TRANSPORT BILL

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, on the principle of Dives and Lazarus, I am very grateful that the noble Earl has granted this request made by my noble friend Lord Silkin, who I regret is not here to-day, owing to indisposition. Although the Amendment goes some way to help us, I would beg the noble Lord to give further consideration to the fact that although it covers the case of directions given to the Board by the Minister, it does not cover the case of the Minister giving a direction to the Commissioners. Now, the Board meets or presents its report every six months.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

May I point out that it is "at least…every six months."

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Yes, "at least…every six months," so there will not be any undue delay. The 84 only function of this Board is clearly defined in this Bill, so that if the Minister does give any direction to the Board, in the case of an appeal to the Minister by the Board there will not be any undue delay in Members of both Houses of Parliament hearing of it. But how different it is with the Commission! The Commission report once every twelve months, and the Commission's Report is a voluminous document, since it has to cover every activity of the Commission. As I tried to point out on the Committee stage, owing to the vast amount of information that the Commission have to give, their Report is not available to Members of Parliament until some seven to eight months after the ending of the period covered by the Report. Surely the noble Lord would be the last to deny that Parliament has a right to know of a directive given by the Minister to the Commission under this Bill, on a matter which may involve millions of pounds of the taxpayer's money, before about eighteen months after he has given it, when the whole thing is signed, sealed and settled, and when no action that either House of Parliament could take would be of the slightest use. I am delighted to have the opportunity of saying this in front of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, because he wilt now appreciate some of the difficulties which have confronted Her Majesty's Opposition in this House during the Committee stage of this Bill.

Surely this is logic. There are two bodies, the Board and the Commission, and each can receive directions of vital importance from the Minister to accept tenders of, maybe, millions of pounds. We readily accept the noble Earl's gesture that the Board should report every six months, or even more often. If the Minister on that basis says to the Board, "You must accept tender XYZ" we can have that information within a reasonable time. But surely in common sense, if the Minister gives the Commission a similar direction we are entitled to ask that we should be informed of that with as much despatch. Why do the Government stand out on these niggardly points? After all, if it is right for the Board to report to Parliament on a directive of the Minister within, at the most, six months, why is it not right that the 85 Commission should do the same thing? I appeal to the noble Earl that perhaps between now and the Third Reading he might think about that, because nobody can say that the request I am making now is anything other than a reasonable and logical one.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

May I ask this question? I do not k now what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is referring to. All that we are dealing with here is Clause 2, which concerns the Disposal Board, and possible disagreements with the Commission. The only conceivable point on which a direction could come there would be on a disagreement with the Commission. Obviously, that would be published in the Board's six-monthly report. I do not know what the noble Lord is talking about.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Do not be so short. If you listen you will find out what I am talking about. The Act lays down that the Minister can give directions to the Board and can give directions to the Commission. It is perfectly obvious that under this Bill the Minister might give directions to one without giving directions to the other. If the Board has a statutory obligation to publish any directive received from the Minister within six months or less, why should not the Commission be under the same obligation? That is a simple question and it has a simple answer, in logic and in reason.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, I should like to raise a point on what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said. I cannot see anything in this clause which lays upon the Board the obligation which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wishes to lay upon the Board—that is, to set out in its report any direction given by the Minister to the Board during that period. I cannot see anything in this clause which imposes that obligation upon the Board, although the noble Earl says that there is such a provision.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

If I may say so, Lord Lucas's speech did wander rather wide, and I am not surprised that the noble Viscount is confused. The point I made was that this is an Amendment to that effect, though you might not have thought so. The words of the Amendment come in at the end of subsection (9) of Clause 2.

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW

My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord one question with regard to subsection (3) of his new clause. Is the noble Lord insisting that, where the Commission have made over property, all the shares should be sold?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Yes, and I can tell noble Lords this. It is only the first subsection of this new clause which represents an alteration. The rest of the Amendment is exactly the same as what is in the Bill at the present time.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has been very frank in saying that he wishes fundamentally to alter the emphasis of the Bill, and I want, if I may, to examine just what it is that he is trying to do. I must say, first of all, that there seems to me to be absolutely no gain in what he is doing, even if the emphasis is different; in fact, there is a positive loss. I will explain to the noble Lord what I mean by that. I do not know how many Amendments he is moving, but if I read his meaning correctly, this has to be read with subsequent Amendments under Clause 3.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Those are all consequential. If I fail on this, I fail on the lot.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am just going to explain that the noble Lord has not simply shifted the clause from one place to another, he has completely changed the emphasis. If I may say so, with great respect, what he calls Lord Long's point is something entirely different from what the noble Lord himself proposes. I should like to explain how different. The point which has been called Lord Long's point comes under Clause 3 (3). The whole of our Clause 5 is governed by the words of that subsection (3). 94 Under Lord Lucas's companies clause, subsection (3) comes in only when the company method of sale is impracticable or inexpedient. That means on this question that any dealing with the subsection (3) is entirely subordinate to his companies clause. So, if I may say so with great respect to Lord Long, where there is any sale by company there will be no sale whatsoever to any small man. I want that to be entirely clear. I am surprised at what is proposed by the Amendment. We have emphasised in Clause 5 (1), particularly, the references to Clause 3 (3), and the Commission, and indeed the Board, must have special regard to the purposes laid down there. The purposes laid down are abundantly clear, I suggest. They are, first, that those who want to go into business in a small way should have the opportunity of doing so, and, secondly, that the aggregate should be the best possible price. Both of those are taken right out of this companies clause.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Will the noble Earl tell me where?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

They are taken out because under subsection (1) of this Amendment there is no reference to the purposes which the Commission have under Clause 3 (3). So both these purposes are automatically removed by the procedure which noble Lord has in mind. For that reason I have to say that this proposed clause is, in fact, defective in that respect. I want to emphasise this point again. One may argue about nationalisation one way or another, but we have always regarded it as rather wicked to gobble up the undertakings of small men who have built up their own businesses. We have not the slightest intention of deviating one iota from our purpose of giving the small man the first opportunity of getting back into business. We also think that ours is a better way of doing it. There will be less delay, and there is more flexibility. Units can be transferred from one business to another. Probably a number of people already in business merely want to expand their businesses. To take over a complete company would probably be rather awkward for such persons, but they can take over a transport unit and add it to their own organisation.

Another point to which the noble Lord did not refer is the omission of subsection (4) of our Clause 5. I do not know 95 whether he wishes to discuss that subsection (4), the noble Lord made no reference to it.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

We may have to do that later on.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The noble Lord said there was no other alteration, but there is. If the noble Lord prefers to discuss it later on, I am content. I should make it clear, however, that we are going to put forward an argument in favour of retaining that clause. In the meantime, I am going to ask him to withdraw this proposed new clause, because it really is defective as it stands. It alters the whole emphasis which we think is important, and it would give the small man no chance at all. I do not think for one moment that is really what the noble Lord wants. He wishes to emphasise the company structure. Everything which has been said about the company structure is still effective under Clause 5 as it stands. For that reason, I suggest that, whilst we appreciate his point—it is laid down that it is open to the Board and the Commission to use this procedure if they wish to—the noble Lord might withdraw his Amendment.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am very grateful. I have now got what I wanted by putting down this new clause. Do I understand that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that, without doing anything contrary to the interests of the small man—with which I agree—a sufficient number of companies will be formed as will be able to absorb the major part of the other assets which cannot be disposed of in any other way? I do not agree with the noble Lord on many things he has said, though I may agree with him about the drafting. I am not a Parliamentary draftsman, and this is largely my own work, poor though it may be. I do not want by this clause to do anything which would prevent the small man from going back into this business, so long as I can ensure this: that at the end of the day, when all this disposal is over, when the Government in their wisdom bring all this to an end, the Commission are not left with millions of pounds worth of property of which they cannot dispose, except at a bargain-sale price, because the value of these assets has disappeared and because they have not been sold as a going concern.

96 These companies, if noble Lords want to know—and I am not talking about what will be retained by the Commission—have about 40,000 vehicles, and there are about £60 million worth of other assets. I should think that roughly, the vast bulk of this £60 million worth of assets can be absorbed in the companies formed with about half that number of vehicles. In other words, there will be 20,000 vehicles to be sold in small units to the small man. That is roughly how I figure it. I do not want the noble Earl to think that I am trying to upset anything in principle in this Bill. I do not accept his "too few hands." but I do not want to upset in principle that the small man can buy in units of one or two, or anything up to fifty vehicles. What I want to ensure is that companies will be formed to absorb the assets that can be sold only in company structure and are useless and worthless outside it. I do not think there is anything between us, but perhaps if there is the noble Earl will tell me. Otherwise I will withdraw this Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The noble Lord has emphasised absorbing small parts and spares into units but I made that point perfectly clear when I introduced the companies clause; that it was intended to sell them as going concerns without interruption. It means that a great deal of small stock is to be thrown in. The noble Lord has asked how often this method will be used. The Bill is the thing that counts. It makes it quite clear that the initiative comes from the Commission. They get control of the power, and it is expedient to bear in mind the purposes imposed on the Commission. There is no initiative from Her Majesty's Government at all. It is clear in the Bill. It is not possible for me, except by guessing, to say how much this method will be used. I cannot say more than that.

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW

My Lords, I support this Amendment. It is not an easy one at all. We want to protect the trader who is operating under a contract with the Road Haulage Executive. I feel that when the time comes when the trader is faced with renewing his contract, a new purchaser may say he would prefer to run the vehicles; on another route. The difficulty of the Amendment, as has been pointed out by the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of the House and by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, is that of continuing a contract where one of the parties to the contract has disappeared. The most important part of my noble friend's Amendment is that the Disposal Board should discuss matters with traders who have contracts concerning vehicles which the Disposal Board have the right to sell.

It may be that it gives the Disposal Board permission to do something which is not sound in law, and I should like advice on that point. But under the Amendment, the Disposal Board can come to a trader and tell him that the vehicles under contract are going to be sold and they cannot sell them with the condition that they have a contract, because that makes a difference in the price. Or they may say that they are 99 going to sell them on the basis that there is a contract and would the trader be prepared to accept a contract with the new purchaser. At least the trader would have warning, which he would not otherwise have, and may choose either to take on a new contract or say that he would rather take a chance and be free to go somewhere else. I support this Amendment wholeheartedly but if the Government cannot accept it, I should like to feel that there will be deliberate consultation with those traders who have long-term or short-term contracts still to run concerning those vehicles which the Disposal Board must dispose of under the Bill.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, before the noble Viscount replies, may I ask a question? Suppose there is a contract between Whitbread's and the Road Haulage Executive, under which the Executive are under obligation to supply vehicles to Whitbread's for a year, or whatever term it may be. I hope the Government are not going to take it out of the power of the Road Haulage Executive to carry out that contract by making them sell those vehicles, because if so, that would be bringing about a breach of contract. If a new set-up is going to be negotiated before doing this, if the contracting parties are to be told that the Board contemplate the transfer of vehicles to somebody else and the agreement of Whitbread's and the somebody else is obtained and a new agreement is fixed up, that is all right. But I do not suppose that the Government contemplate forcing the Road Haulage Executive to get rid of a vehicle, thereby putting it out of their power to carry out a contract into which they have entered, which would render them liable for damages for breach of contract. That seems to me to be an entirely unsound principle and I am sure the noble Viscount would not contemplate doing that. I am sure he will see that contracts which the Road Haulage Executive have properly entered into in the course of their ordinary business—I am not dealing with unusual or improper contracts—are carried out. I think this question is fundamental to the Amendment moved. I am fairly certain what the noble Viscount's answer will be to that question, but I think it requires stating because of some apprehension in the minds of noble Lords opposite.

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW

My Lords, may I be permitted to add—and I hope the noble and learned Earl will correct me if I am wrong—that when this Amendment in its original form was moved on Committee stage I believe the noble and learned Earl opposed it on the ground that if the Amendment in its original form was accepted, it would put the trader in the position of having to accept somebody to run his vehicles who was not one of the principals to the original contract. The noble Earl has now raised a different point.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Marquess. One cannot impose upon a man a new contractor—that is obvious. What I am saying now is different. Just as one cannot impose a new contractor, so I greatly hope the Government will not deprive the old contractor of the power to carry out his contract.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

My Lords, if I may, I shall deal first with the point made last by the noble and learned Earl. I speak with a certain amount of trepidation in the presence of the Lord Chancellor and an ex-Lord Chancellor on what is clearly a matter of law—but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will come to my rescue if I need succour and to my correction if I am in error, and I hope he will not hesitate to do either or both if the occasion arises. With humility, I should have thought that if this Bill lays down that certain properties shall be sold, any contract will be frustrated by the law which is passed, and such advice as I have been able to obtain reinforces what was my ancient recollection of that point of law. But the sort of case raised reinforces the desirability of that degree of common-sense consultation to which the noble Marquess has referred and which I am sure will take place.

I understand that the genesis of many of these contracts was not that some trader, like Mr. Whitbread, made for the first time a contract with the Road Haulage Executive. What happened was that long before nationalisation there had been a contract between Mr. Tilling or Mr. Somebody and Mr. Whitbread. Incidentally, I do not remember the Labour Government being unduly anxious about this matter when they brought in the 101 nationalisation Bill and we had the converse of the picture. When the Road Haulage Executive acquired these vehicles, they found that these contracts already existed. I suppose, the first contract having been frustrated, by arrangement with the Road Haulage Executive, Whitbread's, or whoever it may be, arranged that the Road Haulage Executive should act as successors and, because it was mutually convenient, should carry on.

LORD GIFFORD

They probably had no choice, because no other transport firm was allowed to go beyond the 25-mile limit.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am obliged to my noble friend; he is quite right. Probably if these vehicles were compulsorily acquired, there was nobody except the Road Haulage Executive to do the job. As these things have been arranged in the past under nationalisation, so, under denationalisation, I am sure they can be arranged quite amicably and satisfactorily in the future. Certainly it would not be a reason for altering the most convenient pattern of the redistribution of this industry in the way that it may work out.

To come now to the Amendment on the Marshalled List, I promised that I would have a look at this matter. I appreciate the way in which my noble friends have tried, but I am sorry that this will not do, any more than the last attempt. As I pointed out last time, and the Committee entirely accepted the view, it would be unfair to impose a unilateral obligation—by that I mean that the buyer of a transport unit should be bound whereas the trader would be free. That would be wholly one-sided. If we were to insert an obligation into the Bill at all, it would have to be an obligation upon both the buyer and the trader. But, as the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, pointed out last time, that might be quite unfair on the trader. The trader who was anxious to have an agreement with Company A, or who had previously had an agreement with Company A, and had substituted for that an agreement with the Commission, might be quite unwilling to enter into a similar contract with one or more unknown purchasers. The noble and learned Earl said that it would be monstrous.

102 The trader might well rather have someone else—in fact, it will be one of the advantages of competitive enterprise that, if he likes, he will be able to get somebody else. I do not think there will be difficulty about his getting his goods carried. Any buyer will certainly be anxious to get as much goodwill as he can, and will be keen to carry on a contract, if he is competent to do it. I have no doubt that a trader who has had a contract with the Commission will be equally anxious that there should be no interruption in his arrangements. Therefore in all cases where it is fair and reasonable that the arrangement should continue, I have no doubt that it will continue and, as such arrangements do, will continue by mutual agreement. Without putting in an Amendment, it is always possible in an appropriate case for the Commission to insert in the conditions of sale a provision that the tender shall include an undertaking to carry out the old contract. But, of course, that would have to be subject to the trader being willing to accept the buyer, when he knows who the buyer is.

I am very glad that this matter has been raised and thoroughly debated, because it is something about which people have been anxious. But I am sure that I have not only done what is legally right, but what is fair and practical. There certainly will be discussion: in fact I imagine that, where there is a contract subsisting (you will not ask me to give an express undertaking in every case) the natural thing would be for the Commission to say to the trader: "We are putting these vehicles into one unit. Would you like us to consider inserting in the conditions of sale that the vendor shall, if his tender is accepted, also accept this obligation if you are willing to carry it out?" But I am sure it is better to leave the Bill as it stands, both on the legal and the equitable side.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, ask the noble Viscount this question? I agree with the doctrine of the impossibility brought about by a subsequent Act of Parliament, which would be an answer to any suit for breach of contract. But is this not a case where the Road Haulage Executive are not being deprived of all their vehicles, but only of a substantial number? There would, therefore, 103 be no impossibility of performing a particular contract brought about by Act of Parliament. We have been considering Whitbread's. I understand that their vehicles are dressed in the livery of Whitbread's—one may say that they are all "dolled out" (if I may use a vulgarism) as being Whitbread's vehicles. Will those vehicles count against the Road Haulage Executive as being among the vehicles they are allowed to keep? I understand there are a considerable number of such vehicles—those of Whitbread's. Lyons & Co., and other firms.

LORD GIFFORD

There are 4,500 of them.

EARL JOWITT

I am obliged to the noble Lord. Do those vehicles all count, as it were, against the number of vehicles the Road Haulage Executive may retain?

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Of course they do. Look how ridiculous the position would be otherwise. What is the plan of this Bill? It is to see that the Road Haulage Executive get rid of all their vehicles except an equivalent number to those the railway companies had before nationalisation, plus one-quarter more—and the noble Lord opposite thinks it should be twice as many or something like that. That gives us a total of 4,800, or something near the 5,000 mark. It would be fantastic, and a complete frustration, not only in law but of the purpose of the Bill, if we said that because some of these lorries are dressed up with the name "Lyons" on them the Commission are to have twice as many as Parliament decided, on principle, they should have. When the Commission are agreeing with the Minister which vehicles they should keep, there may be a case for saying it is mutually convenient that these vehicles should be included in those that are to be kept. But the fact that the Commission have run a service which was a common practice before with private enterprise, which can perfectly easily be run by private enterprise again and which for the most part is now only in the hands of the Commission because they have taken over contracts which traders were quite happy previously to have carried out by the businesses which were nationalised, does not mean it would be right to say that the fact that some 104 of the vehicles were run for Lyons and some for Whitbread's should dictate what is the convenient pattern of the general distribution of this industry.

LORD GIFFORD

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his helpful remarks. I would only say that my new Amendment is different from the other and it is only a permissive Amendment. But the noble Viscount has given, if not an undertaking, a very strong expression that the interests of the traders who had contracts with the Road Haulage Executive will be carefully considered by the Commission and the Disposal Board. In view of what he has said. I have pleasure in withdrawing my Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords. I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Swinton. It refers to additional vehicles, and it makes it clear that the additional vehicles cannot obtain "A" licences under Part I of the First Schedule. It has been suggested they might conceivably obtain a licence under Part II, so we have omitted all reference to "Part" and just said "The First Schedule." I beg to move.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has raised a large number of possible, conceivable, but remote and extremely unlikely difficulties which may arise; but he has not put forward a single good reason, nor a single objection worth anything except the remote possibility that a lower tender might in some circumstances be accepted. Otherwise he has raised no objection whatsoever. What is the scheme of sale? It is that the whole initiative rests primarily with the Commission. The Commission must have any offer made to them either approved or refused by the Board. I have not heard that the Commission, in such matters, do not come to the Minister, or that they would be free to sell to one person the 108 whole of their disposable resources. This is the only limitation against monopoly. I must repeat what my noble friend Lord De La Warr said, that there is a tremendous difference between "too few hands," which is an essentially monopolistic conception, and a large organisation. The two things are quite separate. This is clearly the only reference to what is in some measure a monopolistic conception. I do not think the noble Lord's remarks about the United Dominions Trust are relevant. What happens after sale has nothing to do with this Bill. There is no restriction on future amalgamation: the purchasers can do what they like.

Two points were made by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. The first was that this was a political decision and should be left to the Minister; the second was that the words were too loose and the phraseology difficult to interpret. With regard to the first objection, I say, with all respect, that the political decision is in the terms of this Bill. This is a political decision here, in that the Bill imposes on the Commission a duty which they must fulfil. I say that that is no greater than some of the other big tasks which have been imposed upon the Commission at other times. After all, in every question there is an economic element besides a political element. I think that that is abundantly clear from the American Sherman Acts, which are largely economic in their interpretation. The interpretation of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, except in the narrowest circumstances. will invariably be done by the Minister.

It is only when the Commission and the Board both agree (and, if I may say so. the Board will have to agree almost unanimously) that the situation has arisen when a decision can possibly be taken without reference to the Minister. If the Commission disagree with the Board or if the Board disagrees within itself, then the matter would be referred to the Minister.

EARL JOWITT

Would the Board have to be unanimous?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

If the noble and learned Earl will look at subsection (8) of Clause 2, he will see the provision: Any question arising at any meeting of the Board shall be determined in accordance with the opinion of the majority of the members of the Board present and voting at that meeting: 109 Provided that if at any meeting of the Board there is a difference of opinion between the members of the Board on any question, and the chairman, or, in the absence of the chairman, the deputy chairman, considers that the matter is of sufficient importance to require to be referred to the Minister, he may refer the matter to the Minister.… In other words, it would be very unusual for the chairman of the Board, when one or two members hold firm on the question whether a certain matter is or is not a question of monopoly, not to refer the matter to the Minister. Therefore, unless it was such an obvious case that both the Board and the Commission said, "This is a case of 'too few hands' "the matter would be referred to the Minister. I do not think there is much advantage in being too precise about this. There are all kinds of complicated definitions in regard to monopoly, but I suggest that when it is seen it will be quite clear. It is a difficult matter to describe. Noble Lords may laugh, but perhaps I may illustrate the matter in this way. When Stanley went to look for Livingstone, so far as I know he had no idea at all what Livingstone looked like. But when he met him he had not the slightest difficulty in recognising him. I suggest for these reasons that this is the only protection in a matter which is left, in the first place, to the Board and to the Commission We have got to have some protection, and this subsection protects the Board and the Commission from having to take the highest bid or from having to take any other action in a matter which might seem to constitute a monopolistic organisation. I hope, therefore, that the House will not accept this Amendment.

LORD OGMORE

The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said that my noble friend Lord Lucas did not give any reason why this Amendment should be accepted. I would suggest that there are four reasons. The first is that it is a political question, as the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, pointed out on the Committee stage. This has now been admitted: the noble Earl has clearly admitted that it is a political question. So he admits that Lord Jowitt was right in what he said. We on this side believe that a political question of this kind should not be left to a Commission: it is a matter which should be decided by the Minister. If Ministers are not to decide on political questions it is difficult 110 to see who is to decide on them. The genesis of this clause, as I understand it, was that it was inserted in another place for political and not for transport reasons. That being so, we feel that it is most incongruous that the Commission should have to decide a matter of this kind.

The second reason is that it is a vague clause. One can just imagine the first meeting of the Commission when this matter has to be decided. There is the Transport Commission sitting there, complete with two Scotsmen—if Lord Swinton's. Amendment is accepted—and one or more Welshmen—if my suggestions to the House also are accepted. They have to decide into how many hands this particular organsation shall get. What constitutes "too few hands"? If we put ourselves into their position, we shall see what a difficult task this Bill imposes upon them. The noble Earl has said, with great can dour, that there is no advantage in being too precise. I should imagine there are few cases in our history when anybody has suggested to a House of Parliament that there is an advantage in not being too precise about the wording of a Bill which the Minister proposes that the House shall accept. Such a suggestion as that is certainly the despair of all those who have to try to interpret a Bill of this kind. Surely the whole object of an Act of Parliament is to try to put into as precise terms as possible what Parliament desires. If it is to be said that there is an advantage the other way, in not being too precise, then we may as well not have Acts of Parliament at all; we may as well have letters from the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. He has told us that he thinks that we should treat art Act of Parliament in the same way as Stanley treated Dr. Livingstone—in other words, that an Act of Parliament is to be regarded on the same basis as darkest Africa. It seems to me a most ridiculous suggestion for a Minister to make to those of us who have to pass this legislation; and still more so, in my view, to those who have to interpret it.

The third reason I would suggest to your Lordships for the adoption of this Amendment is, as my noble friend Lord Lucas has clearly pointed out, that the provisions of subsection (6) can, in fact, be overcome by a ring, or by a principal acting with a number of agents. In other words, if those who wish to get hold of 111 a large portion of a transport undertaking desire to do so, they can easily do so by operating in that way; and undoubtedly they will. It is far better, therefore, it seems to us, for the Transport Commission to ensure that the transport undertaking, whichever unit it may be, gets into the hands of proper and responsible companies who are able to undertake the work entrusted to them, rather than that a number of small men should buy as undisclosed agents for a principal who may or may not be the sort of firm or person that you would wish to carry on the undertaking.

The fourth reason I would suggest in support of this Amendment is that the subsection involves confusion. There is bound to be confusion in the minds of the Transport Commission when they are no longer bound to sell to those who put in the highest tender. I and others have mentioned this matter, and I think it strikes at the very root of the problem. If you place on the Transport Commission the obligation to sell to anyone other than the highest tenderer, without very clear instructions, I do not see how they can be expected to carry out their duties. If I were a member of the Transport Commission, I certainly should not dream of doing what is proposed. They can be "shot at" from all directions. It will be said of them that they should have sold to this one or to that one, and that they should not have sold to this particular person; that they were interested in some company—and a hundred and one other allegations will undoubtedly be made against them. In my view, and in the view of noble Lords on this side of the House, they will be put in an impossible position once you get away from the principle of selling to the highest tenderer unless there are very clear and precise instructions to the contrary. As these instructions are the reverse of clear, and are the most unprecise in language that I can remember in an Act of Parliament, I regard this as a very bad subsection to insert in the Bill.

Finally, there are all sorts of safeguards in this Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has pointed to one under Clause 2 (8). There is a safeguard there. Undoubtedly there will be differences of opinion on these matters, and about the exact number 112 of persons who shall be entitled to purchase the assets and the like. That clause in itself seems to me to safeguard the position, without this provision being introduced at all. I think the Bill without this provision gives equal strength to the principle that the Minister wants to be assured, and there is nothing in this particular subsection which strengthens the position in any way at all. That being so, it would he a great pity to put in this Bill a subsection of that kind, having all these disadvantages, when in fact the power that the Minister wants is, as I say, already very largely in the Bill in other clauses, and in particular in Clause 2 (8). For those reasons, we ask the House very strongly to support the Amendment and to strike out the subsection which the Amendment seeks to remove.

LORD WINSTER

My Lords, I have heard nothing from the noble Earl to alter my opinion that this provision is really "eyewash." Not for the first time in this Bill the wolf suddenly puts on sheep's clothing. This is a Bill to transfer an industry from public ownership to private ownership, and in this subsection the Government suddenly go all democratic and profess great concern for the small man in order, ostensibly, to protect the small man whilst transferring the industry to private enterprise and it introduces something which violates the very first principle of private enterpise—namely, that, when you are disposing of your assets, you must get the best price for them that you possibly can. The Government do two things by this subsection. First, they seek to throw upon the Commission a political responsibility, which essentially belongs to the Minister, and, secondly, in my opinion, they have introduced here a provision which in practice will be found to be unworkable. I do not believe that the Commission, with the best will in the world, will be able to fulfil the responsibility which this subsection seeks to throw upon them. For those very practical reasons, I support the Amendment and hope that this subsection will be deleted from the Bill.

EARL JOWITT

I very much hope that we are going to have a further reply from the Government to that which we have had so far. I am glad to see the noble Viscount looking in good form and 113 fighting trim. I hope that he will tell us something about this clause, or that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr—who dealt with it on the last occasion: I cannot say altogether to our satisfaction, but at any rate he learned the extent of our dislike and our distrust of this clause—will. Do let us look at this thing from a practical business point of view. The Commission are concerned to sell vehicles, and the Bill rightly seeks to protect the small man. So, rightly, the Government say to the Commission, "You shall sell your transport units; you shall not have more than fifty vehicles in any one, and you can go down to as low as one vehicle to give the man a chance to buy." Then there comes this, to my mind, amazing clause, and I want to see how it will work.

It tells the Commission—admirable people on the running of transport, but unused to and unversed in the taking of political decisions—that they have to consider not simply which tender (it may be a tender for one vehicle) is the best, but also the desirability of ensuring that control of the property formerly held by the Commission is not concentrated in "too few hands." Suppose that they open their tenders and find that for one vehicle there is a tender of £100. Then they look at the next tender for that vehicle and Lind that it is a tender of £120. Normally, if they were sensible people they would accept the tender for £120. In disposing of the taxpayers' property, that would be their plain duty. But they have to stop and think again, and say to themselves, "This man who is offering £120 has already bought a large number of these vehicles, and if we let him have this one there will be a danger of the industry getting into too few hands."

Now, who is the Commission to take this decision? How can this Commission take such a decision? I can well understand the Commission reporting to the Minister and keeping the Minister in touch with what is happening, and I can well understand that the Minister may say, "The company who are offering £120 have already had such a large number of tenders accepted that we ought not to let them have any more vehicles." But surely that ought to be the responsibility of the Minister. It is a political decision, and it is not for these people 114 who are charged with selling these goods and trying to get the best price for them to take that decision at all. Let the Minister keep in touch with these matters from day to day to see how things go, but please do not ask the Commission, who, subject to the consent of the Board, have the responsibility of disposing of these things, to consider a question which even the noble Viscount, with all his ingenuity. cannot get near to defining—"too few hands." What are "too few hands"? I can only say that I have not the least idea. Must one consider a particular locality'? Is it really a question of monopoly? If it is the case that there is a danger of monopolies starting up, then I can understand it, but that is not what is said.

In any case, is the clause the least bit effective? If this company that is offering £120 (in the case which I have put) thinks it is getting near to the limit and that the Minister may not view it with any favour, it will not buy in its own name, but will buy in somebody else's name. Therefore, the idea is absolutely defective and nonsensical and is a breach of the all-important principle that a man charged with disposing of Government property should dispose of it to the highest tenderer. That principle is being breached in favour of some vague, meaningless and utterly unworkable principle which is here enunciated, so far as know, for the first time. I very much hope that the Government will think again.

I should be happy and content if this power rested in the Minister, because, difficult though it may be to enforce and difficult though it may be to say when "too few hands" comes into play, yet I should far rather trust the Minister, who has spent a long political life and has to take many political decisions and, so far as I know, has generally taken them wisely. I should far rather entrust this duty to the Minister who, if necessary, can be brought to book in whatever of the two Houses of Parliament he lives, and challenged in that sort of way which is the great feature of our Constitution. I should far rather have that power vested in him than I should have it vested in the Commission. If the Government insist on resisting this eminently reasonable Amendment: I am bold enough to hope that some of your Lord- 115 ships on that side of the House will, on this rare occasion, support me in saying that this duty really ought not to be cast on the Commission.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

My Lords, everybody has had a try at this "Aunt Sally" of a clause. The noble Earl has asked me to contribute something, but I am bound to say that I am a little surprised at the righteous indignation which, on the highest Liberal principles, actuates the Opposition Front Bench over this business, because all through not only this Bill but many others I have been told from that side of the House what an iniquitous thing is anything in the nature of a monopoly—unless, of course, it is a monopoly in the hands of a nationalised undertaking. And let me point out to the noble Lord that it is not necessary for every single vehicle to be in one hand in order to create a monopoly. There may be a local monopoly. My noble friend, Lord Bilsland, has had something to say in these debates about local monopoly in Scotland and, I think, other areas. I agree that one does not want to have a monopoly, either general or local, when the object of this Bill is to denationalise this industry and get a reasonable measure of competition.

And observe, my Lords, that unless this clause is here, there is nothing to safeguard that position because this is the only provision which deals with the prevention of monopoly, general or local. It would be quite possible for the Commission, if there were no such provision as this, to sell fifty units to one buyer; they would be concerned only to see that the price was right. And no doubt people rather tend to give a slightly higher price if they are trying to make a corner in something. But there would be no ground for either the Commission or the Board or, indeed, the Minister, saying anything to prevent that. The result might be that there would be a transfer from public to private monopoly, or quasi monopoly. I do not think any of us want that. I am not greatly impressed by the argument: Who is to say what are "too few hands"? It was with great joy that I heard my noble friend give the Dr. Livingstone analogy, but as I had to go out for a moment I am not sure whether he used the analogy 116 from Robert Louis Stevenson, who said that it is pretty difficult to define either day or night, but that most sensible people know one from the other when they see it. Somebody else said he could not define an elephant but he knew one when he saw it. I do not think I should have much difficulty, nor do I think would anybody of common sense (though they might take slightly different views about it) in recognising what are "too few hands."

Lord Ogmore, who really let his Welsh exuberance carry him a little further even than usual, like a Rupert of debate said, "Fancy putting a general term into an Act of Parliaments You might as well have no Act of Parliament at all." Well, I have seen dozens of Acts of Parliament and certainly quite a number passed by the Government of which he was an ornament which put in, "having regard to the national interest." Now all sorts of people have quite different ideas about what is the national interest, but that has not prevented the Party opposite or, for that matter, my own Party, putting into legislation the provision that a Minister or a Board or somebody was to have regard to the national interest. These conceptions are abstract. If you like, "public interest" is in a sense a more abstract conception than "too few hands." I do not think there is really very much difficulty about that, and I am quite sure that something of this kind will have to be included.

I have tried to listen to all these debates through the day and night with impartiality. I have given a fair number of things, as the Order Paper shows, where I have been convinced, and I have not hesitated to stand out against things like Amendment No. 1 in the Marshalled List which I thought utterly and wholly wrong. I would not let go something of this safeguard; and the safeguard "too few hands" is about as good as you can get. I am more impressed with the point made by the noble and learned Earl (I think he also made it last time) that to some extent this is a political decision. It is quite true that, leaving the clause as it stands, if the Commission and the Board disagree the matter automatically comes to the Minister. Equally, even if one member of the Board disagrees, the chairman, because this would be an important matter, would then refer it to the Minister.

117 It may well be said, that if the Board and the Commission are agreed on a general duty imposed upon them by Parliament, it is a pretty safe case to leave. Of course, if the Board and the Commission permit a sale, that is all right. We do not want to refer to the Minister every sale with which the Board and the Commission do not want to interfere because they are quite satisfied. Even though a man may have got one unit and has offered a good price, where it is not creating a quasi monopoly I would let it go through. Thus, you do not clutter up the Minister. But where the Board or the Commission decide to turn down what, on the face of it or in fact, is the best tender, because they think it is likely to create a monopoly or a quasi monopoly which would be inimical to the purpose of the Act—and therefore it would be a question of "too few hands"—I think there is a case for referring it to the Minister.

I do not want to put down something on the spur of the moment. Owing to our somewhat insular procedure in this House we can put down Amendments on Third Reading. With a view to meeting this point if I can, and not just taking it away and leaving it, I should like to consider the question whether, where the Board and the Commission think that an offer should be turned down because it is a case of "too few hands," that should have the Minister's approval. It is important not to hold up the steady flow of this business, but I cannot imagine that it would happen very often. I agree that there is a political element in this—in the sense of its being not a Party political element at all, but a sort of political as distinct from a purely commercial decision. I hope that this Amendment may be withdrawn. I will do my best to put down on Third Reading something which will meet the point that if the Commission and the Board want to turn an offer down because they think it creates a monopoly, they shall refer the case to the Minister for his approval or dissent.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords. I think that the noble Viscount's action in promising to look at this matter again will greatly reassure noble Lords who sit behind him, because we rather feel that it is our duty to avoid putting on the Statute Book things which are rather 118 nebulous and should not be there. I have often spoken against the phrase "in the national interests," and I feel that "too few hands" smacks very much of the same thing. I hope it will be possible to produce something on Third Reading.

EARL JOWITT

I feel that what the noble Viscount has said is something "in the national interest," and I shall certainly advise my noble friend Lord Lucas not to press this Amendment at this stage. Perhaps the noble Viscount will give Lord Lucas and myself an opportunity to see what he proposes to put down on Third Reading.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I will gladly do that.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, I jump with alacrity to accept the suggestion of the noble Viscount. I am encouraged that the perseverance of our argument has impressed not only other noble Lords on that side of the House but also the noble Viscount. I am very glad to hear his observations, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. He has met us completely. As I said at the time, I was not tied to the words when I put forward the phrase "current value." Frankly, I think the noble Earl's Amendment is better than the one I moved. I am very glad that at last the Government are realising that other people than just the potential purchasers have to be considered in the sale of this property.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

And Amendment No. 20.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Amendment 20 is consequential. We can discuss that Amendment as well. Three may be my lucky number. In Clause 4 we are dealing with the transfer of transport units to companies under the control of the Commission. Rather jokingly, on the last occasion I put it to your Lordships that this is the clause where the Commission ask permission of 121 the Board to tender for their own assets, and when the Board has been graciously pleased to allow the Commission to issue an invitation to themselves, then comes what we think to be one of the obnoxious provisions. The subsection says: …the Commission may, if the Minister gives his consent,… Then at line 15 we find this: Provided that, without prejudice to the power of the Minister to give or refuse his consent under this subsection in any case and on any ground, the Minister shall so exercise his powers under this subsection as to secure that— and so on. I hope the noble Earl will not accuse me of having a distorted mind, but to me there is something sinister about these words. The noble Earl tried to explain the matter to us on the Committee stage, but it appears to me that the position is this. In this Bill, the Commission are told that they can have a company or companies to operate a number of vehicles—a number which may hereafter be specified—and may go out into the world, this cold stern world of competition, and compete in the transport business. But then it is proposed to circumscribe the Commission in a manner which is not, and never will be, possible with their competitors.

The noble Earl—I paraphrase his words: he will correct me if I am wrong—said on the Committee stage that the real object of this Ministerial veto, expressed in the words in any case and on any ground was that the Minister could say to the Commission, "No; you are not going to form that company to operate there; you are not going to form this other company to operate here. What you are really attempting to do is to set up a monopoly in this corner or that corner." The Commission are told that they will have so many vehicles, and that they will have to compete with all these other undertakings. There is an obligation on the Commission—it has not been removed from the 1947 Act—that they have to run their concern at a profit. Taking one year with another, they have to make their revenue meet their expenditure. Then th