave rise to the minus restricted value had disappeared, in whole or in part, before the acquisition of the land. Thus the lessee may have surrendered his lease, or the rent may have been reduced. The Amendment proposes to meet this possibility by giving the Central Land Board, and the Lands Tribunal, power to waive the reduction provided for in the subsection so far as appropriate. I cannot imagine that the cases in these circumstances are likely to be very numerous, and, of course, the circumstances may vary widely. I think your Lordships will agree, therefore, that a discretion as provided for here is probably the most economical solution. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 5, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Queston, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 [Payment where land disposed of by gift (Case C)]:
  LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is similar in its object to the one which we have already discussed in connection with Clause 5. It is another one of these merger Amendments. The object is to ensure that a merger of interests which occurred between July 1, 1948, and the date when the gift of land was made shall not disqualify the holder of the relevant claim holding from receiving a payment. The reason why the provision is
  862
  so much less elaborate than the one which we have already discussed in Clause 5 is that payments on account of gifts are, for obvious reasons, not related to a price already received for the lard. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 16, after ("related") insert ("or another interest in which that interest had merged").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is, I think, identical with that which your Lordships have already made to Clause 6 (4)—Amendment No. 9. The reason for it is the same. The gift freed the donor from any liability in respect of rent or other charge attaching to the land just as much as acquisition of the land would have done. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 43, at end insert:
  ("Provided that where the whole or part of any liability or prospective liability which was or, as the case may be, would have been taken into account in calculating that restricted value had ceased to exist before the date of the disposition in question, the Board or, as the case may be, the Lands Tribunal may, if they think it just and proper so to do, waive in whole or in part, as may appear to them appropriate, any reduction otherwise falling to be made under this subsection.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 [Payments in cases analogous to Case B]:
  LORD MANCROFT: This is another of these merger Amendments. I think no new point arises. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 11, after ("related") insert ("or another interest in which that interest had merged").(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: Clause 10, as your Lordships realise, is concerned with a number of types of case broadly analogous to those covered, and which we have already discussed, by Clause 5. The second of these is where an interest in land was sold in consideration, not of a capital sum but of a rentcharge. This is a common practice, I think, in some parts of the country (I expect the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is more familiar with

  863
  them than I am)—I believe, in Manchester, Liverpool, Cardiff and places like that. There may be cases where the consideration was only partly in the form of a rentcharge, and also where only part of the land in which the vendor's interest subsisted was sold. The Amendment extends the clause to deal with these cases. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 25, leave out ("in consideration") and insert ("or of that interest in so far as it subsisted in particular land, where the consideration for the sale consisted wholly or partly").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment and the next two, Nos. 15 and 16, are, apart from the point we have just been discussing, of a purely drafting character. Their object is to rearrange the clause on a more logical basis. On that foundation, I am certain that it will meet with your lordships' approval. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 34, after ("affected") insert ("being damage in respect of which compensation fell, or if the sale had been a compulsory acquisition would have fallen, to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of Part V of the principal Act (which provides for compensation on the basis of existing use value) as applied by subsection (4) of section one hundred and nineteen of that Act").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is consequential on No. 14. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 38, at end insert ("being damage in respect of which compensation fell to be assessed in accordance with section two of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, as modified by section ten of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1948 (which limits the compensation to an amount calculated on the basis of existing use value)").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: This again is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 16, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 25 and insert—
  ("(b) in the case of a sale falling within paragraph (b) of the last preceding subsection, to the capital value of the rentcharge or, as
  864
  the case may be, to the aggregate consideration represented by the price paid and the capital value of the rentcharge;
  (c) in the case of a compulsory acquisition falling within paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection or in a case falling within paragraph (d) of that subsection, to the compensation paid or payable in respect of the damage referred to in that paragraph;
  (d) in the case of a sale falling within paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection, to the sale price in so far as it represented compensation in respect of the damage referred to in that paragraph,").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11 [Residual payments in cases analogous to Cases A and B]:
  LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is another in the series dealing with cases where there has been a merger of interests since July 1, 1948. No new point of principle arises. I beg to move accordingly.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 10, at end insert ("or another interest in which that interest had merged.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 12 [Payments not to exceed value of claim holding]:
  LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment also is not really much more than of a drafting character. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that, where two or more payments are due in respect of one claim holding, they are scaled down as may be necessary to ensure that in the aggregate they do not exceed the value of the holding. The clause is not, however, adequate to deal with cases where two or more payments fall to be made in respect of the same part, or of overlapping parts, of the land to which a holding relates, and the Amendment seeks to rectify this. It ensures, I hope, that the aggregate of the payments made under Part I of the Bill in respect of any land cannot exceed the fraction of the value of the claim holding appropriate to that land. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 18, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of clause and insert ("the authority determining the amount of any such payment shall apportion that amount between the different parts of the area of the claim holding in such manner as appears to that authority

  865
  proper, and if the aggregate of the portions of the principal amounts of the respective payments so apportioned to any part of the area of the claim holding would, apart from the provisions of this subsection, exceed the fraction of the value of the claim holding attaching to that part of the area thereof, those portions shall be reduced rateably so that the aggregate of them is equal to the said fraction, and the said principal amounts shall be treated as reduced accordingly.
  (2) Where two or more payments are payable in respect of the same claim holding by virtue of the last preceding section, the aggregate of the principal amounts of those payments shall not exceed the value of the claim holding or, where that value is treated as reduced in accordance with subsection (6) of the last preceding section, that value as so reduced.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 13 [Applications for payments under Part I]:
  3.10 p.m.
  LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "three" and insert "twelve." The noble Lord said: In rising to move this Amendment, may I say that I do not do so in opposition to the Bill before the Committee, but because I think it is important that full opportunities and sufficient time should be given for cases to be drawn up and submissions to be made after the inquiries and careful verifications that are obviously necessary in dealing with a matter of this sort. Three months is a very short time in view of the considerations that arise from this part of the Bill, and I would therefore venture to suggest that the period be extended to twelve months, as is mentioned in the Amendment standing in my name. I hope Her Majesty's Government will take this point into consideration. To a great many of us here, three months is a quite inadequate length of time for the preparation of cases. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 15, leave out ("three") and insert ("twelve").—(Lord O'Hagan.)
  LORD SILKIN: I should like to support the principle of this Amendment, although I think that even twelve months is inadequate. I personally do not understand why there need be any particular time limit at all. It is not so much the difficulty of preparing a claim—the claim has been agreed, and I imagine that in most cases, apart from cases where the character of the holding has changed, it
  866
  is just a matter of writing to the Central Land Board and notifying them of the claim. The difficulty is really with the inertia of the general public. Anybody who had anything to do with claims under the 1947 Act would know how lax the public is to respond to a request to put in claims, even when they know it is in their own interests that they should do so. The Committee may remember that in the case of the 1947 Act, Sir Malcolm Eve, who was then chairman of the Central Land Board, went round the country begging people to put in claims by a certain date, announcing it on the wireless and publicising it in every possible way; and in spite of that I understand that there will be complaint to-day that a number of people who were entitled to make a claim, did not make it. In those circumstances, whatever time is given, there will be people who will not make a claim, and I wonder whether it is really necessary to have a time limit at all. Most people will put in their claims as quickly as possible, but there will always be a residual number who will be lax—if you gave them twelve months they would still be out of time.
  With great respect to the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, I should have thought that the real solution would be to provide a time—twelve months if you like—but not to make failure to put in a claim within the twelve months an absolute bar as it is at the present time. The Committee will bear in mind that the people with whom we are dealing are people who have established claims. They have worked very hard to get that claim established, as anybody knows who has had to deal with district valuers and to satisfy them of a claim. These people have an established claim; they have suffered loss as a result of having had their land compulsorily acquired or having sold their land at below the market price. They are morally entitled to this compensation, and if, through some oversight on their part, they fail to make a claim, it seems to me quite wrong that they should be for ever barred. I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether he would consider the possibility of accepting the Amendment, but not making it an absolute bar if the claim has not been put in. The Central Land Board should be given discretion, if there are reasons—not overwhelming reasons, but reasonably good

  867
  reasons—even after the period has expired, to allow the claim. I believe that there is a precedent for this in the case of the War Damage Commission. There, again, people were loth to put in claims within a certain period, but the Commission had the discretion to admit claims that were put in late. I think they did eventually have a time limit, but if there were really overwhelming reasons, they were enabled to permit claims even after the expiration of that final time limit. So I hope the noble and learned Viscount will give this point his sympathetic consideration.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that what I have to say will convince my noble friend and meet the point of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. The reason for indicating in the Bill that the regulations may be expected to prescribe a fairly short period—not less than three months—for the submission of applications to the Central Land Board, is that until the Board have made some progress with their payments it is not possible for the Minister to get on with making compensation payments for planning restrictions. I should not like my noble friend to think for a moment that that is merely a matter of ministerial or administrative convenience. The reason is this: that on the structure of the Bill, the effect of Part I payments on the value of claim holdings has to be brought into account before payments can be made under Part V. The point I want to impress on my noble friend is that many of these Part V payments are due to people who have been waiting for several years for their money, and it is plainly incumbent on the Government to ensure that they are made as soon as possible. It is really for that reason, and having in mind the people I have mentioned, that I would ask my noble friend not to press the Amendment on this occasion.
  The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has raised a point on which I am glad to reassure the Committee. Although I hope and believe that the vast majority of persons entitled to payments under Part I will apply well within the three months, I believe, and so do those who have been advising me, that the Board have power to extend the period if there are circumstances which prevent an application. I shall not take up time now, but I will communicate with the noble Lord setting
  868
  out the point in detail. If, after we have communicated, he has still any doubt in the matter, then I shall be pleased to consider it at a later stage. But I am glad to be able to reassure him—and I am sure the Committee is impressed by the point he made—that in our belief it is met. I hope in those circumstances, bearing in mind the people who are affected, that my noble friend will not press his Amendment on this occasion.
  LORD O'HAGAN: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the reply he has given. I am afraid he has not persuaded me, and I do not think his remarks will have persuaded many people who study this matter very carefully. It is a thousand pities to have something in the Bill in such form as may prejudice the rights of those who are supposed to derive benefit from it and prevent others from having benefit. I will not press the Amendment to-day but I trust that further consideration will be given to this point, and that at a later stage some alleviation of the obvious difficulties will be effected. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  3.21 p.m.
  LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: This Amendment is self-explanatory. It will enable people having a claim under Clause 5 of this Bill (against the £300 million) to charge their proper legal and surveyors' expenses in establishing that claim. They are people who have a justified claim, either because they have had their land compulsorily acquired or have taken note of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, advised them at the time and sold their land near to existing use value. My argument is reinforced slightly by the speech made by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor in moving Amendment No. 5, which showed that the position of a claimant under Clause 5 is not crystal clear and that he will be in need of some legal assistance; therefore, it is only fair that he should be helped. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 26, at end insert—
  ("(a) for enabling persons entitled to a payment by virtue of section five of this Act to be paid their legal and surveyors' charges for completing an application and supplying particulars and verification of evidence as may in any case be required by the Central Land

  869
  Board and for advising as to the restricted value of the interest."—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
  LORD SILKIN: I should like to support this Amendment but, as with the previous Amendment, I am a little surprised at the moderation of the noble Lord in moving it. This is a most difficult measure, one around which I would defy any layman to find his way. Anybody with a claim must get professional advice and assistance and incur fees. Admittedly Clause 5 cases stand out as possibly the strongest examples, but anyone with a claim would be ill-advised to try to negotiate with the Central Land Board without seeking some advice unless his claim is crystal clear—and there are very few like that. If the Government intends to accept the principle of payment of legal and other professional fees, the acceptance should be general; there may be discretion on the part of the Central Land Board to say in a particular case that it is not necessary, but it ought to be much wider than it is in the Amendment moved by the noble Lord.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this point. I am also glad to hear what the noble Lord opposite has said. It may be useful, especially to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, if I ask your Lordships to consider the analogy with the position under the 1947 Act. The noble Lord opposite will remember that under that Act fees were paid where the claimant's valuer had provided information and expert knowledge of administrative assistance to the Board in assessing the amount of the claim. Again, the noble Lord will have in mind that reliance was placed on a statutory provision in Section 3, subsection (5), enabling administrative expenses incurred by the Board for the purposes of the Act with the approval of the Minister to be defrayed. The noble Lord will also remember that the provision contained the words:
  "Any administrative expenses incurred … shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament."
  In this case we consider that, in general, the work of valuation in relation to claims has already been done, and there is not the same service rendered to those
  870
  administering the paying out of compensation as there was under the 1947 Act. But we recognise that there may well be cases (we hope they will be exceptional, but they may exist) where the expert knowledge of a claimant's surveyor or valuer does assist in the settlement of a claim. I do not know whether my noble friend appreciates that in Clause 63 (8) (c) of the Bill we have provided authority to pay the professional fees involved. That clause is in similar terms to the section of the 1947 Act to which I have referred.
  I would add one general word. Under the 1947 Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, knows well, the course of administration resulted in the building up of a policy for paying fees in certain types of cases. He knows it was no insubstantial contribution that was made in that way. I am anxious that we should not make the position less flexible than it was under the 1947 Act. But in paying out public money one has to be careful, and there is scarcely anything more difficult in legislation than defining the types involved and defining them in advance. I would ask noble Lords to believe that often, if one tries to lay down with too much particularity and precision in a Bill, one prevents a common-sense application to certain cases for which it may be difficult—I frankly admit—to find precise justification in the Statute but which are yet well within the spirit of the words your Lordships have approved. I should like to have another look at this problem, in view of what both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, have said, and in the consideration which I undertake to give it I shall be grateful if noble Lords will care to discuss it with me or my noble friend at any convenient time. It is difficult to give people the rights we desire them to have and at the same time not tie ourselves too much beyond the provision that already justifies such a payment. I would therefore ask my noble friend, on my assurance to consider the matter and my great readiness to discuss it with him, not to press his Amendment at this stage of the Bill but to let us examine it again on the Report stage.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Would the noble and learned Viscount say where provision is made in Clause 63?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Clause 63, paragraph 8 (c).
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: With respect to the noble and learned Viscount, that makes provision for payment out of moneys provided by Parliament
  "to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Treasury"
  of
  "any administrative expenses incurred for the purposes of this Act by the Central Land Board with the approval of the Minister."
  Where is the provision for the claimant?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Under the 1947 Act it was treated as an expense incurred for the purpose of the Central Land Board to pay professional charges to the claimant's advisers. That was what was done and, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin knows, it was done to a considerable extent. That was why I put to your Lordships, in the guarded language anyone speaking from this Bench must use, that it is a pity sometimes to make your provisions more precise if they have been found to act very well and to deal with the problem when framed in the wider words. I am grateful to Lord Milner of Leeds for raising this point. The fact is that the words were drafted in that way to enable them to be used to a considerable extent. That is why I am reluctant to tie myself until we have considered this matter very carefully.
  LORD SILKIN: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, as I imagine he will do, I should like to say that, of course, I personally accept what the noble and learned Viscount has said. When he says that he will examine a thing, I know from long experience that he really will do so. It is no mere form of words with him. May I just put this point to him? I do not altogether accept his approach. I wonder whether he would look at the matter again. I think that the words in Clause 63 to which he has drawn attention do enable the Central Land Board to spend the money. I think they can do what he says. But his approach is that these expenses are permissible or justifiable if they help the Central Land Board in the course of their administration. The way I would rather put it—and I believe that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment would agree with this—is that this expense in practice has to be incurred by the citizen who has a claim, whether it helps the Central Land Board or not. He is really forced
  872
  by the intricacies of this Bill to get advice, and it seems only fair that he should be reimbursed in a proper case. If the noble and learned Viscount would look at it from that angle and not merely from the angle of whether or not it helps in the administration of the Central Land Board, then I shall be perfectly satisfied.
  LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: In view of the assurances which the noble and learned Viscount has given, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  3.33 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out all words after the first "Board" in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) down to the end of the subsection, and insert:
  "on determining any such application, to give notice of their findings to the applicant, and, if their findings include an apportionment, to give particulars of the apportionment to any other person entitled to an interest in land which it appears to the Board will be substantially affected by the apportionment."
  The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment brings the provisions of Clause 13 (2) into line with the similar provisions of Clause 28 (1). At present, Clause 13 (2) contains an additional requirement, under which the Central Land Board have to give notice to all concerned of any "proposed apportionment." Your Lordships are aware that "apportionment" is the process of breaking down a claim on the fund, to decide how much relates to a part of the original area of land. It has been found that this additional requirement might, as well as being unnecessary, considerably delay the settlement of claims for payment. In practice, the assessment of what is payable will be carried out by the district valuer in negotiation with those concerned. Your Lordships will see that if the present Clause 13 (2) (c) were preserved, it would be necessary to serve a fresh series of notices whenever the district valuer proposed to vary an apportionment in deference to the arguments put to him. That seems to us to be an unnecessary and a dilatory procedure, because all concerned will be able at a subsequent stage to dispute the district valuer's figures before the Lands Tribunal if they are dissatisfied. That is provided for in Clause 13 (3). Therefore, I suggest that this additional hurdle should be cleared away. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 33, leave out from ("Board") to end of line 46 and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Does the deletion of the words specified in the Amendment mean that there will be no provision for enabling such persons to make representations to the Board with respect to the apportionment? If the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment is carried, it would appear that there will not be any provision in the subsection for enabling persons to make representations. Is that intended?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At that stage it is intended. Of course they will have both a previous and a subsequent opportunity to deal with it. This is only to cover the case where, as I said, minor amendment is made by the district valuer. It would seem unfortunate if he had to reopen the whole matter at that stage. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds. I will look into the point and if I find any difficulty I will inform your Lordships of it at a later stage.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15 [Effect of payments on claim holdings]:
  LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is solely in the interests of the purity of language. It is purely drafting, and I think it irons out some of the awkwardness in the existing Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 21, line 32, leave out from ("holding") to ("the") in line 33.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: The next Amendment is consequential on the last one. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 21, line 36, leave out from ("payment") to ("is") in line 37.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is consequential on the one preceding the one which the Committee has just agreed to. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 21, line 41, at end insert—
  ("Provided that if in the case of any claim holding a payment becomes payable under Case D, then, regardless of the amount of that payment, that holding shall for the purposes of the following Parts of this Act be deemed to have been extinguished immediately before the commencement of this Act").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved to leave out subsections (3) and (4) and to insert:
  "(3) Where one or more acts or events have occurred whereby in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act one or more payments become payable in respect of a claim holding (in this section referred to as 'the parent holding') and any such act or event did not extend to the whole of the area of the parent holding, then, both for the purposes of the preceding provisions of this section and for the purposes of the following Parts of this Act—

  (a) the parent holding shall be treated as having been divided immediately before the commencement of this Act into as many separate claim holdings, with such areas, as may be necessary to ensure that in the case of each holding either any such act or event as aforesaid extending to the area of that holding extended to the whole thereof or no such act or event extended to the area of that holding;

  (b) the value of each of the separate holdings respectively shall he taken to be that fraction of the value of the parent holding which then attached to the part of the area of the parent holding constituting the area of the separate holding;

  (c) the authority determining the amount of any such payment shall apportion that amount between the areas of the separate claim holdings to which the act or event in question extended in such manner as may appear to that authority proper, and the portion of that amount apportioned to the area of any separate claim holding shall be taken to be a payment payable under this Part of this Act in respect of that claim holding."

  The noble Lord said: This is a slightly different point. The purpose of subsections (3) and (4) of this clause is to ensure that where a payment is made in respect of a claim holding on account of an act or event affecting only part of the area of that holding, it shall be debited against the fraction of the value of the holding appropriate to that part. Thus, if a claim holding relates to two plots and a development charge has been paid for building on one plot, with the result that a payment is made under Clause 3 of the Bill, that payment ought, obviously, to be debited against that part of the claim holding appropriate to the

  875
  land developed, and not against the claim holding as a whole. This is achieved by dividing the holding into two holdings, one relating to the land developed and the other to the remainder, and debiting the payment against the former. This is all right so far as it goes, but the present subsections are not adequate to cover cases where there have been separate payments relating to different but overlapping parts of the area of the claim holding. The revised wording remedies this defect, but, of course, the principle remains exactly the same. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 22, line 1, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16 [Scope of Part II]:
  3.40 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
  "(3) Where, on an application for planning permission for the carrying out of new development of land to which this section applies, a planning decision is made after the commencement of this Act whereby that permission is granted (whether unconditionally or not) and the Minister certifies that he is satisfied that particular buildings or works to which the application related were only included therein because the applicant had reason to believe that permission for the other development to which the application related would not have been granted except subject to a condition requiring the erection or construction of those buildings or works, then, for the purposes of this Part of this Act

  (a) the application shall be deemed to have included, in place of those buildings or works, such other development of the land on which the buildings or works were to be erected or constructed as might reasonably have been expected to have been included having regard to the other development to which the application related; and

  (b) the permission shall be deemed to have been granted for the other development to which the application related subject to the condition aforesaid."

  The noble and learned Viscount said: I very much hope that the purpose of this Amendment will commend itself to all your Lordships. Cases have come to light where intending developers, having ascertained that permission would not be granted to build unless a service road was provided, have included the service road in their applications for planning
  876
  permission. As the Bill stands, no compensation would be payable in these cases, because provision of the road was not required by a condition attached to the planning permission. The Amendment is in general terms, since the same thing may happen in other connections. Its effect is that if the Minister is satisfied that the service road, or some similar feature, was included in the application in anticipation of the planning authorities requirements, compensation will be payable in the same way as if it had been required by a condition attached to the permission. It is really an anticipated inevitable condition, and we think that there ought to be compensation in these circumstances. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 5, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD SILKIN: I think the noble and learned Viscount is right in saying that the principle of this Amendment will commend itself to the Committee, but I wonder whether he could explain how it will operate. A person makes application to the local planning authority, possibly on information, given privately or otherwise, that if he puts in an application in a certain form he will get permission. He puts in his application in the form suggested and gets permission. Obviously he has no case for appeal because he has been granted exactly what he asked for. How does the Minister get to know of such a case? Does the applicant go along at some later date and say that he has been granted permission for what he asked for, but was induced to ask for something more than he ought to have been asked to do? Virtually, he is appealing against a decision for which he asked.
  Does the noble and learned Viscount contemplate that, having got permission for what he asked for, an applicant will then go to the Minister and suggest that the Minister should step in? There is no machinery laid down for this, and it seems to create a most unsatisfactory relationship between the Minister and the local planning authority, because the only ground for intervening here is that the applicant was induced to make an application, say, to make a service road, but that in some sense it was improper. If

  877
  the Minister comes to the conclusion that he ought to grant relief, that is virtually a serious reflection on the local planning authority for having induced an applicant to put in an application which was improper or unfair or for more than should have done. Therefore, I should be grateful if the noble and learned Viscount would consider how this is going to operate in the normal way. Unless there is an appeal and the Minister gets to know of it, I imagine that the source of information would be the applicant, who has been granted exactly what he asked for. There is no time limit here. While one would certainly wish to remove any hardship that might arise, this way of doing it seems to be somewhat ill-considered and "half-baked," and in any case the machinery needs rather more explanation than the paragraphs in the Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry that I have not taken the noble Lord with me into legislation, although he assures the Committee that he is with us in spirit. This is essentially a practical problem. It happens in planning, as in many other things, that development is considered a good development so long as an addition, such as the one I suggested, a service road giving access, is made. The person who is providing the development makes a service road and asks permission for the development, which he carries out. We think that is a case that ought to be dealt with, and I confess that the application for the certificate from the Minister, mentioned in the Amendment, did not seem to us a very difficult or serious matter as a matter of procedure. Far less did it appear to be anything that reflected either on the planning authority or the applicant. As it appeared to me, the planning authority would act with common sense in demanding access to the development and the applicant would also act with common sense in seeing that the access was there. In view of the great experience of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in matters of procedure, I am always prepared to look at them again, to see whether any improvement can be made, but I hope that your Lordships will accept this Amendment, because it seems to me that it merely gives what is fair and equitable to the applicant. I should be sorry if, when I come with open hands to provide something for the applicant, your Lordships should not
  878
  accept the gift and should treat me as if I were to be the more suspect when I bring gifts in my hands.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. Your Lordships will remember how the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act was married to the Act of 1947, and that requires this Amendment to be made. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 16, at end insert ("or by virtue of any regulations made under paragraph 13 of the said Schedule (which relates to certain applications under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved to add to the clause:
  "(5) Subsection (4) of section fourteen of the principal Act shall be amended to read as if for the words therein 'application the Local Planning Authority for permission' there were substituted the words 'a permission by a Local Planning Authority'."
  The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is an attempt to correct what seems to be a mistake in procedure. Under the present law, the Board of Trade have to supply an industrial development certificate for any factory or industrial building before application for planning permission can be made. That is the meaning of the reference in the Amendment to subsection (4) of Section 14 of the principal Act. I think that is an excellent provision, because the industrial development certificate has been a very useful procedure, but the result, under the Bill now before us, is that the owner of a piece of land who wants to build a factory on it must get a Board of Trade certificate before his application for planning permission becomes valid. And if the Board of Trade do not give him a certificate (though they may be quite right in any particular case), he cannot apply for planning permission, with the result that he cannot be refused planning permission, and therefore, can have no claim for compensation. The intention of this Amendment is to alter the words so that he can apply for planning permission and, having got it, can then get his industrial development certificate, if he is going on building; and if he does not get it, he can be in the category of those who have a refusal and have a right

  879
  to compensation. It may be that my reading of the present arrangement is incorrect and that it is unnecessary to put it right, but I hope that the noble and learned Viscount in charge of the Bill will appreciate that the intention is to put this particular category of people on the same footing as everybody else. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 28, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Ridley.)
  LORD SILKIN: I am somewhat reassured by the speech of the noble Viscount in support of his Amendment, because I believe that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is going to say that among the 161 Amendments there is one which meets his point: that an owner who is not enabled to put up a factory, by virtue of his failure to obtain a Board of Trade certificate, will not be penalised. If that is the only purpose of the Amendment, then I imagine the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley will withdraw it if he is satisfied on that point. But on planning grounds, I am sure it is right that the Board of Trade certificate should come first.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Yes.
  LORD SILKIN: If the noble Viscount agrees about that, then I have no more to say.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has in the most friendly way possible stolen my thunder. I was going to inform my noble friend that the new clause which I propose to move following Clause 58 deals with the point which he has advanced to your Lordships, and, I hope, deals with it adequately. As my noble friend and I are seeking the same objective, although by slightly different ways, I hope that he will not press this Amendment. If he will allow me, I will not go into some of the technical difficulties which his present Amendment presents, but may I assure my noble friend of this: that when we have discussed the new clause after Clause 58, if he is still in any difficulties, I shall be pleased to consider them, either publicly or privately. I hope that, when he has examined the new clause and heard it discussed in Committee, there will not be any difficulty in his mind.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. While I have not yet had time to read the proposed new clause, I appreciate that the intention is to cover this point, and that is all I am after. I am happy to leave it until then, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19:
  Right to compensation in respect of planning decisions
  (2) Where an interest in land has (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) been compulsorily acquired by, or sold to, a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, that authority, and any person deriving title from that authority under a disposition made by that authority on or at any time after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, shall not be entitled to compensation under this Part of this Act in respect of a planning decision made after the service of the notice to treat, or after the making of the contract of sale, as the case may be, by reason that the value of that interest, or of any interest created (whether immediately or derivatively) out of that interest, is depreciated by that decision.
  VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (2), after "title" to insert "immediately". The noble Viscount said: This is a somewhat technical point and I think I can best illustrate it by an example. Some little time ago the education committee of my county council bought several acres of land from a nearby farmer for the purpose of establishing a playing field. Subsequently, the Ministry of Education altered their standard requirements governing the size of playing fields, and in conformity with that ruling the education committee to which I am referring decided that a smaller acreage was appropriate in this particular case. They thus found themselves saddled with superfluous land. I have quoted this case to show that it has happened, and I want to use it purely for the purpose of illustration. I now go on into the realm of supposition.
  Suppose that this superfluous land was an acre in extent, and suppose that it had on it an existing use value of, say, £50 and a claim value of another £50. The county council would, therefore, have originally paid £100 for that particular

  881
  acre. If they resold under existing law, presumably, they would have to sell at the full market value. But let us suppose that, moved by the kind of arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Teviot last week, they so contrived matters that they sold his particular acre back to the original farmer, and also so contrived matters that that farmer paid for that land exactly what the county council had paid him—which is, in point of fact, considerably less than the market value. Now an ordinary person might perhaps assume that the status quo was thereby restored: the farmer would have his land back, the authority would have their money back, and everything would appear to be as it was before the land was originally acquired. But I doubt whether that is really the case.
  Let us suppose, further, that after a few years, owing to an increase in population, the authority again had to consider the expansion of the school, and suppose that they again came back to acquire the same acre of land from the same farmer. I believe that in such a case the district valuer would have to say that, under Clause 19, the farmer had derived his title from the statutory body, and that any claim on the land had automatically been extinguished. Therefore, the price on the second occasion, instead of being £100, would be £50. It seems to me hard that a man should have his claim extinguished in this somewhat complicated way, and there seems to be a good case for cutting out any reference to a person deriving title from a statutory authority. But if it is hard on the original owner, it is doubly hard on anyone who might in the intervening years have purchased that land without being aware of the complicated effect of this clause. It seems unreasonable that this skeleton in the cupboard could go on reappearing long after the original transaction had taken place. The effect of my Amendment would be, I believe, that the claim value in the case of any subsequent purchase would be restored to the land, which seems reasonable. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 26, line 1, after ("title") insert ("immediately").—(Viscount Gage.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In approaching the problem which has been so attractively propounded by my noble friend, I think one ought to look first at
  882
  the primary purpose of subsection (2) of Clause 19, which is to secure that a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers is not entitled to compensation under the Bill in respect of a planning decision made after the date of service of the notice to treat. I think your Lordships appreciate the reason for preventing a public authority from claiming compensation under the Bill—namely, that apart from Government Departments, who are not bound by the planning provisions, those affected will in most cases be either local authorities or statutory undertakers. Where these bodies are empowered to buy land compulsorily, it is solely for the purpose of their functions. An absurd position would result if a local authority, authorised to buy land for the purpose of, say, a public open space, were able, after acquiring it, to claim compensation on the ground that permission had been refused to cover the land with houses.
  So far, I think, the matter is quite clear. But the scope of the provision is not wide, for in the ordinary case, where the authority have acquired all interests in the land, the provisions of Part III of the Bill will result in the liquidation of any unexpended balance from which payment might have been made. But where, exceptionally, one or more interests in the land remain in private hands, the effect of the subsection will be that only those interests or their successors can claim on what is left of the balance. The disqualification extends in the clause, as drafted, as my noble friend has said, to persons deriving title from the public authority under a disposition made on or after July 1, 1948. The reason for that is that it would be unfair to allow such persons to participate in the share of unexpended balance which in equity should be attributed only to the interests which were not acquired by the public authority. I think the real answer to my noble friend's doubts is that those who derive title from the public authority can protect themselves by securing planning permission for any development which they have in mind before completing the transaction.
  My noble friend's Amendment seeks to confine the disqualification, so far as those deriving title are concerned, to those who derive title immediately from the public authority. He is afraid, if I may develop his own language, that the occasion may arise when someone looks

  883
  rather more deeply into the cupboard and finds a skeleton lurking in the back places of the title deeds. I appreciate my noble friend's point, but I doubt whether there is really any ground for distinguishing. The position which he put to your Lordships, that prospective purchasers, many years after land has come through the hands of a public authority, may find themselves in difficulty in discovering what their entitlement to compensation may be, is not, I think, a very real one, because the vendor should know. And I do not think the difficulty should be great because, as I have indicated, the facts will certainly emerge when the title is investigated. The main safeguard, as I have mentioned, is obviously that planning permission should be sought before completion takes place.
  I have considered this matter, and I appreciate my noble friend's desire to obviate any unfairness in the future. I do not think it is an unfairness that is likely to arise, and I would ask my noble friend not to press the Amendment. If there is any particular anxiety that he has in mind, again I shall be pleased to look at it, because I ask your Lordships to believe that I, most of all in your Lordships' House, am always reluctant to don the mantle of Elijah and try to prophesy what is going to happen—though I should be willing to admit that my noble friend is better at that than I am. If he feels that I have failed to pierce the veil of the future, I shall be glad to discuss with him any other examples he would care to put to me.
  VISCOUNT GAGE: I am obliged to my noble and learned friend. I do not think he has entirely filled me with confidence on every point, particularly on the precise points that I mentioned. Of course, we planning authorities have to deal with a variety of people. We have to deal, for example, with farmers; and farmers, unfortunately, are not always possessed of the technical knowledge which seems to be necessary when any matter of town planning comes up. I suggest that, if a farmer were offered his land back at the original price paid for it, he would think that a perfectly straight deal. I do not think he would necessarily consider the position which would arise in subsequent transactions. I suppose that if he sold his farm it is perfectly true, as the noble and learned Viscount has said,
  884
  that the purchaser would go into the question of title. I sometimes wonder whether an ordinary solicitor would have spotted that point. However, on the assurance that my noble and learned friend has given, that he will further consider what I have said, I am most willing to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is really a drafting Amendment. The subsection is otiose, in view of the fact that the definition of "interest in land" in Clause 68 precludes a mortgagee from claiming in respect of his own interest. Your Lordships will know that the position of mortgagees will be safeguarded by regulations to be made under Clause 65. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 26, line 38, leave out subsection (6).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 20 [General provisions as to amount of compensation]:
  LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is not a drafting Amendment so much as to transpose the clause. We propose, with the permission of the Committee, to move Clause 20 to after Clause 27. The reason for it is this. The rearrangement proposed by this and subsequent consequential Amendments will have the effect that the clauses dealing with title to a payment and the making and examination of a claim are brought together, leaving to the last those concerned with the assessment and the amount of compensation. I think the Committee will agree that this is a more logical order than the present order, and accordingly I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Transpose Clause 20 to after Clause 27.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 21:
  Compensation excluded in certain cases
  (2) Compensation under this Part of this Act shall not be payable in respect of the imposition, on the granting of permission to develop land, of any condition relating to—

  (a) the number or disposition of buildings on any land;

  885

  (d) the use of any buildings or other land;

  or in respect of any condition subject to which permission is granted for the winning and working of minerals.
  (3) Compensation under this Part of this Act shall not be payable in respect of the refusal of permission to develop land, if the reason or one of the reasons stated for the refusal is that development of the kind proposed would be premature by reference to either or both of the following matters, that is to say—
  (a) the stages indicated, in the development plan for the area in which the land is situated, as the stages by which development is to be carried out;
  Provided that this subsection shall not apply if the planning decision refusing the permission is made on an application made more than ten years after the date of a previous planning decision whereby permission to develop the same land was refused for the same reason, or for reasons which included the same reason.
  (4) Compensation under this Part of this Act shall not be payable in respect of the refusal of permission to develop land, if the reason or one of the reasons stated for the refusal is that the land is unsuitable for the proposed development on account of its liability to flooding or to subsidence.
  (6) For the purposes of this section a planning decision, whereby permission to develop land is granted subject to a condition prohibiting development of a specified part of that land, shall be treated as a decision refusing the permission as respects that part of the land.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment, but I think I might profitably say one or two words to your Lordships. The form of words in the Bill was devised to attempt to avoid using the phrase "use of land," which is the subject of much misunderstanding. This has given rise to other difficulties, and I think it is worth emphasising that "use of land" as defined in the 1947 Act does not include the development of land by the carrying out of building or other operations. The exclusion is drafted to include development consisting in part of a change in the use of buildings or land and in part of operations, because in such a case it is often impracticable to divide the total depreciation between the two elements. I thought it right to put those points to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 28, line 3, leave out from ("which") to second ("or") in line 4 and insert ("consists of or includes the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Your Lordships will be aware that Part II, of which Clause 21 forms part, is really the most important part of this Bill, and I am bound to say I am a little surprised that there are not more of your Lordships here and that a greater interest is not taken in this matter. If I owned land—I do not—I should certainly feel very strongly about these particular clauses which purport to provide compensation for a refusal or the conditional grant of planning permission. It might perhaps be thought to be a little difficult for noble Lords on this side to make a plea in this matter, but we do not stand here for any confiscatory provisions. We think fair compensation should be paid after having regard to community interest and to the increased value of the land created by the community. But these provisions, if your Lordships will think of them for a moment amended as proposed by the noble and learned Viscount, would really appear to do away with all possibility of compensation of any kind except in the most rare cases.
  Under the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Viscount, Clause 21 will read:
  "Compensation under this Part of this Art shall not be payable in respect of the refusal of permission for any development which"—
  then I take in the noble and learned Viscount's words—
  "consists of or includes the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land."
  So that if there is a proposal to make any material change in the use of buildings or other land, then there is no compensation for the refusal of permission for that change. If any of your Lordships have a barn, for example, which you desire lo turn into two or three cottages, and that development is refused, there is no compensation. If you have a large house which you wish to turn into a block of flats and that development, for one reason or another, is refused, there is no compensation. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will correct me if I am wrong. If you have a house which some-one will purchase for the purposes of a club or an institution—a private nursing home or school—and permission is refused for any reason, then there is no compensation. So one might go on. If you have land which someone will purchase perhaps for a car park or for the

  887
  purposes of a nursery garden, to erect two or three greenhouses, and permission is refused, there is no compensation. If you have a piece of land, as I have known happen in the case of a Member of your Lordships' House, which it is desired to turn into a parking ground for motor vehicles, to obtain a little income from it, and permission is refused, then there is no compensation.
  That general provision which the noble and learned Viscount is now asking your Lordships to accept is added to and particularised in the later provisions of this clause, as to which my noble friends and I propose to move the Amendments in our names. I submit to your Lordships that this Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Viscount is a very serious one, and far too wide. These provisions, which purport to give compensation, whittle it down to such an extent that in hardly any case will any compensation be paid. As your Lordships know, you have first to have something which is described as a new development. Then (I am looking now at Clause 17) you have to have an unexpended balance of established development value available. Then Clause 18 has various provisions which are very difficult to follow but which would appear to deprive one of compensation if there is no balance of established development value available. Then we go to Clause 19, which would appear in the first subsection to provide that a person shall be entitled to compensation under the conditions set out in that subsection. If, however, you turn to the clause to which this particular Amendment relates, your Lordships will see that again compensation is whittled down.
  I should certainly have thought that your Lordships would feel strongly on the extremely wide provision which the noble and learned Viscount has just moved, and which, as I submit, would cover almost every contingency one could think of. Another contingency which occurs to me is this: suppose one of your Lordships had premises which it was thought convenient or possible to turn into a factory—that is not in the least inconceivable. If, for any reason, permission is refused, there is no compensation; there is only, I think I am right in saying, the existing use value of the land. I merely point out these facts. I do not think it is necessary for me to
  888
  argue them at any length, except to say that we on these Benches wish fair compensation to be paid in proper cases when the community interest and the community contribution to the buildings or the land have been fully taken into account. I should have thought your Lordships would feel sufficiently strongly on this Amendment possibly even to divide against it.
  VISCOUNT GAGE: I think we ought in some ways to be grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, but I must point out that under the 1947 Act, although compensation was not excluded in these cases, very heavy development charge was imposed for this change of use. I remember my noble friend Lord Llewellin reducing the House almost to a state of hilarity by reading through a list of development charges for changed use which had been imposed. The noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, has covered a wide range in his speech. I do not propose to follow him in that general survey, but I must say there is one phrase in the Amendment which has been moved by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor which I believe can be explained, but which nevertheless has given rise amongst quite expert people to some feelings of real alarm. It would appear at first sight that if there were a proposal to change the use of land from agricultural condition to developed condition by putting houses on it, that would be a change of use, and if permission were refused it would attract no compensation. But I cannot believe that that is so, because it would conflict with everything we have been told about this Bill and about the principles of the Bill by every official spokesman who has ever spoken on it. However, there it is. It has caused certain confusion, and I should be glad if an interpretation could be given that a change of use of land from agricultural to residential, let us say, is not a change of use which is contemplated in this clause.
  LORD HYLTON: Clause 21 is generally accepted as what is called the "good neighbourliness" clause. That being so, these changes of user can rightly take place only if they are more or less in line with the good neighbourliness of the area concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, said that he thought that compensation should be paid on a planning refusal. I doubt if that is really sound,

  889
  for this reason: first, that the planning authority will not issue a refusal if tie development consists of any form of development which is reasonable in the district. If it is unreasonable, then we have always considered that permission ought to be refused. I think that that rather modifies the view which some of your Lordships may take as to the inclusion of the words in this Amendment.
  I, too, with my noble friend Lord Gage, hope that the noble and learned Viscount, when he replies, will put it beyond a shadow of doubt that the use of the words "or other land" will in no way affect the general conception of compensation under this Bill, which we have always understood to be that, if land was zoned for development and any development was then refused, compensation should be paid. That is the general principle, and we should be grateful to have a further assurance from the noble and learned Viscount that that is so.
  4.23 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: This Amendment relates only to one specific aspect of the clause. If I may respectfully say so, the noble and learned Viscount was quite right in saying that in form it is only a drafting Amendment. The intention of the Amendment was in the original clause. I have two Amendments down to other parts of the clause which I can argue when we reach them. I do not propose to argue the general question of this clause at all, but merely the Amendment. I am not sure that noble Lords opposite realise what this clause does. It takes the case of a person who has an established claim and who is refused permission to develop. It says that in certain circumstances he is not to be paid out on his established claim in respect of that refusal. I want to deal at this stage only with the refusal in respect of a change of use.
  I will just say this to the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, who thought it necessary to refer to the noble Lord, Lard Llewellin, and his bringing the House into a state of hilarity; that I remember the occasion very well indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, referred to fourteen cases, of which he gave particulars to the House. After the debate in the House, every one of those was examined and I am sorry to have to say that every one
  890
  was found inaccurate: there was a complete answer, so that the hilarity was rather misplaced. There might have been more hilarity, if we had been able to give the answers to the particular instances which he had cited, or if he had given notice that he proposed to raise them, so that they could have been dealt with. But I do not claim for a moment that the 1947 Act was perfect or that it could not have been improved. I gather that this Bill is for the purpose of improving it and it is no answer for the noble Viscount to stand up and say, "This is just as bad."
  Coming back now to the actual Amendment, it does say to a person who has an established claim, and who makes an application for permission to develop by change of user, that if he is refused permission to change the use, he is not to be paid out on his established claim. The point is this: that in many cases the established claim did relate to, and was because of, the possibility of a change of use. A person who was using his premises or his land for one particular purpose claimed that he could make better use of his premises it the land were developed more fully or used in a particular way. This clause arises only in those cases where he has proved this contention up to the hilt. He has had to satisfy the district valuer that the contention that he could make a better use of his land or buildings has been made out, and it is because of that that he has an established claim. Having got his established claim and having relied on being paid out, he finds that, in the particular circumstances in respect of which his claim has been established, he is not going to be paid out. My noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds gave a number of examples of change of user. It is exceedingly odd that there should not only be no criticism from the other side but that the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, should actually stand up and defend this provision. If he is satisfied, and if the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is satisfied, far be it from me to criticise it, for they are much more in touch with landowners than I am; and, if they think this is fair dealing, I will leave it at that.
  VISCOUNT GAGE: May I say that I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is slightly misrepresenting what I said. I did not say that. I expressed gratitude for one aspect of Lord Milner of Leeds'

  891
  contribution, but I did express some surprise that he should feel so much concerned for us, considering that, by a rather different route, we reached the same conclusions under the 1947 Act. We are discussing this matter rather generally. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that he was going to discuss the particular aspects of this matter. We will listen to what he has to say before coming to any conclusion on this point.
  LORD SILKIN: I thank the noble Viscount. I do not make any debating points and I certainly do not want to misrepresent the noble Viscount. If he does not agree with what I said, and thinks this a fair provision, it is open to him to say so. I am now in some doubt as to whether he thinks it fair or not. I think it is unfair. I think it is unfair that a person who has an established claim should not be paid out on that claim when he has made his claim on the particular ground that his land is capable of more beneficial use. Having established this claim, and having been told that at a certain date he is going to be paid out, the Government now come along and, under this clause, say that he is not to be paid out in respect of a refusal to permit a change of use. I am not for the moment concerned about questions of neighbourliness or otherwise (I shall be dealing with that when I come to my Amendment), but I say that this is a promise which has been made to a number of people. Landowners are not all large; they may be small. There are small people who are involved in this as well as large people—probably more small people than large. I very much regret that Her Majesty's Government are departing from what I regard as the honourable course, and are now declining to pay compensation to which people are properly entitled, which they have been led to expect they are going to get, and which now they are not going to get.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do, very respectfully, ask the Committee to consider the problem which is involved in this Amendment. May I ask the Committee to do so, first, by considering the words which we seek to leave out. They are:
  "does not consist in the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations".
  892
  We are seeking to substitute
  "consists of or includes the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land."
  My submission to the Committee is that the words which I have suggested are preferable, for the reason that they refer back to the principal Act and pick up a definition which is included in that Act, in the Definition section, Section 119. As your Lordships will remember, I mentioned the definition in the opening remarks that I made in moving this Amendment, but I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, can have heard me clearly. I know how difficult it is to pick up a definition when it is stated over the House, so may I read it to the Committee at dictation speed. It is:
  "'Use', in relation to land, does not include the use of land by the carrying out of any building or other operations thereon."
  So, with the greatest respect to Lord Milner of Leeds, in the examples that he gave, with the intention of jovially making the flesh of the Committee creep, every one of the examples that included building or operations on land, as a number of them did, was irrelevant for the purpose to which the noble Lord spoke.
  We come back—and this is the only problem in the Amendment—to whether it is fair to express the question of change of user in a positive form, as we now suggest, which goes back to the original Act, or in the negative form in which it now appears in the clause. That is all that is contained in this Amendment. But I want to make it quite clear, in response to what my noble friends, Lord Gage and Lord Hylton have said, that in my view the fears which they announced are unfounded, and I believe that the lack of foundation is obvious when one considers the definition which I have just read. On this Amendment the broad question which Lord Silkin used as an illustration but does not wish to debate fully at this time—namely, whether change of user should be included or not—does not strictly arise, because it is excluded by both forms of words. I do want to say this, however—again I make only a passing reference to it because to do more would be wrong on this occasion: that in putting this Bill before your Lordships on Second Reading, I tried to

  893
  deal with the two principles which are inherent in this clause. The first is that of good neighbourliness—and a change of user may well have a considerable effect as far as that is concerned; and the second is that propounded by my right honourable friend the present Minister of Defence: that, with all the desire that he had to encourage development, there must always be a limit, which varies from case to case, where the private rights come into conflict with the general interest of the locality in which those rights are sought to be exercised.
  I do not want to be led aside, attractive though the byeway is, into discussing that general point, because that can be discussed again. I merely want to point out to the Committee that here the Amendment makes a very small change, that of substituting a positive form of Words for a negative form of words. I must say that the discussion reminded me of the old Latin tag, that the mountains were in labour and a little mouse was born, except that in this case the "mice" seemed to have performed a miraculous creation of mountains out of a very mouse-like Amendment. I hope the Committee will accept it because there are a number of other most important points which we have to discuss.
  LORD HYLTON: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his help on this point. He has explained the definition in the 1947 Act of the use of land, and it does, I think, meet the point in his Amendment where it refers to the use of building land. I am not clear whether this Bill covers the definitions from the other Act. Are they incorporated in it? In this Bill there is no definition of the "use of land." I should not like to guess from the legal point of view whether it is implied that the definitions of the 1947 Act automatically come into this one. Although. I accept what the noble and learned Viscount has said, is there not a danger of the Act being misapplied in this respect? This Amendment has caused a great deal of what is known as "alarm and despondency," because at first sight it appears to remove any claim to compensation on refusal. I quite see that that is not intended, but I think a definition of the words "use of land" should be included somewhere.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend may take heart and grace in this way. It is certainly intended that that should apply, and I give him the firm undertaking that if there are doubts cast on that by any further examination of the Bill, I will see that it does include it. At the moment, I ask him to take it that the definition is adopted into this Act. As I say, if he has the slightest fears in the matter, I shall make quite sure that it is included before we part with the Bill.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  4.40 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (2), to omit paragraph (a) The noble Lord said: I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name. I regard this clause as one of the most important in the Bill. It deals with persons who have an established claim for compensation but who, for one reason or another, will not be paid compensation. One of the reasons is that which we have just discussed. I agree with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that the discussion was perhaps slightly irregular at that stage, but it would be quite appropriate to discuss it on the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill. We have not yet disposed of the question whether it is right that refusal of change of user should not attract compensation from the established claim. This paragraph provides that, where permission has been granted to develop, no compensation shall be payable in respect of any condition relating to the number or disposition of buildings on any land.
  I cannot help referring to the general character of this clause in dealing with my Amendment. This has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, as the "good neighbour" clause and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor fell into the same trap. It is, of course, nothing of the kind. II; has nothing to do wit good neighbourliness. Restrictions may be imposed by a planning authority for many reasons which may have nothing to do with good neighbourliness, though I admit they may have. Permission may be refused or a condition may be imposed as to the number or disposition of buildings on land because it would be bad neighbourliness to allow a developer to build the

  895
  number of dwellings he is seeking to build or to arrange them in the way he seeks to arrange them. But he may be refused for a variety of other reasons; some of them may have a connection with something a local authority itself wants to do at some future time, or indeed it may be a way of avoiding payment of compensation. Some of us with practical experience have known cases where a planning authority, in order to avoid paying compensation, has, where a developer wanted to develop his land in the normal way by building ten or twelve houses to the acre, given permission for one house only to be built and thereby have avoided payment of compensation. That has nothing to do with good neighbourliness. It is grossly unfair, that a person with an established claim should lose his claim because a planning authority is perhaps using this provision either to deprive him of his claim or for some reasons which have nothing to do with good neighbourliness.
  I imagine the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, will have in his brief that this is one of the provisions contained in Section 19 of the 1932 Act. It is perfectly true that that Act contained certain provisions which were permissive and under which it was possible for a planning authority to ask the Minister to insert some of these conditions in a planning scheme. If the Minister so desired, he could insert the conditions in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) in a planning scheme and they became operative, but so far as I know very few such planning schemes came into operation. I do not know of one case where the Minister actually incorporated those conditions in a planning scheme. If there is a case I am not aware of it. Certainly there are no such cases in any scheme made by the London County Council or by any other authority, so far as I am aware. Although these provisions were incorporated in the 1932 Act (which has now been repealed) they were, in fact, never operated and at best were only optional.
  My Amendment is to leave out paragraph (a) relating to the number or disposition of buildings on any land. Its effect would be that any such condition imposed would not deprive a person of compensation. That may be going a little far. There may be cases where
  896
  such a condition is imposed on the around of good neighbourliness. Where a person is seeking to develop at too high a density it would be proper for a local authority to say, "No, you must not develop at that density; you must develop at a lower density." But there will be other cases where the question of good neighbourliness will not arise at all and where the condition is imposed on grounds completely divorced from good neighbourliness. It is right to distinguish between cases where there is refusal on the ground of good neighbourliness and those where refusal is on other grounds. It would be right that compensation should not be payable in respect of the imposition of a condition where good neighbourliness is involved, but in other cases is it not proper that a person should be given compensation out of his established claim to the extent that he suffers from not getting everything that he might properly be entitled to?
  I want here to lay down a doctrine with which I am sure noble Lords opposite will agree: that normally a person who is an owner of land is entitled, morally and otherwise, to do whatever he thinks proper on that land, so long as it does not conflict with the public interest and so long as it does not do damage to his neighbours. Certainly when I was Minister of Town and Country Planning it was my objective to deal with appeals on that principle. The sole criterion was: Will there be any injury to the public interest if this development is permitted? If the answer was "Yes," then it was right that it should not be permitted. If the answer was that no such injury resulted, it was permissible. I personally went further and said that if there was a doubt, then the owner should get the benefit of that doubt. If one accepts that principle—and I imagine noble Lords opposite will accept it—I suggest that wherever there is a condition imposed which goes beyond the limits of good neighbourliness, then an applicant should not be deprived of his compensation. If he is given permission for something substantially less than he asks, he should at least get recompensed to the extent that he suffers as a result of getting less than he is properly entitled to.
  There is no difficulty about evaluating that loss because in later clauses of the

  897
  Bill, as the noble and learned Viscount will agree, the question of depreciation is dealt with. Depreciation in value is dealt with and fully defined, and this provision could quite well be made to apply to the depreciation in the value of a person's interest where he does not get what he is fully entitled to because of reasons other than good neighbourliness. So I suggest that these exceptions, (a), (b), (c) and (d), ought to be looked at again to see whether it might be so provided that a person should not lose the whole of his claim on account of a condition which might render it quite uneconomic for him to develop, and which amounted virtually to a refusal. If it were a refusal he would be entitled to get his established claim; but because it is not in the form of a refusal, and is in the form of a consent subject to an impossible condition, he loses the benefit of his established claim. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will agree that there is justice in what I am putting forward; and, if he feels that there is, I am sure that he will do his best, whatever the drafting difficulties may be, at this late stage, to see that justice is done. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 28, line 11, leave out line ll.—(Lord Silkin.)
  VISCOUNT GAGE: The question of conditions attaching to planning consents is, I believe, an extremely complicated one. In recent years we have been informed that a number of conditions which we have quite commonly attached to consents are ultra vires. I think that the position is very wrong and that it ought to be tidied up. I should have thought that conditions affecting the placing of buildings, provided that they are reasonable—and I agree that they should be reasonable—are in accordance with one of the oldest principles of town planning. The noble Lord quoted the 1932 Act. I do not know whether the schemes were confirmed or not, but certainly they were operated as if they had been confirmed, and under the 1932 Act local authorities had every inducement to try to make this kind of condition, because, if compensation had to be paid they were the only people who could pay it. Under this Bill they have no such temptation. They will not pay compensation. I should have thought there would be far less temptation for them to impose ridiculous conditions like zoning many acres of land
  898
  at one house to the acre than there was under the 1932 Act. Personally, I would agree that if any of these things are abused it is very wrong, but I was not aware that there was much abuse, even under the 1932 Act. It may have been because of the action of the Minister on appeal. While I believe that this question of conditions attaching to town planning consent ought to be most carefully looked into, I should not have said, in the light of our experience, that this particular condition offers any great threat, though I agree that it might be abused.
  4.56 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess to feeling a certain amount of astonishment in hearing the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, press this Amendment so eloquently as he did to your Lordships this afternoon, when I remember the quite vehemently expressed desire of the Opposition in another place to extend the range of exclusions under this clause. But that is only one of those debating pleasantries to which the noble Lord and I are accustomed, and I am sure that he will take my remark in good part. If he will allow me to say so, I think that what he did propound this afternoon, and the principles which he enunciated, are well worthy of the consideration of the Committee. He enunciated his principle in words used by the Duke of Newcastle 150 years ago—with, I confess at once, some addition. He said that a man may do as he likes with his own, so long as it does not interfere with the public interest. I think the noble Lord will agree that there is not much difference between that and the principle which I tried to enunciate: that private interest must sometimes give way to public interest, and that an owner, though entitled to the reasonable use of his land, is not entitled to exploit it to the maximum where this would involve detriment to neighbours or to the community.
  I think that the new facet of that well-known principle which the noble Lord sought to develop was the distinction that he tried to draw between neighbourliness in particular and the, community in general. I think that the noble Lord will agree that the problem of how far a principle can or should be pushed in any particular circumstances is one of the most difficult for anyone engaged in political

  899
  life to deal with. Probably, every Party would subscribe to the principle, but I think it would be difficult to find two individuals of any Party who would agree as to its application in any circumstances. That is the extent of the problem, which we must consider. Therefore, it is relevant to consider the 1932 Town and Country Planning Act, because it would be very difficult, as a matter of practical politics, for even noble Lords in the Labour Party to turn back the clock twenty-two years without at any rate some surprise being occasioned by that being done. I always attach great weight to statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, but I am told that, despite what he says, compensation was regularly excluded in respect of the zoning and density provisions of operative schemes. In fact, more than a hundred such schemes came into force. So one starts from that fact: that planning schemes under the 1932 Act commonly excluded compensation in respect of zoning provisions—that is, restrictions on the type and density of buildings, and on the use to which they were put.
  The Amendment before your Lordships would delete the subsection which precludes compensation for conditions relating to the density or disposition of buildings. I have already commented on the pressure in the other direction to which the Government were subjected in another place. I would ask your Lordships to look a little more closely at the resemblance to the Act of 1932. It must be noted that paragraphs (a) and (b) deal with the number, the place and the design of buildings that may be erected on the land, and the total effect is similar to that of paragraphs (a) to (c) of Section 19 (1) of the 1932 Act. The present words in paragraph (a) go a little wider, in that they make it possible to control the siting of building on the land, as well as their numbers and density, without giving rise to payment of compensation. That is the only difference that I can see.
  I would remind noble Lords opposite, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who in one way is the archpriest of the Uthwatt heresy, that the inclusion of siting removes an evident anomaly to which the Uthwatt Committee drew attention, as he will remember when the matter is brought to his mind. Let us
  900
  consider whether we are really going too far in this direction. I say to your Lordships that the matters that are covered in paragraph (a), and indeed in paragraph (b) also, of this subsection are akin to those which are commonly regulated by by-laws, and, as such, are generally agreed to be properly controlled without compensation. I say, further, that control of the volume of building is necessary not only as a matter of design, to ensure adequate daylighting, but also from the broader social standpoint, to ensure that development does not outrun the capacity of roads and of educational and other services. I have listened carefully, and as sympathetically as I can, to what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, but I find it impossible to distinguish these aspects of the matter from a due consideration of neighbourliness, and certainly from a due consideration of the interests of the community. I always find that arguments in which the traditional positions are reversed have a piquancy entirely their own, but I try to look at the matter fairly and to face up, as your Lordships have to face up, to that age-long problem and apply it to this present aspect. I say that to exclude this exclusion would be a retrograde step, with which I do not think any of your Lordships, on consideration, would be pleased to be associated.
  LORD SILKIN: One of the advantages of this House is that at times we can say what we really think, without being tied to Party dogmas. The noble and learned Viscount has made the traditional case and assumes that in every instance where a condition is made about the number or disposition of buildings on any land it is solely a matter of public interest and good neighbourliness. I agree with him that, in so far as a condition is imposed on those grounds, there should be no compensation. There we are at one. But I say that there are cases where such a condition is laid down which have nothing to do with good neighbourliness. The condition is not laid down on that ground at all and good neighbourliness would not be affected if the applicant got what he asked for. That would not affect the community one iota. The point I am really arguing is that in such applications, if the applicant can establish his case, and only if he can, he should not be deprived of his compensation.

  901
  He should get something in respect of the loss which he suffers as the result of this condition.
  However, I have put my case—I hope the noble and learned Viscount appreciates it—and I do not propose to press it beyond having made the point. If the noble and learned Viscount is satisfied that compensation should be wholly excluded in those cases, I imagine that his noble friends behind him will have more to say about it than we on this side. If they are satisfied, it is not for me to press them. May I say, in passing, that I was surprised to hear the noble and learned Viscount refer to the Uthwatt "heresy," because I thought he himself was a party to the Uthwatt. "heresy" not so very long ago? He may remember that the White Paper on Control of Land Use, which was issued by his own friends, accepted the Uthwatt "heresy" completely. I do not know when they ceased to accept the Uthwatt view and began to treat it as a heresy. I did not know that there had been any formal pronouncement, but perhaps the noble and learned Viscount is using his own new-found freedom in this House by departing from the accepted doctrine of his Own Party on Uthwatt. Whilst I do not think that I should withdraw my Amendment, I am not going to ask my friends to press it.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  5.9 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (2), to omit paragraph (d). The noble Lord said: This is a similar Amendment, but we now get back to the discussion that we had on the noble and learned Viscount's earlier Amendment to this clause, on whether compensation should be excluded in respect of a condition about the use of buildings. I do not wish to elaborate this point because to a certain extent it follows on the discussion we have just had, but here again it seems to me that restrictions on the use of buildings can be imposed on the ground of good neighbourliness or on the ground of arbitrariness. A case came before me on appeal in which a woman living in a village had been refused permission to use her front room to sell packets of tea. The local authority fought this case most vehemently, as if the whole world were involved in the question of whether this woman could sell tea from her front
  902
  room. If that woman had an unexpended balance of an established claim, and had been granted some permission but had been refused permission to do this particular thing, she would have lost the benefit of her claim. I am sure that no question of neighbourliness was involved in that case.
  There are many other cases of that kind, where a change of use cannot be said to affect neighbourliness. Take the sort of case in London, of which there are many at the present time, where a condition is imposed as to the use of a large dwelling-house which, in practice, can no longer be used as a dwelling-house, but which can most suitably be used as offices. No question of good neighbourliness is involved; it cannot possibly hurt the community in any way that these obsolete residences should be used as offices. There is an established claim on the ground that the Central Land Board are satisfied that these houses have a development value. But if, in spite of that, the owners are refused permission to use the dwelling-house, or any part of it, as offices, then they cannot get the benefit of their established claim. That seems to me to be wrong, and to be going much further than was intended. Here again, I am not going to press this Amendment. I have put the case, and if the Government think they are right I will say no more about it. But I do feel it is an injustice, and that people who have an established claim ought to be paid out unless there are good reasons why they should not. It seems to me that the whole of this clause is directed to depriving people who have made out their case of the benefit of a claim. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 28, line 19, leave out line 19.—(Lord Silkin.)
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: In supporting my noble friend Lord Silkin, I would venture to put a point to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, having now had the opportunity of looking at the definition of the word "use" in the 1947 Act. The matter is not free from doubt, and I offer my opinion with diffidence. The definition to which the noble and learned Viscount referred the Committee is to the effect that
  "'Use' in relation to lane does not include the use of land by the carrying out of any building or any other operations thereon."

  903
  As I understand it, if there is a change of user, and there are no building or other operations carried out on land, and permission is refused, no compensation will be paid. Therefore, if I am correct, the noble and learned Viscount was wrong in telling the Committee that all the instances I gave were covered by this definition.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not all; a number of them.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: The noble and learned Viscount said "all," I think. But take the case of a car park. I have a piece of land which I can let or sell if planning permission can be obtained for it to be used as a car park. There are no buildings to be erected thereon. In that case, if permission is refused, I get no compensation. That is one of the instances I gave. I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount will tender his apologies in that one respect, at any rate. I can think of others. I do not know whether this is an apt case (I must not go too far), but supposing that I desire to turn my piece of agricultural land into a cricket field, it may be that I should have to get planning permission. If I am refused, although there are no buildings to be erected, I get no compensation. I believe I am right there. My noble friend Lord Silkin reminds me that this is so—and this assumption applies to all these cases—even where I have an established claim, so to speak, on my own money in the hands of the Government.
  This Amendment moved by my noble friend is to delete
  "(d) the use of any buildings or other land; or."
  Under this paragraph no compensation is permitted if there is a change of user in regard to a building, which change of user does not come within the definition of the 1947 Act. So that there again, I submit to the noble and learned Viscount (he will correct me if I am wrong and, as he knows, I shall take no offence) if I have a house which I decide can conveniently be divided, without any building or other operations, into two or six flats, and permission is not given unless the Amendment of my noble friend is accepted there would be no compensation. Therefore, the matter
  904
  is not quite so simple as the noble and learned Viscount, in his kindly way, would lead us to think. In my view, the time will come when this Bill is in operation as an Act when there will be something like an outburst amongst landowners who have been refused compensation, notwithstanding that there has been a chance of user. As my noble friend has said, we on this side of the House are asking only for fair compensation, having regard to the community interest. Where the community have contributed to the increased value of land, then, under my noble friend's original Act, a charge would have been made in the one case, and that money utilised to compensate other cases. I submit that this is a proper Amendment and one which ought to be accepted by the Committee.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I unguardedly used the word "all" and attacked every one of the examples of the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, I apologise, and I shall not indulge in a rhetorical dutch auction by speculating whether the word should have been "most" or "many." The noble Lord knows that the last thing in my mind is to do him any injustice, and I hope he will accept that assurance. However, I find it difficult to appreciate how noble Lords have been able to express such obviously genuine worry about this Amendment and its subject matter. Again, one cannot help going back to the Act of 1932, Section 19 (1) (g) of which provides that a planning scheme might exclude compensation in respect of any restrictions on the use of a building. If that was the position in 1932, it really is beyond practical politics in 1954 to say that compensation should be brought back. I agree that it is a courageous argument for noble Lords to advance, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will believe that I am being quite sincere when I say that I am the last person to admire dogmatism for its own sake. If your Lordships will allow me to say so, I have always thought there was a great deal of sense in the old saying that dogmatism was simply "puppyism" come to full growth. Therefore, I do not for a moment think any less of the noble Lord's arguments because he is freely finding his own political

  905
  path. But I do put that point to him: that when that was the provision in 1932, then it is difficult for any practical political thinker, or anyone who seeks to put his political thought into action, to turn back the clock.
  Of course, the noble Lord is entitled to say that it is only an argument on precedent; they may have been quite wrong in 1932.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: If the noble and learned Viscount will permit me to interrupt, are not the conditions entirely different? There was no question of an established claim in 1932; now there is. The positions are not in the least analogous.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With respect, I do not agree with the noble Lord, because the position in 1932 was that you were deciding what were the conditions on which there should be no compensation. You decided that one condition in which there should be no compensation was restriction on the use of a building. How you can expect compensation for restrictions on the use of a building to-day I do not see. I was going on to deal with the matter on the more general view, and not merely arguing on precedent. Again, I find it difficult to understand why this should not be excluded, because I cannot imagine anything that could change the nature of the neighbourhood more than the change of user in that way. Indeed, as noble Lords will remember, if they think of any neighbourhoods with which they are familiar and which have changed, in a great number of cases it has been a change of user that has brought about the change, which has affected people and which has driven people out; and, therefore, looking at it on the merits, as opposed to precedent, I find myself in the same position.
  LORD SILKIN: I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not mind my interrupting him. He is rather assuming that in all cases of refusal the imposition of a condition as to user is one which will affect the neighbourhood. It is a difficult argument. I agree that in a good many cases it does; and in cases where the neighbourhood is detrimentally affected, I agree that there should be no compensation. I should not like it to be thought that I was advocating compensation for people who want to do something which
  906
  is detrimental. My point is that there are cases where a condition as to user is imposed which cannot by any stretch of imagination be regarded as affecting the neighbourhood or interfering with anybody.
  I know that it is always dangerous to give examples, but there is a case which came to my knowledge of a person wishing to open a petrol station in an area where it was greatly needed. There was not another petrol station for two miles, and it would have done no harm to anybody. He was refused. If he had had an established claim, on the assumption that it did no harm to the neighbourhood surely he ought to have got his established claim. There was a case of a person who wanted to put a few caravans on a piece of land where nobody would have been a penny the worse off. They could not have been seen from the neighbourhood, and there would have been no interference with anybody. That is the sort of case I have in mind, and not the obvious case where there is interference with the amenities. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not mind my making a rather lengthy intervention, but I want us to understand one another.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, which has made his point quite clear. I think the answer to his point is this—let me deal with it in stages. As we are all clear now, the buildings or other operations on the land are excluded by the definition in the 1947 Act. Then, when we come to change of use of building, we find that there is a history and an ancestry in the Act of 1932—on the noble Lord's own argument a decline, a slope of degree in which it alters in a small way from the straight and narrow path at the top to the foot, where there is a serious declivity in the bad cases which the noble Lord has quoted. There one has to take the balance, noting that there are these bad cases, and that there are cases in which it may be to the detriment of the neighbourhood and the community. One has to decide which line one is going to take. I have tried to show that, both on historical grounds and on the grounds of looking at the problem, the safe and proper course is the exclusion which is contained in the Bill. So much for buildings.

  907
  Now one comes to the use of land—cutting out, as I have said, by the definition, building or other operations upon it. There again, I think the noble Lord would agree that it is relevant to take into account the immensely greater importance which all Parties in 1954 attach to the proper use of agricultural land. It is one of the remarkable political phenomena of our time that, whereas in almost every other stage in British political history there has been controversy between town and country on this point, to-day there is almost unanimity. I admit that the noble Lord makes quite a good point when he says, "You can find examples one way or the other." That is the fair way of stating it, as one would expect from the noble Lord. But when one has done that, one comes to this over-riding consideration of the importance of the use of land which I mentioned a moment or two ago. Therefore, whilst I have tried—I hope the noble Lord will believe that I have tried—to follow and appreciate his point of view, I am afraid that it would be impossible to accept this Amendment.
  5.30 p.m.
  LORD OGMORE: I have listened with keen interest and all due attention to the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken, but I cannot feel that he has answered the point put by my noble friend. In the jungle through which at the present moment we are hacking our way, most of us somewhat blindly, I am afraid (at least, speaking for myself that is the case), I felt there was a shaft of light in my noble friend's Amendment. He instanced the case of the woman who wanted to sell packets of tea in the front room of her house and was prevented from doing so by the local authority. I have no doubt that there are many other small village people like this who to-day cannot set the country aflame because they never get past the local planning authority. We all know, those of us who know London at all, that there are vast areas in the London suburbs which still have the shadows of the Victorian era lying upon them, huge houses with restricted covenants, houses which, unless the local authority will act to allow them to have change of user, are left derelict, or at least occupied by persons who cannot occupy them in the way in which they should be occupied.
  908
  As my noble friend has said, we do not for one moment support the suggestion that there should be any lack of neighbourliness. What lack of neighbourliness is there in a woman selling packets of tea in the front room of her house? I remember that in a village near my home when I was a boy they used to sell almost anything in the front room of a house, which was occupied by a shop. I well remember the extraordinary mixture of smells as one went in through the front door—the bulls' eyes, combining happily with the linseed oil, sugar, bacon and so on. Yet look at the enormous mountain the noble and learned Viscount is making over this small village molehill. If there is any objection by the local authority, if that objection is sustained, even though the woman who wants to sell tea has an admitted claim she will get no compensation whatever. What is the answer of the Government—the Government which, we are told, believes in democracy, in the owner-occupier and in every householder owning his own house? Presumably they believe that, within reason, the householder should also be able to use the house, because it is not much use his occupying a house if he cannot use it in the way in which he wants to use it. What is the answer of the noble and learned Viscount? First of all, he has a sort of Bourbon defence. This was done in 1932, says the noble Viscount, and because it was done in 1932, and has been done ever since, we must not change it. Of course, as my noble friend Lord Silkin has pointed out, conditions have entirely changed since 1932. Planning and the restrictions on property were nothing like so stringent in those days as they are to-day. The whole circumstances of the use of property have changed since then. The noble and learned Viscount made a great point of this fact; he put it first and he spoke at some length on it.
  Then there was the second argument, which was rather short compared with the first, and that was the merits of the case. I must admit that whereas I got a very clear picture from the noble Viscount on the first ground— the Bourbon argument—no doubt through my own error and lack of understanding I did not acquire any clear account on the second. I did not understand very well what the merits were in such a case as I have mentioned, the woman who

  909
  wanted to sell packets of tea in the front room of her house. Your Lordships may say (I do not think you will, because on this point I am sure that a great many of your Lordships on the other side agree with me) that we should not worry in Parliament about the woman who wants to sell tea; that we should not worry about London suburbs where people cannot use these vast white elephants because of the need to obtain planning permission; that we should lay down one clear line and stick to it; and that it makes no difference that there are small injustices to some people—they are no concern of ours. I am sure that this House ought not to take that point of view. This House ought to say what my noble friend Lord Silkin, with his vast experience, has suggested we should say; namely, that if the owners of the premises can show that there is no lack of neighbourliness, and that they ought to be allowed to use the building or the land in the way they desire, then if they are prevented from doing so and have an established claim, there should be compensation. I do not pretend to be any sort of expert on that matter, but I should have thought that my noble friend's argument was unassailable. After all, as the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, so rightly pointed out, these are cases where there has been an admitted claim; these are cases where it is in a way their own money which is being withheld from the owners. I am quite sure that your Lordships will not like to pass on from this Amendment unless we have some very much better defence of the Government position than we have had up to now.
  LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: The noble Lord who has just spoken seems to take a pretty poor view of local planning authorities. His whole case was that really ridiculous restrictions, such as stopping the old lady from selling packets of cigarettes, were to be imposed by local planning authorities. Surely if those particular cases did arise and, in fact, the authority were acting unreasonably, then the person aggrieved would have a perfectly good right of appeal against those restrictions and the whole thing would come out into the open. I think the noble Lord is making a mountain out of a molehill. The other matter he mentioned was these old houses. There again, planning permission for change of
  910
  use might be refused, and he mentioned that in many cases they of course had restricted covenants. I think that in most cases the lease which has restricted covenants would, in fact, be barred from coming under this at all; it would not have any claim on the £300 million, because there would be unlikely to be much development value in the lease.
  VISCOUNT GAGE: I confess that I feel somewhat confused at the present juncture, but, from what I have heard in this debate, it seems to me that the argument about the admitted claim is a little difficult to refute. It is a little difficult to understand how, if someone put in and got agreed an admitted claim for redevelopment of a building, it could ever be substantiated that refusal of consent to a change of use does not carry compensation with it. These matters are extremely complicated, but I should not feel entirely happy about this particular point without further investigation. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is prepared to give it any further consideration.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am always prepared to give a matter further consideration, and I shall. On the other hand, ever since I have been a Minister I have always tried not to mislead the House by appearing to hold out hopes which I do not think have any firm foundation. Therefore, in answer to my noble friend, I am prepared to consider it. I shall read again everything that I have heard to-day, but it would be disingenuous of me to pretend that there was a great hope of alteration. If I may leave it in that way, which is I think the frankest way in which to treat the Committee, I hope the Committee will pass on, because we have a great deal to discuss. But let me make it plain that I do not grudge a moment which has been spent on these Amendments.
  5.41 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: I can assure the noble and learned Viscount that there is no intention on the part of myself and my noble friends to hold up the business of the Committee, but we feel that these are important matters. We want to be quite sure that the point of view that we put forward is properly appreciated. Once that is done, we will not labour matters at all. The noble and learned Viscount need have no fear that this Bill will not

  911
  pass at some time to-morrow night. But, before passing on, I would make it clear once more—I am not sure that it is properly appreciated by the Committee—that what we are speaking about is people who have established claims in respect of the possible use of their premises. It is that type of person, the person who has a house but has established a claim on the ground that that house is capable of further development. Then, that having been established, this clause says: "If you are refused permission to use the premises in the way in which it was contemplated when your claim was admitted—no compensation."
  The point has been made that there have been many cases where it would be right to refuse permission on the ground of amenity. I am conceding that in those cases it would be right to refuse compensation. The noble and learned Viscount has conceded also, in his usual fair way, that there are cases where the public interest would not be affected. I say that in those cases compensation ought to be paid, or at any rate there ought to be some payment made, in respect of the depreciation in value of the premises by reason of the refusal. That is the issue between us, simply in those cases where the public interest is not involved. The noble and learned Viscount has promised to consider it. I have not very high hopes—I quite understand that the chances are that the answer will still be in the negative—but he has promised to consider it, and no doubt it may be possible to inform us of the result of the consideration so that, if we desire to return to the attack at the next stage, we can do so.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly.
  LORD SILKIN: On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved to add to subsection (2):
  "being a condition such as is commonly incorporated for the lessor's benefit in a lease of land for mineral working."
  The noble Viscount said: This is a matter of more conditions. There is no doubt whatever that the operations referred to in these two lines in the Amendment—the working of minerals—are such that any prudent planning committee would impose conditions. There is no doubt
  912
  that there must be conditions. The idea behind this Amendment is to try to make things easier and simpler to understand. It is quite true that if these conditions are what one might call not reasonable ones, and they go too far, there is always an appeal to the Minister. While we all know that there are local authorities who are sometimes not entirely rational in all their proceedings, it apparently is not considered to be right—I think it never has been thought to be right—to put a paragraph into a Bill like this with such wording as "reasonable conditions." It is always assumed that whoever makes the conditions is reasonable.
  This rather exemplifies to me what the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, said about the difficulties experienced by planning committees in regard to the conditions which they may or may not attach to consents of various kinds, and the conditions which they should wisely attach. There is a lot to be said for putting them expressly in a list. Of course, in connection with the particular problem which we are discussing, the conditions which qualify for lack of compensation above are put in the list, but they are not put in for the people who are concerned with the extraction of gravel, sand and other minerals. There are many minerals which come under this heading. I regret as much as anybody does the necessity for removing such enormous quantities of minerals of all kinds and of spoiling such a vast area of country in doing so, but I fear that we must have out these minerals such as gravel, sand and clay, for bricks, cement and so on. We must get them.
  My proposal is that, instead of the wording of the Bill which says that there should be no compensation in respect of conditions subject to which permission is granted, we should have something describing such conditions as being those which are usually found in a mineral lease. I think that that would cover all the points which it is necessary to consider in respect of conditions which a local authority would wish to impose on planning grounds. The fact that unreasonable conditions are imposed from time to time in this respect is, I think, well known. I will not particularise them now, but all of us who have been concerned with planning, planning committees and so on, will realise that it is essential to impose conditions for levelling and restoring the surface and

  913
  generally treating the temporary buildings in a reasonable and sensible way. That is the sort of conditions which nobody would expect to qualify for a planning refusal. Therefore, they would not affect the proposal that compensation should not be paid. I think this is a much easier point than the very wide question raised in the last two Amendments, and I hope it will be considered. It is a point which can easily be met. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—.
  Page 28, line 24, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Ridley.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that my noble friend will not press the Amendment which is on the Order Paper to-day. I said earlier in this debate, in answer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, before the House moved into Committee, that I would not be technical but would try to answer the substance of the Amendments and not rely for rejecting them on difficulties or defects of expression. But I am bound to point out to my noble friend that there are dfficulties in the form in which this Amendment is placed before the House which I think reflect the difficulties of the subject. It would be difficult for a Minister to decide what conditions are "commonly incorporated in a lease" and whether such conditions are "for the lessor's benefit" or not. I would ask my noble friend to consider whether the proposal might not have results which would certainly be unexpected and might be inequitable, because not all sections of the mineral industry have, in the past, customarily undertaken such matters as the preservation of surrounding amenities by the proper location of unsightly plant and the correct disposal of waste materials, nor have they always provided for the restoration of the land after opencast working. This Amendment, therefore, would enable any section of the industry with a poor record in such matters to benefit by obtaining compensation for the cost of work, whilst those operators who have customarily undertaken restoration at their own expense would be debarred from getting such payments.
  I find the matter very difficult when considering the general point, with the ordinary conditions that are imposed. As I think the noble Viscount himself said, the most common conditions are the location and screening from view of
  914
  plant, the disposal of waste material and the order of working; and secondly, restoration, which may take the form of filling the excavation where materials are available, or in other cases the grading and replacement of the topsoil, together with the removal of the plant when the working is finished. I think most people would grant that reasonable steps of this nature should be taken to minimise both the offence caused by the process of working and the permanent damage to the land worked and to the surrounding areas. If one tries to face up to the question, "Should that be at the public expense" (which is really what the Amendment suggests), "or at the expense of the person who does the work, as part of the expense of doing the work?" I must say that, up to date, I think that the expense should be that of the person who does the work, and that is what I should recommend to the Committee. If, after considering what I have put to the Committee to-day, my noble friend has any further points which he would like to put to me, I shall be glad to hear them. At the moment, however, I regret that I cannot recommend this Amendment to the Committee, and I hope he will not press it.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I do not by any means insist on the words which I have put down, but I should like to correct or at least refer to one of the points made by the noble and learned Viscount. He said it was a question of who should pay for reasonable restoration. I do not intend this Amendment to mean that. Normally any person operating for minerals should pay for the restoration of normal amenity. My Amendment is to protect the mineral worker from conditions imposed or intended to be imposed by a local authority which may go further than that—which may put upon him the responsibility for matters much wider than what we now consider to be the normal treatment of land in this connection. It has become a standard practice amongst planning authorities at any rate to insist on the conditions to which I referred earlier, but it is in regard to cases where they go beyond that that I had hoped to get some protection for those who are affected. I am sorry that the noble and learned Viscount does not hold out much hope of doing something about it. Of course, these words

  915
  may well be subject to a great deal of criticism. I should have liked to put in "other reasonable conditions," but if I had the noble and learned Viscount would have told me that that would not have been possible. In the circumstances, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.54 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (3), to leave out paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name. I appreciate that Amendment No. 37 changes the wording of the paragraph that I am seeking to delete. I think the next Amendment is better drafted than the one in the clause as it now stands, but my objection to it remains the same and anything that I may say in support of my Amendment will apply equally to Amendment No. 37. The paragraph that I seek to delete provides that no compensation is to be payable— here again want to emphasise that we are speaking of cases where there is an established claim—if there is a refusal on the ground that the proposed development is premature because of the order of priority indicated in the development plan of the area in which the land is situated. My objection to this amended provision is that it is far too sweeping. I concede at once that in some cases development might be premature; but I hope the noble and learned Viscount will also concede that there will be many cases where it would not be premature at all, even though the order of priority indicated in the development plan shows that the proposed development is to take place at a later period.
  Let me give an example that will perhaps make the matter more clear to the Committee. It may well be that a development plan provides that redevelopment should take place in certain areas of a town in turn. Area 1 will be dealt with in the next five years; area 2 will be dealt with in the succeeding five years. An applicant comes along in area 2 and because he has an established claim it is conceded that development is proper in respect of his land. He wants to develop that land in anticipation of the redevelopment of area 2. Supposing he is prepared to do it in such a
  916
  way as not to conflict with the scheme of redevelopment, what possible objection can there be to his doing so? Suppose he wants to build a factory in area 2 which it is not proposed to redevelop for five or ten years, and that he wants to build it in that part of area 2 which is zoned for factory development. Can there be any possible objection? Yet he may be refused on the ground that this development is premature, as it would be under the terms of the amended paragraph; and he would not be entitled to his compensation.
  The noble and learned Viscount cannot plead the 1932 Act on this matter: he has got to deal with it on its merits; and he has got to explain not that there will be cases where it would be wrong to permit development but why a person should be deprived of his compensation when this particular development would be quite proper, even though in the order of priority in the development plan the redevelopment of the area might come rather later.
  I want to give the noble and learned Viscount all the hypothetical cases that he can think of. It may be that the local planning authority cannot make up its mind as to whether it is proposed to put a road through the particular site upon which the developer wants to put a factory. I think it might be quite legitimate for the local authority to say in such a case, "Until we can get round to it this particular development will be premature." But supposing there is no question of a road going through or anything else which would interfere with the proposed development, and supposing that it is proposed to carry out this development in an area where this type of development would be quite legitimate, then, merely because in the order of priority it is not proposed to tackle this area as a whole at that stage the applicant loses his compensation, or at any rate has to wait ten years before he can apply again. That seems most unfair.
  One of the justifications for this Bill, we are told, is that the 1947 Act was supposed to have held up development. Is this not a shocking case of holding up development in cases where to do so may be quite unnecessary? I hope the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will look at this point again, not with a view to cutting out such a provision altogether but in order to ensure that

  917
  it does not go too wide and so prevents quite proper and legitimate development which can do no harm to the community, which will not interfere with the develop-of an area but which will, indeed, be in harmony with it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 28, line 31, leave out paragraph (a).—(Lord Silkin.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I wonder whether it would be to the convenience of your Lordships if we discussed with this Amendment, Amendment No. 38, standing in the name of my noble friends, as to the number of years. The two Amendments seem to hang together. I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to be deprived of the opportunity of expressing his opinion on No. 38.
  LORD SILKIN: I think we can have a wide discussion here; the question of five or ten years is relatively less important than the clause itself.
  LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: The Amendment which stands in my name is on a much more limited point: how long, in the case of premature development, a prospective developer has to wait for the money to which he is entitled by his claim under the 1947 Act. The Bill says ten years; I propose that it should be five years. I will not discuss whether or not it is reasonable to refuse the development, on the ground that it is premature, but will deal with the shorter point of time. After all, these claims were already established six years ago and anybody refused development, even if my Amendment is accepted (which means that they will be able to apply again in five years' time), must still wait a total of eleven years from the time the claim was first admitted. Under the Bill as it stands, it may well be sixteen years from the time of admission of development value in that land before the owner can get paid compensation for the refusal of development. Even in a period of ten years the value of that claim tends to halve, which again is an injustice. The five-year period, particularly if the claim is refused under paragraph (a), would allow the authority to review the proposed planning again at the five-yearly planning review. The authority would then be able to come to a decision on whether or not to grant permission and should not again have any "get out" on the ground
  918
  of premature development. I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Viscount will consider my Amendment sympathetically.
  LORD HYLTON: I wish to support my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney on this very limited point. I have ascertained the effect of using deferred tables, as valuers do, over a period of ten years. Taking a capital sum of £1,000 as the agreed loss of development value, that is, compensation, the tables show a reduction in the value of a claim in that period to £640. This is a serious point, because in the original valuation by the Government valuer, when the loss of development value was originally assessed and agreed, the tables had already been brought into operation in establishing the original claim. Therefore, the claim-holder is now suffering through his claim being twice deferred. Even if his claim is deferred for five years, the tables show that in that period his claim, taking it again at £1,000, is reduced to £800. Even on the limited Amendment of my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney, the claim-holder loses on a five-year deferment £200 and on a ten-year deferment, £360. On those figures it is extremely difficult to justify any deferment at all, because of the way these mathematical calculations operate.
  Under paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of Clause 21, any amount of deferment can be brought into operation because it deals with
  "any existing deficiency in the provision of water supplies or sewerage services …"
  That provision, of course, can be used as an argument for almost infinite deferment by a local authority if it does not wish to supply these services. In some circumstances ten years may well be the minimum amount of time. I would urge the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to explain how this deferment period of ten years will not cause very considerable financial hardship and loss to those who have an established claim or to the claim-holder.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that when I have finished noble Lords will consider it has been profitable for me to intervene at this stage. I was impressed but not convinced by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin because there was one lacuna in the argument which I

  919
  waited in vain for him to fill. The noble Lord's argument was about an extremely silly decision of the planning authority. He asked, what about a case where the local authority will not give permission, although there is no harm in the proposed development, because they have said "We are going to develop in the following order, first one place and then another, then a third"? I say to the noble Lord that the answer to that question is that the owner appeals to the Minister against what is, ex hypothesi, a silly decision. I do not think that one can really deal with this matter on the basis of an argument that decisions are going to be silly. If they are not going to be silly, what is going to be the basis of the decision that the local authority makes? Of course, apart from paragraph (b) (which I am not putting against the noble Lord, because that is a separate matter relating to the question of water supply or sewerage services), the basis must be that the development would be premature, in the light of the development plan, for some good reason.
  I suppose the sort of reason which might affect the planning authority would be the view that sporadic development all round an expanding town is wasteful not only of agricultural land but also in the demands it makes on all types of public services. That might be the reason for the planning authority to stand by their development plan. And that is why the subsection provides that the owners concerned are not to be entitled to compensation because they are made to wait their turn. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Silkin will not think that I am merely being aggravating, but I would remind him—for it is so unusual for him, with his experience, even momentarily to forget one of these many complicated provisions—that temporary restrictions against development could be excluded from compensation under Section 19, (1)(d) of the 1932 Act. So I am, therefore, in the position of having some historical support for the argument which I am putting forward. There is, moreover, a strictly practical explanation underlying the provision. That is, that it would be inconvenient and frustrating for all concerned if compensation were paid on a refusal of permission only to be recovered after a short interval when development could be permitted. That is a point we have to remember. If
  920
  the period of time during which compensation is withheld is too short, plainly there will be a considerable increase in the number of payments and recoveries of compensation, which I think would be unfortunate.
  I come now to the other point which has been urged by my noble friends Lord Amherst of Hackney and Lord Hylton. As they appreciate, and as all your Lordships appreciate, it is very difficult to determine the correct period. In another place we were urged that the period should be as long as fifteen years. To-day my noble friends are proposing that it should be five. I think, taking into account the view which is implicit in Lord Silkin's argument—although I cannot accept it—that it would be right to shorten the period. I want, in these matters, to try to express, when it is possible and practicable, the collective view of the Committee. So, as I say, I think one ought to try to shorten this period. What I suggest to my noble friends is that if they will to-day withdraw their Amendment to make the period five years, then, on the Report stage, I will put down an Amendment shortening the period to seven years. I hope that that will suit your Lordships. I am sorry that I cannot go further to meet Lord Silkin, but I have tried to meet what I feel is the general spirit of the Committee on this matter.
  LORD SILKIN: The noble and learned Viscount has done exactly what I hoped he would not do. He has produced a case where a planning authority is perfectly right. I conceded that in advance. I conceded that there will be many cases in which it would be right to make this decision, and that compensation should be deferred. Then I came to cases where it is not right. I tried to give an example, and the noble and learned Viscount says that my example is silly. He says that if a local authority acts in that way they would probably be upset by the Minister. With great respect, I have seen decisions of this kind. I have had five years' experience in this connection, and I am quite accustomed to seeing decisions made by planning authorities which are quite inexplicable—and which are not always upset on appeal to the Minister. Local authorities do go wrong. Of course if they never do, or if everything is put

  921
  right in the end, the position of which we have been speaking will not arise and the noble and learned Viscount can be quite happy that any injustice will be put right. But I am dealing with cases where injustice is not put right. I am dealing with cases in which refusal to permit development is quite improper—cases in which development can be allowed but somehow is not allowed by the authority and is not allowed on appeal. I should have thought that in this instance, just as in the cases of the other two Amendments I have moved, some provision ought to be made for dealing with cases of that kind, recognising, as I have said, that in cases where it is proper that permission should be deferred the compensation should be deferred. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will have this matter looked at again. I think that the provision which he is going to move in the next Amendment is too wide. I think that if he looked at the matter again he could find a form of words which probably would meet my case, and would ensure that only in cases where it is wrong that permission should be given to develop will compensation be deferred.
  LORD HYLTON: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for suggesting a period of seven years instead of ten. That is a small advance. But your Lordships will have observed that the noble and learned Viscount did not base it on any question of equity; he based this reduction in the period of years on administrative convenience. The noble and learned Viscount said that because many claims, or some claims, might have to be paid over on the one hand and then repaid, it would be tiresome—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I wonder whether my noble friend will allow me to interrupt. I should not like him to be under any misapprehension. That was really part of the argument against abandoning this position. With regard to this period of years, my suggestion is, in a sense, an averaging of all the suggestions made in this Committee, and of all the different points of view that have been put before us. I have tried to find a fair average. I wanted to tell my
  922
  noble friend that, because I should not like him to think that I was confining my remarks to the other point. I am sorry to have interrupted.
  LORD HYLTON: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for putting it so clearly. But to my mind it does not affect the validity of the argument which I am trying to put before your Lordships. So far as I can see at the present time, this really is the sole basis on which an average line is drawn between a number of different periods of years. It is not based on the fact that the claim-holder is out of pocket at the present time and, under the Government's proposals, will be more out of pocket by the use of deferred payment. I am no valuer, but if the valuers' deferred tables are correct, I do not see why the claim-holder should be further out of pocket owing to the provisions of Clause 21. Though I am grateful to the Government for reducing this period to seven years, I must reserve my position and maybe put down a reduced number of years on a further stage of the Bill.
  On Question, Whether the said paragraph (a) shall be deleted?
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD O'HAGAN): I think the Contents have it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may raise the point, it is clear that the paragraph is not deleted.
  LORD SILKIN: Its deletion would give the noble and learned Viscount an opportunity of looking at it again before the Report stage.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should have thought that if the voices had been collected on the noble Lord's Amendment, it would have been negatived, but I do not wish to divide the House. I only want to get the position clear.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 28, line 31, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
  ("(a) the order of priority, if any, indicated in the development plan for the area in which

  923
  the land is situated for development in that area;").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY had given notice of his intention to move in subsection (3) to leave out "ten" and insert "five."
  The noble Lord said: I have already spoken on this point. I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for going some way to meet us, and I shall not move this Amendment.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved to omit subsection (4). The noble Viscount said: I put down this Amendment because I wished to know why subsection (4) is inserted here. I should have thought that if land were not suitable for development on account of flooding or subsidence, it would not have attracted a very large claim under Part VI, so there would be no point in having it mentioned in this part of the Bill. However, if it was thought to be land which had some development value, in spite of some risk of flooding or subsidence, surely there would be no reason why it should not be left in the same category as any other land with development value. I am wondering whether there may not be some other meaning in this clause. I wonder whether it could not be taken to read that the land is unsuitable on account of its liability to flooding or subsidence by actions which are to be taken later—I am thinking of subsidence due to operations of the National Coal Board, for instance. I do not want to go into great length on the difficulties in connection with that, but I would ask if there is any such reason for it. It seems to me that if the subsection means what it says, it should not be there at all. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will tell us what is intended. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 28, line 43, leave out subsection (4).—(Viscount Ridley.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR:The purpose and effect of this Amendment is that it would enable compensation to be claimed where planning permission was refused on the ground that the land was unsuitable for such development because of its existing liability to flooding or subsidence. Again, this provision follows the precedent of the 1932 Act in which
  924
  Section 19 (1) (e) provides that compensation could be excluded in respect of restriction on building where such development by reason of the situation or nature of the land would be likely to involve danger or injury to health. The Government and Parliament of that day took the view that the fact that the foolhardy or unscrupulous might purchase land for development was no reason for paying compensation if permission was refused. I think that argument deserves equal consideration to-day.
  There is another aspect of the problem which I think my noble friend had in mind and which I think your Lordships ought to have in mind—that is, it may well be feared that the provision is inserted and might be used for the purpose of saving the Exchequer money by the attaching of such reasons to a refusal of permission which is really and fundamentally based on totally different grounds. I hope that that is not a ground of fear. I want to assure my noble friend that my right honourable friend the Minister will watch very carefully to ensure that the provision is used only for the purpose for which it is intended, following the lines on which it was inserted and used in the 1932 Act. Again, if my noble friend has any further worries on the point, I shall be pleased to discuss them with him and to consider the matter, but I feel that we should be on safer ground to follow the 1932 Act in this regard.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the information on the second point to which I referred. However, on the main point, are we not back on the same kind of thing as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, were concerned with earlier? The fact is that this is land which has been given a development value and has an admitted claim. If it was not so liable to flooding when the claim was admitted on it in 1947, has it not as much right to be paid for as any other land? I cannot get over that point. The longer we go on this clause, the more inclined I am to follow the Amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and others. This case, particularly, seems to me such a simple one. It is not a question of what is good neighbourliness, what is good planning and what is good manners, but

  925
  a question of fact: did the land or did it not have a development value in 1947? I would submit that the conditions in the 1932 Act are inappropriate, because there was no such thing as an admitted claim in 1932—it had never been heard of. Here, either it was liable to flooding or subsidence in 1947, or it was not, and according to that it was valued. What is the justification for treating this land differently from any other? I cannot feel convinced that this is the right answer.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I say, I will willingly have a look at it and consider the point which the noble Viscount has made. On the other hand, I hope he will consider mine, and that we might deal with the matter again on the next stage of the Bill.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "prohibiting" and insert "either prohibiting or which in effect prohibits." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is not a difficult one of principle on the admitted claims, or otherwise, but is an endeavour merely to amplify things a little. Subsection (6), which is really a definition one, says:
  "For the purposes of this section a planning decision, whereby permission to develop land is granted subject to a condition prohibiting development. …"
  I should have thought that it would be better if, as I suggest in my Amendment, the words were,
  "either prohibiting or which in effect prohibits."
  One can well imagine a condition which, on the face of it, allows development to happen, but in fact is so costly and so large a condition in relation to the work required to be done that it could prevent the proposed development. Following from that, the land referred to would come within the category of Clause 21. It is really a simple matter, and I do not think I need say more than that. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 29, line 8, leave out ("prohibiting") and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Ridley.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must confess that there has been a certain amount of speculation in my mind as to what was the real purpose and intention of this Amendment. I found it
  926
  difficult to get an accurate view of what my noble friend had in mind. Therefore, I welcome the chance of considering it further after hearing what he has had to say to-day. I assume that the primary purpose of the Amendment is to provide for the type of condition which, if attached to a permission to develop, would make the development so costly and uneconomic that the permission could not be acted upon. It seemed to me hardly conceivable that such conditions would be imposed, but, even so, I believe that the solution to the problem lies not in the proposed Amendment, which it would be difficult to work, but in good administration by the planning authorities and in exercise of the right of appeal against unreasonable conditions.
  However, there is a slightly different type of condition which I know has received some consideration, and which I should like to mention, because undoubtedly those interested will have had it in mind when they saw the Amendment of my noble friend; that is, a condition which, without prohibiting, development in a specified part of the land, has the effect of sterilising some of the land for the purpose of such development. Such conditions are rare, and my right honourable friend the Minister is aware of only one example. A condition has been imposed stipulating that mineral working should take place in such a way that support is left for the site of a proposed highway. Such so-called "highway corridor" conditions are imposed as infrequently as possible, and are drawn in a form designed to minimise the sterilisation of minerals by a strict demarcation of the line up to which working may take place. I thought that that might be one of the forms of condition which my noble friend had in mind.
  It is difficult to see how an alternative form of condition could be devised which did not have this or some other defect. As I told your Lordships, that is an isolated example, and I should not have thought by itself a sufficient reason for the widening of subsection (6) in the way suggested, because that would admit compensation and dispute about the effect of conditions over a much wider range of possible situations. I hope that in this

  927
  case my noble friend will agree not to press the Amendment, because I should like to consider it once again, having heard his exposition and knowing more clearly what is in his mind. I will consider this, and I shall be glad to give him the decision of Her Majesty's Government on it when we come to the Report stage.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. He referred to one of the points I have in mind. I thought it was a simple one, and that it could be incorporated. However, in view of what the noble and learned Viscount has said, I am pleased to withdraw the Amendment, in the hope that he may be able to tell us something on the point at a later stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.39 p.m.
  LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved, after subsection (6) to insert:
  "(7) Nothing in this section shall derogate from the operation of any enactment whereby provision is made for the payment of compensation in respect of minerals left unworked for the purpose of affording support for the sewers, water mains or other works of any local authority or statutory undertaker."
  The noble Lord said: This is quite a simple Amendment in a somewhat difficult Bill and it is really self-explanatory. It suggests that where minerals are left unworked for the purpose of affording support for the sewers, water mains or other works of any local authority or statutory undertaker, then nothing in this clause shall derogate from the operation of any enactment whereby provision is made for the payment of compensation. That seems a fair suggestion, because it means that the mineral operator is leaving his own minerals to support these sewers, water mains, and so on, on his property. In that case, I should have thought it was fair to make a provision that nothing should prevent his getting a reasonable compensation for such minerals. I do not think I need say anything else. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 29, line 10, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Hylton.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can assure my noble friend that this Amendment is unnecessary, and that the position which he seeks to safeguard is
  928
  already well safeguarded and defended. I do not think there is any doubt about the matter at all. The other enactments which my noble friend's Amendment mentions are presumably those collectively referred to as the Mining Code, which makes provision for compensation at full market value for minerals which are sterilised at the direction of a statutory undertaker, or similar body having powers of compulsory purchase, which owns the surface of the land and which considers that the working of minerals beneath will injure its undertaking. But there can be no overlapping of these provisions with the provisions of Clause 21, and no derogation of rights under those enactments. If a planning permission stipulates that a developer may not work a certain part of the area of application, then he will be able to claim compensation under Clause 21 (6). No question of Mining Code compensation in respect of such sterilised land can arise—this is a point which I think is most important for my noble friend—as the developer has no planning permission to work it and, therefore, can constitute no danger to the undertaking. If, on the other hand, planning permission has been granted for an area, and an appropriate authority sterilises part of that area under the Mining Code provisions, then the right to compensation under the Code is unaffected. In other words, those for whom my noble friend is concerned have it both ways, and I think he can be completely reassured.
  LORD HYLTON: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. It shows the complexity of the Bill that it could already have been covered in some other portion. I regret wasting the time of the Committee with such a small point, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 22:
  No compensation if certain other development permitted
  22.—(1) Compensation under this Part of this Act shall not be payable in respect of a planning decision whereby permission is refused for the development of land if, not-withstanding that refusal, there is available with respect to that land planning permission for development to which this section applies:
  Provided that where such permission is available with respect to part only of the land, this section shall have effect only in so far as the interest subsists in that part.
  (2) Where a claim for compensation under this Part of this Act is made in respect of an interest in any land, planning permission for development to which this section applies shall be taken for the purposes of this section to be available with respect to that land or a part thereof if, immediately before the Minister gives notice of his findings in respect of that claim, there is in force with respect to that land or part a grant of, or an undertaking by the Minister to grant, planning permission for some such development, subject to no conditions other than such as are mentioned in subsection (2) of the last preceding section.
  (3) This section applies to any development of a residential, commercial or industrial character, being development which consists wholly or mainly of the construction of houses, flats, shop or office premises, or industrial buildings (including warehouses), or any combination thereof.
  6.44 p.m.
  LORD WISE LORD WISE moved, in subsection (1) after "applies" to insert:
  "and the value of the land is not depreciated as the result of such decision:"
  The noble Lord said: Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will be able to meet us in what we are proposing in this Amendment. I am encouraged in this by the fact that on Second Reading of this Bill he mentioned this particular clause and suggested that at a later stage it could be discussed more fully. In many ways it seems to me that this clause has a measure of unfairness in it, and particularly in regard to the first subsection. Noble Lords will observe that it says:
  "Compensation … shall not be payable in respect of a planning decision whereby permission is refused for the development of land …"
  That permission may be refused in regard to the whole of the land which is required for development, or it may be refused in part. In that subsection there is at the moment no basis upon which the planning authority or the Minister can come to a fair decision as between claim-holders. For instance, an owner of one plot of land or one area of land may receive planning permission, but on an adjoining plot or area the owner may be refused. In that refusal, the planning authority may suggest to him alternative schemes of development. Those alternatives may not be in the least what the owner of the land desires. They may be outside his province of development; they may depreciate the property, and they may be futile or according to the whims of the local authority or even of the Minister himself. For that reason, there is a great hardship and, may be, a
  930
  considerable loss imposed on the claim-holder.
  The Amendment which we propose is that some basis should be arrived at to limit, if necessary, the actions of the planning authority or, at any rate, to suggest to them that they should be reasonable in their desires and should not in any shape or form create a hardship with one owner against possibly an adjoining owner. The Amendment which is proposed is that these words should be added at the end of line 17:
  "and the value of the land is not depreciated as the result of such decision."
  I can readily understand that the noble and learned Viscount may find difficulty in arriving at what is depreciation or the value of that depreciation. If that is the case, the wording can be altered. I noticed that in another place the Minister was toying with the words, "reasonably remunerative development." That may be a solution. But at any rate what we seek to do is this, and I know that it will find favour on both sides of the Committee: we seek to exercise the law fairly as between adjoining owners or, at any rate, between individuals. The subsection as it stands does not appear to me to bring about that desired effect and I hope, therefore, that even if the Amendment which I propose cannot be accepted, the noble and learned Viscount will give us an assurance that between now and a later stage this particular subsection will be looked at in order to put the matter right and proper as between claims-holders. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 29, line 17 after ("applies") insert the said words.—(Lord Wise.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Lord who moved this Amendment has indicated, there are drafting difficulties about it, and, as he guessed, it is not in a form which can be accepted. As I said earlier in this debate, however, I want to consider the substance of these points. I have assumed that the object of this Amendment, and also of the proposed deletion of subsection (3), is to widen the range of the permission the grant of which will bar compensation, but at the same time to ensure that compensation is excluded only where the permission given would be not less valuable than the permission refused. That is the sort of idea that I have assumed is behind

  931
  the Amendment. Apart from the drafting point, of course it would be contrary to the Government's intention to exclude compensation automatically owing to the grant of permission of a kind falling outside the description in subsection (3).
  It has been broadly agreed throughout the progress of the Bill that residential, commercial or industrial development is of a reasonably remunerative character, and that if development of any of these kinds is permitted there is no occasion to consider compensation for refusal of permission to carry out development of other kinds. This does not mean that compensation is automatically payable where something is permitted which is not within subsection (3). Compensation, in that event, is to be based on the depreciation sustained, and any permission which has been or is granted will be brought into the reckoning, and will operate to reduce the depreciation. We have not been able to adopt the intention that automatic exclusion shall operate only where the alternative permission given would be no less valuable than the one refused, because we are always brought up against the general principle which I enunciated—and which, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin enunciated in slightly different and probably better words—that an owner, although entitled to the reasonable use of his land, is not entitled to exploit it to the maximum where this would involve detriment to his neighbours or to the community. These are the difficulties that I feel, and in these circumstances I should like to consider this point again. I will consider what the noble Lord, Lord Wise, has said, and perhaps it would be possible for us to have a discussion between the two sides. Having therefore broken the ground of the problem and seen the difficulties which face each side, I suggest that we do not decide it at the moment, but that we come back to it at Report stage.
  LORD WISE: While thanking the noble and learned Viscount for receiving the matter in the way he has, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved, in subsection (2), after "Minister," where that word occurs a second time, to insert, "or the local planning authority." The noble Lord said: This is a small Amendment
  932
  but I believe it to be important to this part of the Bill. This clause, which is of great difficulty and complexity to understand, on the whole gives the impression that where planning permission for some such development is going to be given it can be given only by the Minister, and it is thought that in many cases this permission, or in some cases lesser planning permission, might well be given by the local planning authority. The reason for that is that if all these matters are to be referred to the Minister, the Minister will be overwhelmed with applications from all the planning authorities in the country. There are over sixty administrative counties, not counting any of the county boroughs, and it means, in our view, that, because of the great number, the Minister will not be able to deal with a great many of the applications for some such other development. That, of course, is a supposition, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would be able to tell the House whether such a supposition is likely to be correct or not. Those of us who have had experience of these matters only in local government circles do not know what congestion might arise if this clause were to pass in its present form. I do not think I need to say anything further at this moment. I beg to move the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 29, line 28, after ("Minister") insert ("or the local planning authority").—(Lord Hylton.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I feel, after the speech of my noble friend and having regard to his great experience in these matters, that this raises a difficult point, but I should like to put before him the views which we have formed about it, so that he will understand how the difficulties appear to us. Broadly, the point is whether it would be right and convenient that local planning authorities should be given the power, which they do not at present possess, to give undertakings to grant planning permission. These, in the context of the present clause, could have the effect of excluding compensation.
  As your Lordships know, it has been argued that for them to have this power would make for speedy and convenient administration, since certain cases, in which the authorities found it possible

  933
  to give undertakings, need never come before the Minister or need never be considered in detail by him. On the other hand, the Minister (and I must confess I see the force of his view) thinks that this would mean an unnecessary and, indeed, unfortunate interference with the existing arrangements under the Act of 1947, which enable authorities to deal formally only with applications which come before them and on which their decisions are subject to appeal to the Minister. If the Amendment were made, a series of further Amendments would be required to provide for rights of appeal. Quite apart from this consideration, I think it would be wrong that planning authorities should add to their existing burdens the task of considering in detail, on their own initiative, whether they ought to give an undertaking to grant permission for some development which has not been sought.
  Responsibility for the payment of compensation rests with the Minister, and although he will obviously require the assistance of local planning authorities in deciding whether or not to give an undertaking when the need appears to him to arise, and he will expect authorities to indicate to him, in forwarding claims for compensation, whether they would be prepared to grant permission for other development, he would consider it unfortunate if authorities felt bound, as they would under the Amendment, to consider whenever they turned down an application whether they ought to supplement their decision with an undertaking. I feel, and my right honourable friend feels strongly, that that would inevitably slow down, instead of speed up, the administration of planning.
  I have tried to put shortly but accurately the doubts that the Minister has over this change in procedure, but, as I say, I am struck, as I am sure the whole House is, by the fact that it comes from my noble friend with his great experience in this field. Therefore, again I put to him the suggestion that we might both avail ourselves of the advantage open to us of considering the arguments which we have respectively advanced and have another talk and another look at this on Report stage. If that commends itself to my noble friend—I am sure he realises the spirit in which I am advancing it—it may shorten our proceedings this evening.
  7.1 p.m.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I feel surprised to hear my noble and learned friend say that it is thought that this would slow down the procedure of planning. I remember quite often, when we have been considering planning applications, our saying amongst ourselves in committee: "It would be all right if he would ask to do something else there, but what the particular applicant wants will not do." I should have thought it would fit in very well in practice for there to be power to make suggestions on what would be the right use of the land in question. As planning authorities, we have never had the power to do that. I have often wanted it and I think others have, too. From the point of view of slowing up planning, I do not think it would do the damage that has been suggested.
  There is this to be remembered: that, while the Minister is responsible for the payment of compensation and must have the power to decide whether the act requiring compensation is appropriate, he is not responsible for not paying compensation. To leave a provision of this sort within the sphere of a local authority would not at all hamper the Minister in carrying out his responsibility. I hope something can be done about this matter because not only would it be of benefit to the planning authorities, but also it would help quite a number of people who are genuinely in doubt as to what they should do with their land. This clause is meant to catch people who, as it were, are "trying it on," but there are people who have genuine proposals for the use of land and who would genuinely benefit from suggestions as to how the land might be used. If you ask almost any planning officer in the country about this, you will find that, when he is approached by somebody for planning permission, he will nearly always say informally, in conversation, to such an applicant, "That land ought to be used for so and so." Developed from that, a useful procedure could be established in that way.
  LORD SILKIN: I am all in favour of local planning authorities being helpful to applicants. I think there are cases where they are not as helpful as they might be. They ought to be approachable. It ought to be possible for applicants to come

  935
  along and talk over unofficially with the planning authority what is possible and what is not. I believe that in a large number of cases that is already done. Where it is not done, we should always advocate that it should be. But this Amendment goes much further than that. It empowers the local planning authorities to give undertakings as to what will be permitted, and I am inclined to agree with the noble and learned Viscount that that might very well slow up the administration of planning.
  Who gives the undertaking? Is it the planning officer? He is not in a position to give an undertaking. I have known cases where a planning officer has said, "If you do so and so, that will be perfectly all right and I will recommend it." and, on the strength of that, an application has been made; but the committee has turned down the planning officer. Therefore he is not in a position to give an undertaking. Who is? Is it the planning authority? Is it feasible for a planning authority to have an application in front of them and to give an undertaking that, if some other application not before them is put before them, they will agree to it? I have great doubts as to whether that is practicable or whether it would be helpful. If we could incorporate a statutory obligation on planning authorities to be helpful and to give advice freely to applicants, I should be all for it, but I think the noble Lord is going a little far in providing for their being in a position to give an undertaking that they will grant an application which has not yet been put before them. However, the noble and learned Viscount is going to consider it. I wish him joy. I shall be greatly interested to see the outcome of this consideration.
  LORD HYLTON: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for agreeing to look into this matter. As the House will see, it is a matter of some complexity of which I imagine only few noble Lords here this afternoon have practical experience. But I am much encouraged by the support that my noble friend, Lord Ridley, gave me. He gave me an almost unqualified blessing. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, thought it was going rather too far. Therefore, in the circumstances I think it would be wise for me at this stage to withdraw this Amendment. I will consult
  936
  those who know more about it than I do myself and perhaps put down something at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD WISE: In view of the arrangements which we have come to in regard to Amendment No. 42, Amendment No. 44 will not be moved.
  Clause 22 agreed to.
  Clause 23 [Measure of depreciation for assessing compensation]:
  LORD MANCROFT: Earlier on this afternoon, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor introduced an Amendment and told your Lordships that it was purely a drafting Amendment. Your Lordships then discussed it for three-quarters of an hour. It is, therefore, with some trepidation that I announce that this Amendment also is a purely drafting Amendment. It is obvious that the assessment of depreciation should take account of all previous decisions which have given rise to compensation, whether that compensation was payable under Part II or Part V of the Bill. It is to bring that into effect that this Amendment is designed. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 30, line 15, after ("Part") insert ("or Part V").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  LORD SILKIN: I hope we shall not discuss this for three-quarters of an hour, but surely this is more than a drafting Amendment. The noble Lord really should not introduce this as a drafting Amendment when it is intended to bring a large part of this Bill into the operation of Clause 23, which the clause does not at present cover. There is no objection to that. I will support the noble Lord in the Amendment, but it is not drafting.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: I am now very frightened of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, because, if I say that something is drafting I shall be taken to task, while if I try to pretend that it is not drafting, I shall be accused of wasting his time. I merely say here that it appears that the words that we wish to leave out are unnecessary. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will agree with me there. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 30, line 28, leave out from ("refused") to end of line 29.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  LORD SILKIN: They are unnecessary.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: I am given to understand that this also is drafting. Accordingly, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 30, line 31, at end insert ("applied for").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 46. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 30, line 34, leave out lines 34 and 35.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: Amendment No. 49 is consequential on Amendment No. 31. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Transpose Clause 23, as amended, to after Clause 27.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 24 [Supplementary provisions as to calculation of depreciation]:
  LORD MANCROFT: This also is a drafting Amendment, designed to make the subsection intelligible without reference to Clause 26 (1). I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 30, line 38, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 43 and insert ("in addition to any previous decision, account shall be taken of any further grant of, and of any undertaking to grant, planning permission, being a grant or undertaking in force immediately before").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: This is a consequential transpositional Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Transpose Clause 24, as amended, to after Clause 27.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 25 [General provisions as to claims for compensation]:
  LORD MANCROFT: Amendment No. 52 is also drafting. It seems desirable that owners of other interests should be notified of the making of a claim if the
  938
  claimant refuses to accept a Minister's contention that his claim fails at the outset. I think that is reasonable. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 32, line 14, leave out ("in any other case") and insert ("unless the claim is withdrawn").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 26 agreed to.
  Clause 27 [Supplementary provisions as to review of planning decisions]:
  7.15 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to omit subsection (1). The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in order to elicit an explanation from the noble and learned Viscount. Clause 26 provides for the possibility of the Minister reviewing the decision of the local planning authority where he thinks that the decision is wrong, even though there is no appeal, and he can give a direction. Clause 27 (1) provides that, before giving a direction, he shall afford an opportunity for the authority or the person affected to appear before him. The point of my Amendment is that there is no machinery in the Bill, and no obligation on the Minister, to inform the person affected that he proposes to review the decision or to issue a direction. I wonder how the person who is entitled to be heard gets to know. This may be a small point, or it may be something which it is not necessary to incorporate in legislation, but I should have thought it would be necessary to provide, where the Minister is contemplating issuing a direction or reviewing a decision, that he should notify the person affected; and then, if that person wants to be heard, he should be entitled to be heard. The Bill assumes that somehow a person affected gets to know; it assumes that the Minister has somehow got to know the decision; it assumes that the person affected gets to know that the Minister is intending to issue a direction, and then it says that this person is entitled to be heard. Strictly speaking, I suppose that I should have set out tie machinery that I suggest should be provided for informing the person affected, but that would be a different piece of drafting which, in the circumstances, I thought it more appropriate for the official draftsman to undertake. My purpose in moving the Amendment is to

  939
  point out what seems to be, in the words of the noble and learned Viscount, a lacuna in this provision. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 33, line 27, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Silkin.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess that we were a little at a loss to know the purpose of this Amendment. Now that I realise that it is put down in this form, as an exploratory Amendment, in order to get the procedure more clearly set out, the parts of the argument that I have prepared as to the desirability for a hearing and with which I had hoped to fascinate the Committee, now fall by the board. I realise that the noble Lord approves of there being a hearing but would like to have more definite steps indicated as to how the hearing could be obtained. I confess that I thought that it would arise simply from correspondence between the parties, it becoming clear in the Department that this was a case where a hearing was necessary to do justice to either of the parties. In view of the noble Lord's remarks, I should like to have another look at the matter, and when I have done so I will communicate with him upon it.
  LORD SILKIN: In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
  "(2) Where, by virtue of the last preceding subsection, both the local planning authority who gave a planning decision and a person who made, and has not since withdrawn, a claim in respect of that decision (in this subsection called "the parties") are to be heard by a person appointed by the Minister the following provisions shall apply:

  (a) if the Minister sends any written communication to either party with regard to the subject-matter of the hearing he shall at the same time send a copy of his communication to the other party;

  (b) if either party submits to the Minister any written communication with regard to the subject-matter of the hearing the Minister shall, as soon as may be, send a copy of that communication to the other party;

  (c) the parties shall be heard on the same occasion and each of them shall be permitted to comment on the written or oral evidence of the other."

  The noble Lord said: The Committee will remember that Clause 27 (1) provided
  940
  that before giving a direction under Clause 26 the Minister should allow the local planning authority or the claimant to be heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose. The Committee will remember that Clause 26 is concerned with the Minister's review of planning decisions where compensation has been claimed in respect of those decisions under Part II of the Bill. The present Clause 27 is better than the corresponding clause of the Bill as originally introduced, because under that clause notice was to be given to the applicant only where the proposed direction of the Minister was to have the effect of substituting for a decision refusing permission a decision granting it subject to conditions; whereas notice was to have been given to the local planning authority in all cases.
  It would, however, appear that this clause is still defective, because it does not provide that where both the local planning authority and the applicant wish to be heard in respect of the proposed direction under Clause 26 they must be heard at the same time, and must be given the same information and the same opportunity to express their views. It may be (perhaps the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will tell us) that it is intended in such cases that the planning authority and the applicant should be heard at the same time. If so, surely that should be made clear. This particular Amendment provides, therefore, that:
  "Where … both the local planning authority who gave a planning decision and a person who made, and has not since withdrawn, a claim in respect of that decision … are to be heard by a person appointed by the Minister. …"
  and then follow the provisions (a), (b) and (c)—namely:

  "(a) if the Minister sends any written communication to either party with regard to the subject-matter of the hearing he shall at the same time send a copy of his communication to the other party;

  (b) if either party submits to the Minister any written communication with regard to the subject-matter of the hearing the Minister shall, as soon as may be, send a copy of that communication to the other party;

  (c) the parties shall be heard on the same occasion and each of them shall be permitted to comment on the written or oral evidence of the other."

  941
  I could have wished to insert a provision that there should be legal representation and cross-examination, but perhaps that is too much to ask. Clearly, it is only right and fair that communications from or to either side should be provided by the Minister to the other side, and that the parties should be heard on the same occasion and should have the same opportunity of comment.
  I mentioned on Second Reading the case of an inquiry by a person appointed by the Minister involving a town planning authority, where, after the inquiry had been completed, the local council sent an argumentative letter to the Minister. The Minister, quite properly, supplied a copy of the letter to the other side and it was possible to reply to some extent; but it was thought that the council's letter had some effect on the inspector's mind and hence on the Minister's mind. Some of the representations were not strictly accurate. Had the writer or the representative of the council been subject to cross-examination that would have been made clear—or so it is thought, rightly or wrongly. Whether or not the letter did, in fact, influence the inspector or the Minister, there is a feeling of grievance. It is a possibility which would be removed in the future if Her Majesty's Government accepted this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 33, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I realise the motives which animate the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, in putting forward this Amendment. I also realise that he has tried, in framing it, to put on paper as shortly as can be what we lawyers call the rules of natural justice. I should like to have another look at this point. I should like, again, to put bluntly to your Lordships' House a case very familiar to everyone who has held Ministerial office. Something has been considered; a Minister has done his best; he has applied his mind to it; the parties have stated their views, and he has given his decision. Then somehow, often in a way not unknown to those of us who have sat in another place an attempt is made to reopen the matter. In those circumstances (I am predicating, a case where nothing new is put up, and
  942
  it is merely an attempt to start up what has already been placed before the Minister) there is something to be said for the Minister's being entitled simply to, send a communication back and say "I have given my best attention to this matter and I cannot possibly reopen it." If the noble Lord will give me time to consider this point further, I shall be grateful, and your Lordships' House can then consider it at Report stage.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 27 agreed to.
  Clause 28 agreed to.
  Clause 29 [Apportionment and registration of compensation]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The present wording of subsection (4) has been criticised on the grounds that it might be taken as implying that the notice to be registered in the Register of Local Land Charges could not he given once payment of compensation had been made. That is not so, and this Amendment is designed to clarify that point. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 35, line 33, leave out ("is") and insert ("has become").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 29 agreed to.
  Clause 30 [Recovery of compensation on subsequent development]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is another small point which has given rise to some doubt. The present wording of subsection (4) appears defective so far as it concerns cases where remission of compensation is confined to part of an area on which the original payment is made. In such circumstances the compensation registered against the land not affected should remain recoverable. As the subsection stands only the sum remitted would remain on the register and it is to correct that point that this Amendment is put down. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 37, line 27, after ("compensation") insert ("in so far as it is attributable to that land").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.

OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOP MENT BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

BANK OF SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislature Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past seven o'clock.