TRANSPORT BILL

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON)

The noble Marquess has asked for two things. He will not expect to get everything, but I 1466 think as regards the second request I can give him what he calls "beginner's luck." What he is really asking—what, indeed, I suppose is the whole intention of the Amendment—is to make quite sure that the Bill as drafted says what it means. But the effect of the Amendment, if the House took it as it stands, would be to remove from the list of general duties of the Commission any reference to "other transport services," which, in this context, means road passenger and road goods services. I think the noble Marquess will see that that would be altogether too limiting an Amendment. The Transport Commission is a statutory corporation, and therefore it can do only such things as are expressly authorised by its Statute. The Commission must have power to run these other transport services. Let me give an example which will no doubt be accepted in every quarter of the House. There are small branch railways which are very uneconomic and which probably ought to have been shut down before now. But they cannot be shut down without an alternative service being offered. The obvious alternative is a bus service. That form of replacement is economic and in the public interest. Therefore, clearly, the Transport Commission must by Statute have power to run a service such as that. In these circumstances, I hope that the noble Marquess will not press for words which would, in fact, prevent that.

With regard to the noble Marquess's other point, whilst I will not say there is more substance in it—because I am sure the intention, and I would say the language, of the Bill probably prevents any question of what he calls undue privilege or undue preference—I gather that he is anxious lest the words which the Bill uses should be construed as putting the Commission in a privileged position, compared with other applicants, if they apply to the licensing authority for a licence. Quite clearly that is not the intention. Except in London—where the London Transport Executive has virtually a monopoly—the intention and probably, almost certainly, the wording of the Bill places all operators, the Commission and everybody else, in the same position before the licensing authorities; and it is the duty of the licensing authorities to administer the 1930 Act in accordance with the intentions of Parliament.

1467 The Minister has informed me that he will certainly bring this discussion to the notice of the licensing authorities. It could conceivably be argued—though I think it would not succeed—that some special position is created for the Transport Commission. That is certainly not intended, and no one—least of all the licensing authorities—should be left in any doubt about the position in law. However, as there might be a doubt here, I have taken the best legal advice I can, and I am advised that on the whole it would be a good thing to put in a small Amendment making it clear that licensing authorities are to have no regard to the terms of this subsection when they are considering applications made to them. I have fortified myself with that legal advice as to what is the common intention, and I am prepared on Report stage to put down an Amendment to cover the point. I hope that that will satisfy my noble "beginner."

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW

In view of what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has told me—for which I thank him very much—I would much prefer not to press this Amendment. Having hoped to catch a 30-pounder and landed a 15-pounder, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

LORD HAWKE

It is clearly the duty of the Commission to provide facilities for traffic on inland waterways and for that reason we should like to keep it in a separate paragraph. As regards the rest of the subsection, which was dealt with by Lord Linlithgow's Amendment, we 1468 shall want to look at the words which are offered by the Government on Report stage, in order to see not only that they provide guidance to the licensing authority in giving licences but that it is not stressed that it is the duty of the Commission to provide facilities for passenger transport if other facilities already exist in the area.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am not going back on the last Amendment. I hope that, when the noble Lord sees it, he will not look a gift horse in the mouth. The Amendment I am going to put down will do exactly what I said—namely, to make it plain that all operators are equal before the law and that nobody has a preference over another. I accept this Amendment because I think it is really pure drafting, in the sense that it makes plainer what is the intention. There might be some doubt in the Bill, as it stands, as to the meaning of "other transport services" in line 38. Our contention (I think no one in the House will differ on this) is that these words ought to cover all transport services, including road haulage and road passenger services, as well as inland waterways services other than those referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b). To make this quite clear, I think it would improve the Bill to accept this Amendment. The result will be to split paragraph (c) in the Bill, as it stands, into two paragraphs. Under the new paragraph (c) the Commission will have a duty: to provide, in such places and to such extent as may appear to the Commission to be expedient, other transport services. Then comes the new paragraph (d) under which the Commission will have to provide, in such places and to such extent as may appear to the Commission to be expedient, facilities for traffic on inland waterways. The clause will then go on as it appears in the Bill. I accept this Amendment.

LORD HAWKE

Can the noble Lord tell us whether there is any connection between the proposed addition of four to the membership of the Commission and the fact that the Amendment is backed by four names, because we can then judge the ages?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I do not know whether the noble Lord is suggesting that noble Lords whose names are linked with mine on this Amendment are applicants for the job. Is that the insinuation?

LORD HAWKE

I am asking.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Perhaps the noble Lord will address that question to himself and not to me. Perhaps the will find an answer which will amuse him; it certainly does not amuse me. There is not enough money to tempt me. With the noble Lords opposite as my masters, I should live with them for about a split second.

May I now address myself seriously to the task I have set myself in trying to tell your Lordships why this Amendment is on the Order Paper, as I expect other noble Lords will be interested in it? The reason is that we think that you will not attract the young and virile men by offering them a part-time occupation. As I say, you will get gentlemen past their prime—doubtless still very good, and in their ageing years, not too bad; but this is not a job for men who have already spent the best years of their lives. This is a job for men who, in the main, will devote their whole thought and mind to it, and who can look upon this job as a career for the future, not as one where they can bask in the setting sun of their commercial life. It is always a difficult task—I expect other noble Lords have had this experience—but the best blend is of part-time and full-time members. In an organisation like this, I think some part-time members are needed, someone to bring in. perhaps, the refreshing breeze of outside experience but the real hard job, the hard core, of the day-to-day administration and thinking out of the policies of this Transport Commission 1471 has to be vested in some full-time members whose only preoccupation it is and who do not have other partial affections outside. That is the reason why we have put down this Amendment. I know that much depends upon making a wise choice of the people concerned. I believe that as the job has got to be organised it needs men of imagination, who are willing wholeheartedly to go into this task. I want the Committee to believe me when I say that this is not just an attempt to revert to the status quo. The Amendment is not put down with that intention; it is put down because we sincerely believe that this is the best thing to do. I hope the Committee will agree with it. I hope my arguments will impress the Government, and that they may be tempted to accept this Amendment, which I now beg to move.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord was fresh at half past twelve this morning. I myself was not entirely overcome—I managed to put in a couple of hours work after I got home. I have also taken note of his observations on what is the ideal age. I notice that, quite irrespective of Party, in most men's minds the prime of life tends slightly to vary as their age advances. The noble Lord has proposed this Amendment. Everybody is in for a bit of luck to-day because I am going some way to meet him—though he is not a beginner! The Commission started off in 1947 with eight members, plus the chairman—nine in all. As at present drawn, this Bill provides for ten, plus the Chairman. But I think there is a good deal to be said for the Amendment that has been put forward. The character of the Commission's undertaking is considerably altered by the Bill, but certainly it will still have to manage or supervise diverse interests, and the principle of decentralisation brings with it the need for more part-time members. Do not let us cast aspersions on part-timers. The Commission may want whole-timers, but part-timers are extremely valuable, particularly if they are the right sort of people. All in all, I think there is a case for having a larger Commission than that which is proposed in the Bill—namely, eleven.

1472 Another reason is, that we do not know how the regional reorganisation will develop. But if we make the Commission rather larger it makes easier the link between the regional boards—if the scheme should take the form (as I imagine it probably would) of having regional boards—and the Commission itself. It was suggested to me that the half-way or three-quarter-way house of fourteen, inclusive of the chairman, was as big as was really necessary. But there is not much between that and fifteen, including the chairman. This is a maximum. There is no sort of guarantee that we are going to put fifteen on at the start, bin it is not a bad thing to have something in reserve. I may add that fifteen is not a bad figure for a team. There are precedents in other fields for that. I hope two-thirds of this team will not always be in the scrum. Therefore, we had better not boggle about one or two here or there, and on behalf of the Government, I am prepared to accept the Amendment. Perhaps we could have this Amendment put to the Committee and then I will go on to Amendment No. 96, with which the noble Lord also dealt.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I beg formally to move the next Amendment in my name.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

The Bill, as it stands, has no statutory requirement for any member of the Commission, other than the chairman, to be whole-time. Of course, that does not mean that no other member can be whole-time. The noble Lord's Amendment seeks to say that you ought to have four members other than the chairman, as whole-time members of the Commission. As I said on the last Amendment, we do not know what will be the final composition of the Commission until we know the shape of things to come by way of reorganisation. But we have been considering this matter, and we think that it is unlikely, whatever form the reorganisation may take, and giving full scope to the part-time members, that one would be able to get on with less than four full-time members. Therefore, I shall be glad to accept this Amendment also.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

May I just say that when I was a small child my great hobby was reading Bible stories, my favourite one being that concerning the walls of Jericho, around which the Biblical folk walked once every day for seven days? On the seventh day they marched round seven times and, with a mighty trump, the walls of Jericho fell. I felt certain that if I kept on long enough I could induce the walls of the Government, like the walls of Jericho, to fall. It must be the influence of the close companionship between the noble Viscount and myself, hour after hour, to six o'clock on one night, ten o'clock on another and half past twelve last night, which has melted his stony heart, so that at last I have had an Amendment accepted. With great appreciation I accept his offer.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I think his allusion is a happy one, because he is singularly adept at blowing his own trumpet.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I do not wish to interfere with the trumpet blowing and other musical effects, but before the Amendment is carried I should like to be clear as to the effect of its acceptance. I take it that we shall revert to the position under the 1947 Act, whereby it was thought desirable to have four whole-time members. Whilst I should not object to the power that the Minister would have under the Bill as originally drawn to appoint up to four if he thought it desirable, I have some doubts whether it is necessary to have four. I think that the reason for providing in the 1947 Act for four whole-time members was in order to have three or four people specially responsible for the specific activities of the Commission. That is a system which I doubt would always require to be perpetuated in the Transport Commission. I can see the force of making the chairman a whole-time member, but I wonder what the other three would be required to do. It might, possibly, be quite all right to make the vice-chairman a whole-time member, but I think the remaining two would be in a rather difficult position. I suggest that it would be better to have the chairman and vice-chairman whole-time members, leaving the rest as part-time members, unless, of course, it should appear to the 1474 Minister to be necessary to have an additional whole-time member. Beyond that it would, I think, be better to leave the Bill as it is.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

May I add a few words to what the noble Viscount has just said? Unfortunately little can now be done because the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has accepted this Amendment. The Commission is supposed to be—as I believe it is and as I think it ought to be—a policy-making body, and I cannot see why you want a large number of whole-time members. My own experience with railway companies and other forms of business is that a whole-time member who has no particular job to do is an infernal nuisance, because he runs round interfering not in policy matters but in purely administrative matters. I therefore regret very much indeed that the Amendment should have been accepted by the noble Viscount, because it seems to me that it is running away from the idea that the Commission should be a policy-making body. I know that noble Lords on the opposite side of the Chamber have an exaggerated idea of the administrative ability of experts in this or that particular branch. My experience in the past of the railway companies—and I have been a vice-chairman of a company—was with boards larger than fourteen, and if I had had the opportunity I would have supported the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in regard to the numbers which he suggested. Boards such as I have in mind might have consisted of eighteen or twenty members, of whom only one, generally the chairman, was whole-time, and the deputy-chairman gave a good deal of time as well. The other members provided that knowledge of the world outside transport which was necessary in any policy-making work which concerned an industry such as the transport industry, which affects every individual and every business in this country. Therefore, I very much regret that there should be more than one, or possibly two, whole-time members of the Commission.

LORD WOLVERTON

I also should like to say a few words on this. I think it is right to increase the numbers of the Commission, as we all hope the work of the Commission will be the decentralisation of the railways. The railway regions, we hope, will be given more autonomy.

1475 But we should not, I think, need to have so many members full-time. I quite agree to the number being increased, but I hope that the number of full-time members will not be much increased, because it means that they then have to fish around for work and are apt to interfere too much with regional organisation.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I do not see any reason why they should interfere with regional organisation at all. This is a matter of opinion. I have sat on a railway board and on a good many other boards as well, and I found that it was a good thing to have a certain number of whole-time members and a larger number of part-time members. I did not agree to accept this Amendment in order to give "a little bit of sugar to the bird," so to speak, but because it was the considered opinion of the Minister that this would be a wise thing to do. It does not follow that because you are a whole-time member you are going to do someone else's job. After all, this is going to be a very large business which we are going to decentralise. It is a pretty vast undertaking. The Commission is not like the board of a single railway company. A single railway company might certainly do with one "whole-timer" on the board with another, possibly the deputy-chairman—like the noble Earl—filling the rôle of a sort of cross-breed. He would be practically a "whole-timer" when he was wanted to be. Perhaps he might be correctly described as a "three-quarter timer." But here there is a need to treble or quadruple that provision. This is an immense transport business. And remember, the Commission have both road and passenger interests to consider, and it is necessary to have contact with the regions. The very fact that there is to be decentralisation without functional control from the centre over the regions seems to me to be all the more reason for having close contact with the regions.

I think this is true of business administration as it is certainly true of Government administration, if you have a far-flung decentralised Department. Certainly, all the years when I have been a Minister of the Government I have always refused to promote anyone inside my Department who would not decentralise and make the fellow lower down take responsibility. That did not mean 1476 that I did not want myself and my top men to get around and have contact. My job in West Africa in the war consisted entirely of getting around. I did it with a very small staff and I did not do other people's jobs. In a case like this you want personal contact, and I do not believe that you get it by having a "part-timer," whom you would have to get hold of every time you needed him for some particular piece of work. One can imagine saying to such a "part-timer": "Can you get down there to see this fellow—the regional authorities want to see you." And bear in mind that a great deal is accomplished by talking to a director rather than simply talking to someone who is sent clown as his representative. You can imagine this "part-timer" whom you have asked to go down to the region saying, "I do not think I can do that now. I have a meeting of the board of the I.C.I. on Monday, something else on Tuesday, and a sitting of a Royal Commission on Wednesday. But I think that perhaps I could do it on Tuesday of next week." That sort of thing is not going to provide the quick personal and intimate contact which we want. I would guess that the Ministry are quite right in what they have advised me to do.

LORD WINSTER

I hope that the noble Viscount will allow me to congratulate him on the resilience which enabled him to do two hours' work last night after your Lordships' House had adjourned. I only want to suggest to him a rather melancholy thought, and that is that as old age increases upon us we need less and less sleep. It is unfortunate but true. On the two questions which have come before us on these Amendments, I would say this. While it might appear that fourteen is rather a large number (perhaps the noble Viscount would agree with me that a committee of one is the best committee you can possibly have) I think you will need a large number of members upon this committee, because a wise committee do not attempt to handle everything themselves but delegate certain specific questions to sub-committees with instructions to report their findings to the committee as a whole. Therefore, I think that the number of fourteen is, in this case, not too large, because it permits the delegation of a certain amount of work to subcommittees. That delegation would be 1477 impossible if the committee consisted of too small a number.

On the question of part-time or full-time members, I would only say that I think a committee will never really enjoy the full respect or full confidence of the public unless it consists of a reasonable number of full-time members. Otherwise the public are bound to say: "This is only a manufactured job. There cannot be a real job in this, for, look, it is handled by a number of people with whom it is only a part-time occupation." Therefore in the case of a Commission charged with such great responsibilities as this is, as shown by the words at the top of page 33, I feel sure it is wise to ensure that that Commission consists of a reasonable number of full-time members who are regarded by the public as giving the whole of their time to the extremely important duties confided to them.

LORD HAWKE

As I have spoken strongly against functionalism in the past, I should like to say that the declaration by my noble friend in front of me has considerably relieved my mind. It looks to me as if on this Board it is going to be possible to have whole-time members who do not perpetuate what we think is the bad system whereby, for instance, the engineer in charge of an engineering department at the centre can give orders to engineers in the regions behind the backs of the regional managers. That satisfies me.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

May I ask the noble Lord a point of elucidation? Does he mean by the words persons who may be expected to be conversant with Scottish Transport requirements that they must be Scottish by birth or Scottish by attachment? Or may they be even mere Englishmen?

LORD BILSLAND

What we have in mind are people entirely conversant with Scottish conditions and problems.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

The noble Lord does not debar those who are not Scottish?

LORD BILSLAND

We should prefer Scotsmen, as they are more likely to have that knowledge.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

Did the noble Lord say that Scotland had 10 per cent. of our population and 18 per cent. of railway mileage?

LORD BILSLAND

Yes.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he has in mind two Scottish members in addition to the fourteen; or out of that number.

LORD BILSLAND

Out of that number.

LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON

My noble friend Lord Bilsland has covered the arguments in favour of this Amendment very thoroughly and there is not much more to add. There is the obvious argument that Scotland's population and industries are scattered and are such a long way from London and the South that a specialised knowledge is necessary in drawing up and supervising railway schemes for Scotland. That argument is widely known and, I think, fairly irresistible, but I should like to add that it is important that people in Scotland should be made to feel they are not being left out of affairs which concern them, as a Scottish area railway scheme would do. I believe that by the appointment of two Scottish members we shall create a feeling of confidence in Scotland which will be very valuable. I beg to support the Amendment.

LORD GREENHILL

Having heard a noble Lord who is associated with no Party and a noble Lord who presumably is a member of the Party opposite supporting this Amendment, I think it would 1480 be a good thing that a member of the Opposition should speak in favour of this Amendment. As one who for a time was a Deputy Traffic Commissioner, I have vivid recollections of the anxiety with which people in the north-west of Scotland asked us to do all we could to help them in their transport problems, and of the scepticism with which they accepted our assurances that we would press their representations in the appropriate quarters. If the Commission had two members who were acquainted with these difficult and peculiar problems affecting Scotland, and particularly the north of Scotland, I feel that not only would it give a feeling of reassurance to the people in the north of Scotland but that even the Minister would feel he had someone on whom he could rely for the opinions and facts necessary to keep him right when it came to dealing with special problems. For that reason, I have pleasure in associating myself with the mover of this Amendment.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Before the noble Viscount replies, if the Government are going to consider this matter on a national basis, on behalf of my noble friends Lord Ogmore and Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, I must enter a caveat for Wales.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I should like to make a comment on behalf of other parts of England. No doubt Scotland merits all this consideration, and it cannot be said that we did not devote an adequate amount of time yesterday and the day before to the discussion of the difficult problems in that unfortunate country. But I come from an equally important part of the country, which happens to be a neighbour of Scotland, and I have strong feelings as to which of the two should be given more attention. I should not object to an Amendment which provided that all parts of the country should have their problems considered by people with knowledge, but I feel that too much attention should not be given to Scotland.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Obviously, there is only one way of satisfyng the Committee, and that is to lay down that all members of the Board should be drawn from the Scilly Isles—that would conform to complete impartiality. Really, this outburst of nationalism is ill-timed in these days of United Nations.

1481 Scotland, after all, not merely by virtue of the Scottish conquest of England, has always been entitled to a rather special position. I take it that my noble friend Lord Bilsland, when he says in his Amendment "elected," means "selected."

LORD BILSLAND

Yes.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

The Government on various occasions have indicated that they wish to give special consideration to Scotland—my noble friend Lord Home made a full speech about that on the Second Reading. In addition to the transport users consultative committee for Scotland, it is proposed to set up a Scottish Transport Council, with representatives of railways, airways, road passenger transport and Messrs. MacBrayne, who figured so complimentarily in our debates last night. It has always been the intention of the Government that Scotland should be adequately represented. It has had one member on the Commission, to whom a very proper tribute has been paid. On the enlarged Commission—and I have now accepted the enlargement—I suppose Scotland has a reasonable claim to apply the Goschen formula and get its eleven-eightieths. The Minister would be quite willing to give such an assurance. From time to time, in the days when the late Government were in office, I pressed, on important matters, that an assurance might be embodied in the Bill. I seldom succeeded in convincing them. However, I think we might put something about this in the present Bill.

Scotland really does occupy a different position. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has vicariously represented Wales. I remember that the late Sir Alfred Mond constituted himself one of the great protagonists of Welsh patriotism. Now the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has come here—in person, I am glad to say—to speak for Wales. But Scotland is rather different. It is a self-contained region, whereas Wales is not. I am not forecasting what would be the regions on which decentralisation might come, but certainly with most of the things with which one has ever had to deal in Wales, the position has not been like that in 1482 Scotland. Vitally important as Wales is, for practical administrative purposes it does rather split itself into two parts. We have South and North Wales. I imagine that if we had a region which covered North Wales, that would more naturally go in with Lancashire and Cheshire; whereas South Wales would go in with the western region. That would probably be a reasonable arrangement for practical administrative purposes. There is a Welsh consultative committee, which is now going to have direct access to the Minister. It will be able to send its minutes and recommendations direct to the Minister, as well as to the Central Transport Consultative Committee. Therefore, we have made great improvements on Lord Lucas's own Act. The Minister, of course, can give directions to the Commission arising out of recommendations. There are to be consultative committees dealing with the road passenger services.

I feel that Scotland ought to have this consideration, but I hope that this will not start a sort of "free for all." See how it runs. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, gets up and says something about Wales; and then, quite rightly, my noble friend Lord Ridley gets up and says that if Wales is to be included, then Northumberland should be. We shall end up by going the whole way through all the counties. I will not ask the Committee to take a decision at this moment, but I should be prepared to put down on Report an Amendment in these terms: of whom at least two shall be persons appointed after consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland as being persons likely to be conversant with the circumstances and special requirements of Scotland. If the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, will agree to withdraw his Amendment now, I will put down that Amendment on the Report stage. I hope it will be accepted if I do put it down, and that I shall not have as many Amendments as there are counties.

LORD BILSLAND

I thank the noble Viscount, and in view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD WOLVERTON

Some of us think that this matter is already covered under the 1947 Act. Section 2 (1) (f) says that the Commission shall have power to provide in Great Britain such other amenities and facilities for passengers and other persons making use of the services provided by them as it may appear to them requisite or expedient to provide. We think those words could cover petrol pumps and so on.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

The noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, said that this is a little point. One day I will tell him a story about something that started life as being very small. I will not do it now. This is the funniest and weirdest Amendment I have ever seen put down to a Bill from the Government side of your Lordships' House. This is the first essay of the Conservative Party into nationalisation. What they now seek to do is to start nationalising the retail motor trade. I think it is too well known for me to have to declare an interest in this trade, but I will do so for the sake of the record.

The history of this matter is most remarkable. When the 1947 Act was going through your Lordships' House, the Government of the day were attacked, and attacked vigorously, by the present Deputy Leader of the House upon their infamy in including in the Bill 1485 powers for the British Transport Commission to engage in the manufacture of chassis and bodies, and to go into the retail motor trade. Noble Lords will recall that when the British Transport Commission acquired all the undertakings under the powers conferred by the 1947 Act, they acquired many strange things. They acquired greengrocery businesses, manufacturing businesses, chassis and body-building businesses and garages. I have here the words of the noble Viscount. Before he left the Chamber told him I was going to quote him and, with the good humour which he displays, he said, "Yes, all right; go on. I know." This is what the noble Viscount said when he was apposing on the Committee stage of the Transport Bill in 1947 (OFFICIAL REPORT, VOL 148, col. 363): If, to all that, they are to add the manufacture of this or that, or the retailing of this or that, they will never get on with the job of transport. I, in my own business experience, have had perhaps my greatest success in disintegrating businesses"— how true!— rather then in integrating them. The noble Viscount went on to say: This was partly the result of megalomania and partly due to the mistaken idea that if you engaged in one form of enterprise you ought to engage in every form of ancillary enterprise that served it. The noble Viscount was reinforced by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and my noble friend who was then the Leader of your Lordships' House, the late Lord Addison, said that upon the Report stage he would do something about this—and we did. My noble friend Lord Addison said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 150, col. 270): For example, you might take over a concern which had a repair shop or some petrol pumps, or which dealt in second-hand cars, or carried on other activities of that kind. Now those activities are not necessarily proper to the business of the Transport Commission, and there is no desire that they should continue to pursue them. We therefore framed Amendments and took them out of the Bill and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, later said (col. 272): My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Leader of the House on an admirable chain of Amendments, and to thank him sincerely for the great trouble he has himself taken over this matter. Then, on the Third Reading, the noble Viscount said this—and here I again 1486 thank the noble Viscount for the compliment he paid me just now, because, after all, praise from such an accomplished practitioner of trumpet-blowing as the noble Viscount is praise indeed. This is what he said then (col. 642): Another wise Amendment, introduced I think by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas"— that was when the noble Viscount used to blow my trumpet for me; alas! those days are long ago— made it clear that the Commission would not deal"— this is the Amendment— in a lot of things which they ought not to be meddling with, such as garages, dealing in cars and secondhand vehicles, retailing petrol and so on. So it was at the instigation of the noble Viscount that there was withdrawn from the 1947 Act all these things which the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, now wants to bring into this Bill.

I think the noble Lord did his best with the Amendment he moved, but he was not quite correct. These hotel garages have been run very successfully by private enterprise. They are all let to private enterprise. In those days we took the view that that is the way it should be done. It is useless to say that the public are suffering; they are not. The hotels provide the premises and sub-let them. That is what I should have thought noble Lords on the other side of the House wanted. Do you want to start nationalising an industry by a side-wind like this? I cannot understand the noble Lords opposite. Surely it is against their creed. Why should a garage that happens to be site-owned by a railway hotel, or a British Transport Commission hotel, be publicly owned? Why should it be necessary for them to run a garage? Most of these hotels have shops. Gleneagles is an example. Is the noble Lord going to say that the British Transport Commission must now enter the soft goods trade? What is the noble Lord's Party Chairman, as a former head of Lewis's, going to say?

LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON

Does the noble Lord want me to answer that question now?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I should prefer him to answer at the end of my speech. Does the noble Lord wish to nationalise the bookstalls on station platforms? Why not nationalise the 1487 book-selling business? Is it because W. H. Smith and Son happen to be keen supporters of the Conservative Party? This is a vital point. The noble Marquess Lord Linlithgow, and others, said that it was really the job of the British Transport Commission to run transport and not to fiddle about with running buses, and running traffic on waterways, or anything else of the kind. Surely it is not their job to run garages. I quite agree with the noble Lord that every respectable hotel should be able to supply these services. They can, and they are doing it by letting the garages out to public enterprise. I suggest that it is the acme of perfection from the Conservative Party' point of view that a state-owned hotel should allow these services to be run by private enterprise. I suggest that the noble Lord should withdraw this Amendment.

LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON

I must reply to the extraordinary statements that have been emanating from the noble Lord. He has been suggesting that I am advocating nationalisation.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

You are.

LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON

These railway-owned garages were nationalised by the Party of the noble Lord opposite.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

They were not. We took them out of the Bill. I have just been telling the noble Lord that.

LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON

Surely they are still owned by the Commission?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

They are not.

LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON

It is the nationalised body which gets the income from the letting. Surely they are the beneficiaries and the garages are in effect nationalised. That seems to me a perfectly straightforward way to put it, which I think anyone should be able to understand, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to grasp it. It was the noble Lord's Party who nationalised these things, yet the noble Lord is trying to make out that I am advocating for the 1488 first time that they should be nationalised. He seems to me to be very inconsistent. Here he is accusing me of advocating that these garages should be kept under State enterprise and yet he does not raise one word of protest against a similar situation with regard to the hotels. The hotels certainly give an ancillary service to the railway; it might be said that they are in a way some form of State trading. But the noble Lord has never demanded that we should take them out of the Bill and put them completely under private enterprise. I do not see how he can pick on a small point such as this and say that I am suggesting something which I certainly have not suggested while at the same time completely miss the larger thing— the hotels.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

The noble Lord, first of all, does not quite know what is in his own Amendment. He says that these garages, the premises of which are owned by the ground landlord—that is to say, the hotel—and which are being let to private enterprise, must: …maintain and repair and…purchase and supply spare parts, accessories, petrol and oil for the vehicles of their passengers and of such other persons…. They are going into the trade. But the hotels at present are not. The railways may own the land upon which cinemas are built; they may be the ground landlords; but that does not put them into the cinema category. When the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, advocated that hotels should go back to the railways, what did the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, say? He said that the future of the hotel industry vis-àvis British transport remains undecided at the present time. I quite agree but the time will come when it will be right to sell and hive off the hotels from the railways—and I shall support it. But that is another point. I believe that the day has gone when hotels were an adjunct to the provision of transport. I am saying these things only so that the noble Lord shall know my views on this matter of hotels. In 1947 we realised the force of the then Opposition's arguments and we removed all motor vehicle manufacture, chassis and body manufacture, and anything to do with the motor trade, out of the purview of that Act. Now, the noble Lord is saying that while the hotels own the property they 1489 must run the business. That is a dangerous thing because it means that you are bringing a section of the retail motor trade under a nationalised industry.

LORD GIFFORD

I do not often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, but I do not think that the facilities which my noble friend Lord Fairfax of Cameron is seeking to give can be attained in the way he suggests. I myself have theatre interests in the form of agencies in hotels owned by the Commission. The Commission do not sell theatre tickets; we take space in the hotels to render that service to the public. I feel that what the noble Lord desires can be done by private enterprise.

LORD WINSTER

I could not possibly support this Amendment, although I am a country dweller who is convinced of the desirability of a garage at the local railway station. The matter is being discussed to-day in terms of large hotels in big towns, but it has a wider application applying to the countryside. The Amendment is rather innocuously worded. It says: …to maintain and repair and to purchase and supply spare parts, accessories, petrol and oil for the vehicles of their passengers and of such other persons… Any garage which is entitled to do that will certainly be in competition with private garages; and it will be only a question of time before they are dabbling in the second-hand trade—that is certain. I think the provision of garages at railway stations is peculiarly a matter for private enterprise. In a case in the village with which I am very well acquainted there are within a space of fifty yards two garages on the one side of the street and a third on the other side, which greatly impedes and causes immense annoyance to traffic in that village. Yet at the railway station, although land is available, no garage exists. This provision of garages at railway stations—I am dealing with that case in particular—is peculiarly an affair for private enterprise. I believe that private enterprise is missing great opportunities in many cases through not providing those facilities. I cannot agree that power should be given to the Commission to run garages which will inevitably in a short time be in acute competition with the local garages maintained by private enterprise.

LORD HAWKE

This is a very apt illustration of the way in which the atmosphere of this House turns strong, Labour supporters into Conservative minds, because I see that in another place this very Amendment, or something remarkably like it, was moved, and the Labour Party to a man, or nearly to a man, went into the Lobby and voted for it. So that there must be some difference of opinion in the Labour Party on this particular Amendment, though I personally do not think it is a very important one.

LORD WINSTER

May I point out to the noble Lord that on this side of the House any question of Party feeling or Party prejudice has been most specifically excluded, and that it has been said from the first that, in company with noble Lords opposite, the only concern of this side of the House is to turn what fundamentally we think is not a very good Bill into the best and most practical measure that can be devised.

LORD HAWKE

The noble Lord is certainly speaking for himself.

LORD WINSTER

On the contrary, I do not speak for myself. Those words were uttered by my leaders in this House on Second Reading and at the beginning of the Committee stage of this Bill.

LORD BURDEN

I should not have intervened but for the quite unprovoked attack on the Labour Party by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. I intervene only to ask him to remember that pregnant saying of Emerson that A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

We have had a very interesting debate on what is undoubtedly not a major point. If I may take the point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, this point is covered, in fact, by Clause 2 (3) of the Transport Act of 1947. It is not under subsection (1) (f), as the noble Lord mentioned in the first place. My noble friend Lord Fairfax is quite right in saying that these powers are not granted to the nationalised British Transport Commission. I am delighted to find that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is entirely consistent in his point of view. He did not quote his own speeches in 1947, but he 1491 has been perfectly consistent and has shown himself a true Socialist and at the same time a very firm friend of the motor trade. I would agree with him entirely about taking that attitude. It is a healthy and sound trade to be a friend of.

The difficulty about the case which the noble Lord has advanced is this. He has put it rather innocuously, as if it was just a matter of supplying the amenities in a hotel to the guests using the hotel. In the simplest language, the answer is that you could not possibly confine it simply to people who are using the British Transport services or British Transport hotels. You would be throwing it completely open to the public by this Amendment. That is inevitable; you cannot avoid it. The answer is quite simple. This point is, I believe, raised almost entirely in respect of one hotel which is situated north of the Humber—I go no further than that. I believe there are other petrol pumps available in given circumstances. But the matter can best be solved simply by a concession of some character being granted.

There is this difficulty: that the amenities of the hotel may be quite considerable, whereas the cash return from the garage or from the accessories may well be very small, or relatively small, compared with the degree of amenity which may be desirable for the hotel. Bluntly, the answer is that if the hotel thinks it is an important amenity to have a garage, then they can grant a concession at a cheap rate. If they think it is worth having a shop, a theatre ticket office or a garage, then they can presumably give a concession on suitably easy terms. I agree we should be quite wrong, even in this narrow sphere, to go into the motor trade in a nationalised industry. Therefore, I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn.

LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON

I am grateful to the noble Earl for that explanation. I feel that these garages, or this particular garage, as the case may be, can serve a useful service to the public. Either they can be sold or they can be let out, and they can have as wide a field as possible. At any rate, I hope they will be able to give a good service, the best possible service. I hope that 1492 Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to see that that will be the case. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The noble Lord has raised a very interesting point. I should make it clear that the clause as drafted is directed to two purposes only: the formation of companies controlled by the Commission and the selling companies. By omitting the words concerned the noble Lord takes away that direction altogether. The noble Lord's other point was that there was not much time allowed. That is true. But as he himself said, all we are really concerned with is registration, and of course we have the power of ministerial extension. However, having looked at it, we think there is no objection to the point made by the noble Lord and we are quite prepared to accept his Amendment as it stands.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move this Amendment, which deals with the question of pensions. Owing to the new clause on companies to which we have already agreed, it has been thought desirable to make a small change in the Amendment which now stands in my noble friend's name, in regard to persons who change their employment from the Commission to one of the companies eventually to be sold. Though probably adequate, the words "lose that employment" are more appropriately expressed by the words which we propose to substitute—namely, "cease to be in the employment of the Commission." That makes it abundantly clear that the effect of the regulations will come into force from the time when those employed in the company actually transfer from the Commission to the company. I think this is a desirable Amendment and I beg to move.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

We are getting on well: we have taken three wickets this afternoon. I am sorry that we have got to end our speedy progress so soon. Had we been able to keep on in this way we might have made this a respectable-looking Bill. I am not going 1495 to ask the noble Earl for any real concession. I want his help on this matter. I want him to explain something to me. Perhaps he may then see his way clear to ask his advisers to have another look at this Amendment. I am in this difficulty. This clause deals with pension rights. There are those in pensionable employment who are fully covered even if they lose their jobs by leaving the service of the Commission. As a result of the reorganisation brought about by this Bill, employees may be transferred from a pensionable job to a non-pensionable job inside the service of the Commission—in other words, from the Commission to one of the companies wholly owned by the Commission. Even if they lose their employment in those companies and go right out of the employment of the Commission, if their job is pensionable they will be covered. If, within the Commission, a man is moved from a pensionable job to a non-pensionable job, as the Bill stands he is covered, because although he does not cease to be in the employ of the Commission, he loses that particular job. But the effect of the Amendment moved by the noble Earl is that if the man loses a pensionable job by transferring to a non-pensionable job, though retaining his employment in the Commission, he will lose his pension. If the wording, in the original Bill is retained he is covered. The noble Earl may think I am wrong, but I feel there is some doubt about this. I should prefer the wording in the Bill, because the man is covered even if he loses his pensionable job, whether he takes on a non-pensionable job within the Commission or goes right out of the Commission. If he retains employment in the Commission but loses his pensionable job for a non-pensionable job, by the noble Earl's proposed Amendment he is not covered. I have done my best to make the position clear. Will the noble Earl try to help me?

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

I cannot help feeling that the noble Lord opposite has a point here, even though I am rather doubtful whether in practice it would ever really happen that a man in a pensionable job would go to a non-pensionable job. All the same, I feel that perhaps it would be right to ask 1496 my noble friend to look at the point again before the Bill leaves this House. There is another point, though it is not one which we can deal with in the Bill. A great many of the people we are talking about, who are the subject of this clause, will in fact have been transferred from private enterprise companies when the transport undertakings were nationalised. They may or may not have been working with the advantage of a pension scheme, but it is quite likely that a large number of them were. Presumably, those people who had the advantage of pension schemes in the days of the private enterprise undertakings will have been taken into a pension scheme by the Transport Commission. Again, if they leave the service of the Commission, either for a company formed and controlled by the Commission or for a company which passes out of the control of the Commission, some arrangements ought to be made whereby the pension rights of those employees are continued—as I suspect they have been continued all the time. That is not a point with which we can deal in this Bill, and I mention it only because I think it is a matter which will have to exercise the mind of the Commission in their task of seeing as we intend to see by this clause, that the individual rights of people employed under the Commission who are now transferred to private enterprise are not lost in the process.

LORD REA

May I ask the noble Earl whether he will at the same time look into another point of a similar nature? I am given to understand that there is a certain category, particularly of people of professional classes, who were induced or chose to join this service with a promise of some pension scheme which for some reason—a perfectly genuine one, I am certain—has not actually come into force. It looks as if those people might fall between two stools. Perhaps the noble Earl will be good enough to look into that matter. I do not press him to give me an answer to-day.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I hesitate to express any opinion on a pensions matter unless I am fully instructed. I will certainly see that the question which Lord Rea has raised is gone into. I certainly should not like to attempt to give him an answer now. With regard to what Lord Lucas has said, I am inclined to 1497 the view that the point which he has raised is covered. I think he takes the words "loss of employment" as meaning the same as change of job. I do not think they have that meaning. I should have thought that the point which he has in mind is either covered by the Amendment which I shall shortly move or, alternatively, by Clause 26 where there is reference to: officers or servants of the Commission who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights, or whose position is worsened in consequence… and so forth. I thought the point was covered there. Or, finally—and this is Lord Bridgeman's point—if it were a matter of pension rights, strictly it would be in Clause 25 (2). I should not like to carry this matter further at the moment. I think it is one which requires careful examination. I suggest, however, that any one or other of the points which the noble Lord has raised has been or will be covered—or, at least, that there are powers here to make regulations which will cover those points.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am grateful to the noble Earl, but he will appreciate that if he is wrong and I am right this cart mean a great deal. The Bill says "loss of employment." It depends on the interpretation placed on that phrase—losing the physical employment or losing a man's whole job within the Commission. But we will not argue the question any more now. If the noble Earl does not mind taking this back and looking at it again, perhaps we could put down something at the Report stage. We could do that when he has consulted his advisers, satisfied himself and has attempted to satisfy us.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I should like the Amendment agreed to now.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Perhaps I may say this. I hope to put down an Amendment on the Report stage in order to get the matter raised, unless the noble Earl is able to come and say that he is satisfied, and to satisfy us. If I am not satisfied, the Amendment will have to be debated and divided upon. I would suggest that it would be better if the noble Earl withdrew his Amendment now, for I would prefer what is in the Bill.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I think that this is the right Amendment. We are at the moment only drawing up a broad outline under which the scheme will be made. This has been discussed between people who are really more qualified than either the noble Lord or I to deal with it. It is under discussion even now. I do not think this is a matter about which the noble Lord need worry. He has postulated the question of the position of someone who remains in the Commission's employment after this reorganisation but who moves from pensionable employment to non-pensionable employment. If I understand the noble Lord, he is trying to provide for that circumstance. I think he will agree that it would be an exceptional case. I am not saying that it will not occur, but it would be very unlikely, and it would be an exceptional case. In any event, however, I think it is covered by these broad regulations, and we think that the words in the Bill are more suited to the present structure.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Perhaps I may say a word about procedure—I say nothing about the merits of this matter. Clearly the right thing, and the convenient thing as a matter of procedure, is this. The Government consider that this clause ought to be amended in a particular way, and they have carried the Committee with them. In that case the Committee should insert the Amendment which the Government propose. Your Lordships will then, on Report stage, see the Bill in the form which the Government, with the assent of the Committee, think right. That having been seen, an Amendment can be put down to the Bill, either by the Opposition or by the Government.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am grateful for that explanation. I am certainly not going to spoil the harmony of the proceedings by getting contentious. But I am not speaking for myself; I am speaking at the request of the Trades Union Congress.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Even so, it is the proper procedure.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am going to agree to the procedure. What I am going to suggest is this. As the best legal advice is available to the T.U.C. it might save a great deal of time 1499 and trouble if, between now and the Report stage of this Bill, the advisers of the noble Earl were to get in touch with the advisers of the T.U.C. Perhaps after consultation both sides would be satisfied, and in that case I am sure that I should be.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am happy to give an undertaking that I will do my best to carry out the noble Lord's suggestion.

LORD BURDEN

I am grateful to the noble Earl for that undertaking, and I hope he will not regard me as pressing too strongly on this point, in view of what he has indicated to my noble friend. We have all been interested in the procedure which is to be adopted in regard to the draft regulations as outlined to us by the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader, but I am sure he will agree that, with the best will in the world, it is difficult to get regulations altered, even those in draft form. The simple point I wish to put to the Minister is this—I am sure the answer will be in the affirmative: before draft regulations assume that form will there be consultation with those people particularly interested, with the appropriate organisations, in order that there shall be the largest measure of agreement in regard to the regulations when they are submitted?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am glad to give that assurance—in fact I can do more. I can tell the noble Lord that thirteen trade unions concerned are already considering the draft regulations at the present time.