ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH

§ LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, as we resume this debate my task is to address myself to that part of the gracious Speech which deals with transport. If I were to match brevity with brevity, this would be the shortest speech on record in your Lordships' House; because we are told in the gracious Speech only that "a progressive transport policy" will be adopted. In order that we can judge whether it is progressive or not we must first find out what that policy is, and we must examine whatever evidence is available in relation to it.

I have spent the last five years in devoting myself, as best I could, to the interests of transport. I believed that I understood the position of transport today quite well—that is, until October 16, 1964, after which the situation became, for me, as incomprehensible and, in some ways, as chaotic as peak-hour traffic travelling too fast along a fog-bound motorway. Your Lordships will know that on a number of occasions I have inquired in your Lordships' House about exactly what the Labour Party's transport policy might be. Your Lordships 329 will also know that. I never received any better answer than that there would be a survey of the country's transport system and that that system would be properly integrated, or words to that effect. So I had to turn to other sources for the information I wanted, and, indeed, the information that I still want.

I turned, for instance, to the Labour Party's Manifesto, where I found some five paragraphs devoted to the subject of transport. The first paragraph was a restatement of facts which everyone had known for years. The second paragraph made merely an electioneering noise. The third, fourth and fifth paragraphs contained a number of pious and hopeful platitudes and references to plans yet to be made. In particular, the third paragraph began—and I quote— Labour will draw up a national plan for transport covering the national networks of road, rail and canal communications, properly co-ordinated with air coastal shipping and port services. The rim regional authorities will be asked to draw up transport plans for their own areas. The first thing that struck me about that was that Labour drawing up a national plan, what time the new regional authorities draw up their own plans for their own areas, seemed at first sight a contradiction in terms. But it may be that these varying plans are also to be integrated, although it does not say so. That is the first question I should like to put to Her Majesty's Government.

Secondly, and what seemed more important to me—and, indeed, I noticed that Mr. George Brown seemed to put considerable emphasis on this point in his speech at Derby on Saturday—this is all in the future: Labour "will" draw up …; the new regional authorities "will" be asked…. Is there no plan of any kind now, or is the situation such as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, described to us not long ago in one of his more engaging moments of truth? Your Lordships will not have forgotten that he then told us that when the Labour Party took office in 1945 their transport plan had not been properly worked out. I am left wondering whether we are not facing the same situation to-day.

Therefore, I feel bound to ask Her Majesty's Government a number of questions about it. And before anybody 330 gets the wrong idea, I should say that I have given notice to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, of the questions I propose to ask. I must apologise to him now if I ask two or three more than those of which I gave notice, because I have thought of them since. I put them forward not only in order to make it clear that I do not want to score off him or anyone else in a debating manner (particularly as I understand to-day is his birthday and I am sure we all wish hint Many Happy Returns), but because they are all questions which the Government should certainly be able to answer at once, in support of the kind of specious promises which one finds in the Labour Party Manifesto. Above all, they are questions asked because we want the information.

My third thought, on reading what the Labour Manifesto said about the proper co-ordination of all the transport systems, was: what a splendid start the Government had made with it! Consider, my Lords. We have the Ministry of Transport responsible for roads, rail and, presumably, canals; we have aviation in its own Ministry; we have the Board of Trade responsible for shipping; we have the Home Office responsible for the police. Then we find the Road Research Laboratory floating about in an as yet unallocated position, though, personally, I hope that it will end up in the Ministry of Transport where I consider that it belongs. But if that is co-ordination, then I should very much like to know just who is going to disentangle the knitting from around this particular bunch of kittens.

I must say that, if that breakdown is good enough for the Government in their policy, it is good enough at least for my speech, and I will turn now to roads. In the last period of Labour Government roads clearly formed no part of their transport policy, except in so far as they tried to make it difficult for heavy transport to operate on them. In 1951 we inherited a miserable road programme, running at a mere £5 million a year spent on new roads and major improvements, with no forward planning of either a technical or a financial kind. That contrasts very sharply with the £135 million being spent on the same work in this year in which we are living. It contrasts even more sharply with the £675 million which has been spent on 331 this work in the last five years, and the £1,200 million which we had planned—and I say again, with emphasis, "planned"—both technically and financially, to spend over the next five years. Even if this brought a lot of welcome relief on the best part of 1,000 miles of motorway, and welcome relief on miles and miles of other roads, it has to be admitted that that relief is probably barely adequate. Nevertheless, that road programme is far and away the biggest that has ever been undertaken in this country; and that in spite of the limitations imposed by the many other urgent demands on our resources.

So now, my Lords, I want to ask the Government this question. Can we take it, and take it with assurance, that this great programme will be preserved and carried on intact? Can we be assured that it will continue at full pressure, as it has been, and will not be delayed or suspended pending some procrastinating survey into a national plan for transport? Further, if the answer to those questions is, Yes, can the Government assure us that they will have the necessary funds available for maintaining the momentum of this great programme? We know that the cost of all those lush carrots that were recently dangled before the electorate must be vastly greater than Government expenditure has been up to now, and all this money has to come from somewhere. Of course I have to speak without the benefit of knowledge of what is to be said later to-day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not specially concerned whether he serves us a full-scale goulash, or merely with a sort of political Slivovitz distilled from ripe plums extracted from his own and Mr. George Brown's speeches; but I am specially concerned to find out, and to find out to-day, whether or not the great Conservative road programme is to be maintained, and whether the Government can see their way to afford it.

I come next to the railways. I have always thought it a great pity that the Labour Party, apparently—so we were told—with the enthusiastic support of the Liberal Party have focused their entire attention on the negative aspects of modernising the railways—that is, closures. But they have constantly and consistently ignored, and even at times seemed to oppose, the positive side, 332 which is to enable the railways to clear the tracks and give the country the service which they are best equipped to give, and to give it efficiently and economically. We have invested over £1,000 million in the railways in the last ten years, and we have given them the green light to go ahead and do just that. Is it all now to be wasted and brought to a halt? We had the Government statement last Wednesday that passenger closures were largely to be suspended, pending the preparation of regional transport plans, although I noticed that at that time there was no mention of a national transport plan. I do not know, and I should like to ask, whether that was an oversight; or does it by any chance mean that the Government have had second thoughts about this national plan?

May I also ask how long the Government think it will take to prepare these plans? May I ask whether holding up the modernisation of the railways in this way—for that is what the Government are doing—really accords with their promises of modernisation of Britain, and of the "progressive transport policy" which is so briefly mentioned in the gracious Speech? May we also know just what this policy of delay in cutting out the dead wood is going to cost the taxpayer, in view of the loss at which the railways are running?

It certainly seems to me, my Lords, that this much-heralded progressive policy of modernisation is a great deal more "Stop" than "Go". Talking of stopping, I should have liked to ask a few questions about the Concorde, but as I know perfectly well that I shall be told only that the matter is under urgent review, I will now say no more than that I can foresee a number of questions which I shall want to ask later, depending on the outcome of that review. But I think that I might ask to-day about the Channel Tunnel. I expect that I shall also be told about the need to wait for the results of the geological survey which is at present taking place. But I do not think that this will quite do. I think we may well ask in this case whether this is another of the technological modernisation projects which is under some sort of review. Therefore, I now ask that question.

I want now to come on to what I regard as a much more important ques- 333 tion, this business of the national plan for transport and proper co-ordination of the various services. As I have already said, I have time and again asked in your Lordships' House exactly what this coordination means, and how it is to be achieved. Never, I say again, have I had anything like an adequate answer from noble Lords on the Labour Benches. Never have I had anything more than the somewhat airy theories which I found in the Manifesto. Only the noble Lord, Lord Hughes (I think it was), said anything realistic, when one day he referred, in passing, if my memory serves me correctly, to "control by the appropriate authority" in this context.

Therefore, in order to inform myself I had to look further afield. I have been grubbing about in the public pronouncements of the Labour leaders on the subject. I found Mr. Wilson in April, 1963, talking about taking the lid off British Road Service. In the same month he was talking about putting it on the "A" and "B" licence hauliers, and about planning to provide for the right distribution of traffic between road and rail. In January, 1964, he was talking about an integrated transport plan, and of co-ordination between road and rail and the allocation of traffic between them. In July, 1964, Mr. Ray Gunter was saying that free individual choice is not possible under a rationalised system.

My Lords, that is enough. We are therefore entitled to ask—and we do ask, and we ask now—what is going on. What is this wonderful plan for integration or for co-ordination, call it what you will? Just who is going to select and allocate this traffic "rightly" between road and rail? If the British Road Services are to have much more freedom, what restriction is to be placed on the private sector of road haulage? Will it extend this time to "C" licence lorries, and will it extend to private cars? If it does not do those things, then this talk of proper coordination is no more than a pious platitude which will only flop as disastrously as did the half measures that were taken between 1945 and 1951. If, on the other hand, that is what it does mean, and the restrictions will so extend, then we want to know when the necessary legislation will be introduced.

My Lords, we want to know about road safety. I found one reference in the 334 Manifesto about acting vigorously to stop what were referred to as "cut-throat haulage firms" from flouting regulations covering maintenance, loads and driving hours. Is this something new? Does it mean some departure from what has always been the Conservative policy up till now, of firmly stopping such abuses on the part of all haulage interests, whatever they may be? Apart from that, can we know just what other measures the Government have in mind over and above and beyond the vigorous action that we have been taking on the road safety front up till now?

All these, my Lords, are only some from the mass of pertinent questions behind the veiled half-hints which are all we have so far seen or heard of the Government's policy—if they have a policy. I have contented myself with asking twenty of those questions, and to those twenty I want clear answers. Of course, I do not suppose it matters very much to anyone whether I want those answers or whether I do not: but the country wants them, and it wants them quick!

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, may I preface my remarks by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, upon his maiden speech from the Opposition Front Bench? It also gives me the opportunity to thank him for the unfailing courtesy and consideration that he has always given me during the past five years, when he has been on the other side of the House, when I have asked him the same questions that he is now asking the Government and when I have received the same answers that he expects to have. It also gives me the opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, not only on his appointment to the Government Bench but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has said, upon attaining 64 years of age. He does not look it but if he shares the common experience of us all he will look about 160 before he leaves the Ministry of Transport, because, although the noble Lord cannot claim to be a novice in ministerial experience, as some of his colleagues who sit next to him can, I can assure him that he has not plumbed the depths of despondency, frustration and despair until he has served a stretch at the Ministry of Transport.

335 The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has asked a number of questions. I do not intend to traverse all the ground that he has, but I should like to ask one or two. First, I should like to ask what has happened, not over five years but over eleven years—for I have been asking these questions for eleven years—to the much-vaunted modernisation scheme of the railways? Because, if I put myself in the position of just an ordinary citizen—an habitual train traveller now, because I am too old and I get too frustrated and bad tempered to drive on the roads—I find that the trains on the line I travel on are just as late as they always have been; the diesel engines break down just as often as the steam engines did——

§ A NOBLE LORD

More!

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I do not want to exaggerate. The carriages are just as dirty; the toilet arrangements are just as scandalously filthy; and, if one lives in the rural areas as I do, it takes twice as long to get any goods delivered to your house, from either London or the Midlands, as it did eleven years ago. So where is this modernisation? Where is it, other than, as the noble Lord said, in closing down railway stations and making it still more difficult for the rural dweller? Perhaps we shall all have to move back into the cities, so increasing the congestion, and be commuters. I think I would rather starve in the rural areas than be a commuter from the London suburbs to-day.

My Lords, I would say this quite frankly. When the Government think out a real transport policy—they have not one now, as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has said—let them remember that there is room in the transport system of this country for some measure of integration, rationalisation or call it what you will. But I have the unhappy feeling that what the present Government mean by "integration" is the curtailment of one form of transport for the benefit of another. I say quite frankly to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, who cannot say he is quite unbiased, having been brought up on the railways, that what I am unhappy about is that this Government look upon the railway system of this country 336 as a means of providing redundancy employment, and not, as it should be, as an integral part of the economic and industrial life of this country. This is what I am afraid of.

This country has for far too long adopted a policy of seeking the restriction of others and not our advancement by our own brains and initiative. That has been our besetting sin; that is the besetting sin of a restrictionist policy when it comes to transport. I have said this in your Lordships' House for nearly twenty years. Road transport is only an extension of the conveyor lines of British industry. Because of the peculiar setup of the industrial fabrication in this country, the mass of supplementary factories where the whole article, never built in one factory, is brought together, necessitating short hauls, the roads are nothing other than an extension of our factory coveyor lines. And it is nonsense for any Government to start talking about automation or the modernisation of industry yet to curtail it by not giving the free choice to the producer of the avenues of transport which suit his particular business best.

The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, mentioned "C" licences. I have fought the restrictions on "C" licences ever since they appeared in the original 1947 Bill to nationalise transport. I am very happy to think after all these years that I played a not inconspicuous part in having them taken out of the 1947 Act; and if ever the restrictions make their appearance again they will find in me a bitter opponent. British industry must have freedom to choose that method of transport which suits its particular circumstances best.

My Lords, I now come to roads. I hope sincerely that the road programme will be extended and not curtailed. I certainly think that the Government would perhaps be well advised to put a toothcomb through the present programme, not for curtailing it, but for getting its priorities right. To make some constructive suggestion, I am going to mention one instance in which I know I shall excite the enthusiastic support of the noble Earl the Leader of the House. That is the £1½ million of the taxpayers' money which I see is allocated for that piece of vandalism, the ploughing-up of Christ Church Meadow and the building of a road that is not wanted 337 at all and will be useless when it is finished because in about six to twelve months' time a £3 million or £4 million project will be completed which will make it entirely useless. If the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, wants to hear more details about that, I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Longford, will be only too happy to tell him what a piece of spoliation that is.

However, there is one further matter I cannot resist touching upon, and I ask your Lordships' indulgence in doing so; but the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, mentioned it. That is the cost to this country in hard cash, travail and grief of the present rate of road accidents. We are now getting to the figure of killing 7,000 people upon the roads of this country every year. Official estimates anticipate that the figure will soon reach 10,000. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, mentioned one very pertinent point: the sad condition of most of the goods-carrying vehicles that travel the roads of this country. But I mentioned this subject and made a big point of it, not five years ago but eleven years ago. I argued with the Government that what they wanted were spot checks on the roads to check whether vehicles were overloaded. Some of your Lordships must be sick and sorry of the examples I gave of the overloading of goods vehicles. But what was done? Nothing—nothing at all!

If there is one complaint upon this matter that can be levelled against the late Government it was that it was always tomorrow when they were going to do something—never today. And tomorrow never came. Why the Minister or anybody should express such great surprise when the official inspection of goods-carrying vehicles disclosed that 50 per cent. should not have been allowed on the roads, is beyond me. I told the Government that for years; and now we are still messing about with it. Can I give the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, a cure for this? It is a simple one; I have argued it for years. The reason why goods-carrying vehicles are under-mechanised for the loads they have to carry is the ridiculous taxation system we have in this country of taxing goods-carrying vehicles on the unladen weight of the vehicles and not on the total load which is p at on the four wheels on the road. If you had a plate on each goods-carrying vehicle showing the 338 maximum total gross load that it was allowed to carry you would aid the police and the Weights and Measures officials, and do away with this silly business of stopping a vehicle but having no statutory power to take it on a weighbridge to be weighed.

My Lords, this matter now comes to a question of what we are going to do about our traffic problem, because the better we make our roads—and I am not arguing they should not be made better—the more traffic they will attract, and this is only natural. I cannot see any Government stopping the British people from having the freedom to have their individual piece of transport if they want it. Nor can I see any Government trying to stop it. I am going to make a plea—and I put it to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack coupled with the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren—that what we have to do is to have another look at our road traffic laws. We have too many of them; half of them are useless and the other half are brought into complete contempt. The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack does not need me to tell him that in any democracy like ours a law that is treated with contempt through its being unenforceable or unacceptable to the public should be scrapped because it is useless. We must have a greater enforcement of the law. We are not giving our police a fair chance; though, admittedly, we want more police.

I was delighted to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, whom I wish to congratulate on his elevation to the Front Bench; and I am sure that Dr. Beeching must now sleep far sounder at night, and the vice gangs and the clip joints—I think that is the expression—in the East End of London will now go in fear and trembling. I was glad to hear him say yesterday that the number of crime squads is to be increased. I hope he will use his good offices to have the numbers of mobile police enlarged, so that they can detect all this dangerous driving by hooligans (in the well-chosen phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham) and treat it as a crime.

I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will not be mealy-mouthed, as the last Government have been, over this question of tackling the drunken driver. We have to take this 339 question out of opinion and put it in the category of fact. Whether a man is drunk or sufficiently under the influence of drink to make him unable to have proper control of a motor vehicle should not be arguable by a doctor, who is a useless adjunct for this particular crime. It should be a question of fact. When the 1962 Act was going through your Lordships' House, we tried to alter the definition of being under the influence of drink. I should like to refresh your Lordships' memories of what we said by quoting two lines from the Road Traffic Act, 1962: A person shall be taken to be unfit to drive if his ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired through drink or drugs. Before that, a motorist had to be drunk and incapable, or, as it is sometimes rather crudely put, he had to be "as drunk as a Lord".

Over the passage of years I have had the privilege of addressing many meetings of magistrates, members of the Magistrates' Association, on the question of the enforcement of the road traffic law. I have taken it upon myself, since the passing of the 1962 Act, to ask them politely whether they were aware that Parliament, in its wisdom, had altered this definition and whether they had read Section 1 of the Act—and not one in a hundred have I been able to get to admit that he has read it. How can we expect the wishes of Parliament to be enforced in such circumstances? Is it right that we in Parliament should pass laws to the best of our ability, after taking every factor into consideration—circumstances, means and everything else—and laying down maximum penalties, including suspension of licence, and that then the will of Parliament should be treated with contempt? How long can we in Parliament go on like this, while the toll of road casualties goes up?

I make this plea. There is only one way in which we shall ever be able to curtail road accidents; that is, by the simple process of ensuring that if any individual cannot behave himself on the road with respect for other users, he shall not be allowed to drive a vehicle on the roads at all. Until we have the courage to say that, until we do away with this discretionary power and make suspension of licence automatic upon conviction of an offence, we are just 340 playing about with the problem and, in the ultimate, making ourselves look foolish. Since 1956, we have doubled the maximum penalties for serious motoring offences, but the number of suspensions of licence is still only 5 per cent. of convictions.

I want to mention one other matter which is near to my heart—the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned it yesterday. I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will not mind my pulling the legal leg by reminding your Lordships that an eminent predecessor of his used to sing a song, which went like this: The law is the true embodiment Of everything that's excellent. It has no kind of fault or flaw And I, my lords, embody the Law. I know that the noble and learned Lord will not mind my saying this, because there are so many of us who would not agree that the law is without fault or flaw.

And with this great extension of administrative law, I would remind your Lordships of those words of the late Lord Birkett, perhaps one of our greatest lawyers: No longer can the ordinary citizen of this country rest assured that no one will do him wrong because in the ultimate there are English judges who will see that right is done by him. To-day, tribunals, discretionary and statutory, are being set up which are above the law. There is no appeal from them. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will recall the Chalk Pit case, Crichel Down and the North Oxfordshire Ironstone case. In the Oxfordshire case poor citizens, farm labourers, would have been turned out of their homes because a great nationalised concern had the right to apply for compulsory purchase to dig iron there, and arrived to make their application with an army of "silks" and juniors to steamroller it through; and if it had not been for a debate in your Lordships' House, they would have succeeded.

Call him Ombudsman or what you will, we have got to have some protection against administration by the Departments. Justice is not available to a large section of the British people to-day, and that is evident from the proliferation of new Government Departments. Think of 341 the number of Government Departments armed with powers of all kinds and not answerable in a court of law. In his speech yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, made a very humorous remark. He said [col. 268]: I think the noble Lord, not surprisingly, will not find a single civil servant in Whitehall is in favour of an Ombudsman. To me, that is conclusive evidence of the necessity to have one.

I know that this question is very near the noble and leaned Lord's heart. It may not be on the Scandinavian principle; it may be an extension of the Council on Tribunals; but there must be some individual, some body or department, who can listen to complaints and see that justice is done to the ordinary common man where he cannot get it to-day; and through this great spread of administrative law it looks as if he is going to have less chance of getting it in the future.

§ THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK

My Lords, I have been a Member of your Lordships' House sufficiently long to know that brief speeches are welcome, and therefore what I say to-day will be said with despatch But first perhaps I might crave the indulgence of your Lordships by apologising to you, and especially to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, for not having been in my place here to take Prayers to-day. As your Lordships may know, I am a firm believer in the laity taking a greater place in the life of the Church; but that was not the reason why the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack took Prayers to-day. I regret to say that it was due to a false entry in my diary, for which I am wholly responsible. Therefore, I stand in a white sheet; I crave the forgiveness of the House, and I only hope that the noble and learned Lord will not despatch me to the Tower for having failed in my duty to-day.

Last July I had the privilege of addressing this House on the subject of crime and penal reform, and it would be improper to repeat anything I said then in rising to express appreciation of the legislative proposals in the gracious Speech. When these proposals are formulated I hope that they will take into account four factors. The first is the need to emphasise personal responsibility.

342 The pressures in modern society are tremendous, and there is much to encourage wrong doing and, indeed, antisocial behaviour. But, while we must show understanding and compassion towards those who fall by the wayside, this must be done in such a way that we do not diminish the idea of personal responsibility for our own actions. It is not sufficient to preach these things; instead, we should seek, through education and experience, to deepen the sense of personal responsibility.

We hear much these days of the younger members of our community who create disturbances at holiday centres and who resort to violence and crime. All that is true. But it is also true that members of the same generation, often from the same districts, do voluntary service overseas and spend weekends decorating the houses of old-age pensioners and invalids. I know that this is the case in my own diocese in South London. In determining whether a child will belong to the irresponsible or to the responsible group, no doubt much depends upon the influence of parents. But not everything. Already a great deal is being achieved in our schools, but I wonder whether the Government would give further thought to the possibility of community service. In the war, and indeed after the war, we accepted conscription. I certainly have no wish to see this sort of national service reintroduced, unless defence demands the contrary. But would it not be possible to provide—I am not saying necessarily compulsorily—greater opportunities than exist at the moment for young people to spend periods of months or a year in voluntary community service? This would be an example to the country and would, I believe, encourage personal responsibility.

The second fact is the need to realise those pressures in our society that encourage anti-social behaviour. Perhaps to a higher degree than many of us are prepared to face, we live—and not only in this country—in a "spiv" age. The maximum of money for a minimum of work is the ideal of no one group. Expense accounts are elastically handled at all levels; profit, irrespective of the use to which the product is put, is the aim of some directors, some managements, some shareholders and some 343 workers. The scientist sells his knowledge and is held not to be responsible for the use to which it is put; and, indeed, the general pressure of society is concerned not to say that each man should share responsibility for whatever it is that flows from his thoughts and actions, but rather to tell each man to make his own contribution and to ask no awkward questions. There are too many ways in which we have become an irresponsible society, so that the man or woman we imprison is often the caricature of the man we extol and honour. It is because I believe this to be entirely true that I welcome the legislative proposals of Her Majesty's Government which will reduce this "spiv" element in our society and change some of the unhappy values which have beset our thinking for far too long.

The third factor is the necessity to improve the relationship between the public, especially the younger section of it, and the law. I have two prisons in my diocese, Wandsworth and Brixton. This gives me an opportunity to appreciate the tremendous problems that confront the police. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that the police have an unenviable task, which in the vast majority of cases they discharge with patience, wisdom and courtesy. Even so, great importance must be attached to the establishing of better relations between the police and the public. This requires a blend of deliberate policies, which we look with confidence to the Government to provide, and a great increase of voluntary work in many fields. Here there is a clear responsibility upon the Church to give a lead.

The fourth factor is to make up one's mind what we believe to be the aim of prison centres. Obviously, punishment has to be taken into consideration. Every community must make it clear that crime does not pay; in fact, it is possible that it should be made even clearer than it is to-day. But, having said that, I would add that our primary objective is to prepare prisoners to play their part in the life of the community and to become useful citizens. For this reason, I rejoice that the Government propose to permit a free vote in another place on the question of hanging. This is not a subject upon which the Bishops, in particular, should be proud of their 344 record in the past; but we have now reached a stage when the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury has expressed itself unanimously on this subject in a 100 per cent. vote by the Bishops against capital punishment. In the name of mercy and for the dignity of the whole community, I hope that their view may prevail in your Lordships' House. Murder is a terrible thing, but it is not for us to usurp the prerogatives of God. Our task is to reclaim the murderer, as I know from personal experience can happen.

But murderers are a tiny proportion of the prison population. My main concern is the men whom I meet and talk with in prison cells. Is the present prison routine as constructive as it might be? Are we preparing prisoners for the day when the prison gates open and they tread their way back into the workaday world? Are we helping them as much as we might to become responsible citizens? Those are questions to which there are no easy answers.

Those are the four factors that I hope will be taken into consideration by Her Majesty's Government. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy", is a practical, not a sentimental policy. I am convinced that if Her Majesty's Government go ahead with all their plans as outlined in the gracious Speech they will do much to help our population, including our prison population, to make sense of life and to pursue life for the benefit of the community with purpose and with dignity.

§ LORD WISE

My Lords, I welcome the announcements made in both Houses during the last few days on the question of future rail closures. I expect that the Minister may this afternoon make further announcements, and I do not anticipate throwing twenty questions at him in order to get replies. It is obvious that a new approach will be made towards solving the difficulties of road and rail transport. Methods of co-ordination will no doubt come before us later for discussion and acceptance. I hope that, in order to check the present chaos, these will be welcomed in your Lordships' House.

To-day I want to speak on rural rail conditions; to bring to light the hardships which have been imposed upon 345 country folk, particularly in my own area, and to initiate the hope that in some way an alleviation may be found. My speech, therefore, must be of a local character, and I make no apology for this, because I think it is right and proper that in your Lordships' House these speeches should be made now and again. In the past, the late Government were tempted to regard finance as being more important than human needs, and were prone to brush aside appeals, which some of us made, by saying that rail questions were not in the national interest either at that time or in the future.

The hardship of cutting off vast areas from means of rail travel are beginning to be felt. In the past they have only been foreshadowed, but now they have become realities. We have indeed become victims of modernisation. Later I will refer to some which have come to my notice. It is nice to realise that statesmanship in this matter will take the place of a long period of showmanship and self-aggrandisement, and that a national service, supported by all of us, will he run as such.

In our civilised, democratic community, which can be an example to the whole world, we are all entitled to an enjoyment of the facilities which can be provided for travel, leisure and other social amenities. Can anyone deny or find fault with that assertion? When you cut off existing rail services, and thus curtail facilities and advantages, you are denying to a large number of our population, the rights which should be theirs, as taxpayers and citizens. You are now differentiating between city and rural populations. You are studying the interests of the city merchants, managements and commuters to the disadvantage of country residents. Fairness should be the motto of all national undertakings.

Is it any wonder that we whose lives are spent in the country districts should protest more strongly? In the last year or two we have met with little success, and much unwarranted opposition, but our hopes for the future are high. We speak with some enthusiasm of going forward to the developments of the space age, but some of those in authority seem to think that the carrier's cart of old is still a suitable means of transport for country folk. One may have to revert to that, or something akin to 346 it; for without rail services, motor cars or adequate bus or coach services, people are now being compelled more and more either to walk to and from market towns, in the hope of being helped by passing motorists of generous disposition, or to stay at home. The latter will certainly be the lot of many old folk. Those who cannot afford holidays on the Continent or at sea, and who in the past have had to be satisfied with a day's excursion at a nearby coastal resort in Norfolk, will not undertake the slow roundabout journeys by bus. Coastal towns and villages are not now served by any railway, and the absence of visitors who spend their money in their own country will adversely affect the prosperity of these places.

Without going into too much detail, and so becoming wearisome, I will refer to a few of the hardships which we in mid-Norfolk and North Norfolk are experiencing as a result of recent rail closures. Some of these affect my own way of life, and my experience could no doubt be duplicated throughout the whole country. I will confine myself to rail, and will not enlarge upon the inadequacy of our rural roads for the increasing heavy traffic. The line between East Dereham and Wells-next-the-Sea has been closed for passenger traffic. It used to carry a fair volume of country traffic to the towns through which it passed, and to outside cities and towns. Now Wells-next-the-Sea, Walsingham, Fakenham, and the adjacent villages, have been cut off entirely from passenger rail usage. The line is still open between Fakenham and East Dereham for goods traffic. In the past, I understand that those in authority did not encourage the handling on the railway of considerable quantities of sugar beet and other merchandise. It will be interesting to have information as to the profitable nature of the agricultural traffic which passed over the whole length of this line and ended up in all parts of the country including Scotland.

The air base at Sculthorpe, on the outskirts of Fakenham, has recently been vacated by the Americans. Its future use for industrial and residential development will be jeopardised by the closing of passenger rail facilities at Fakenham, which is itself a busy market and shopping town. Inadequate bus 347 services have been instituted to start from, or finish at, East Dereham station; but in some cases the buses are timed to arrive after the trains are due to depart for King's Lynn, or are too late to connect with the London trains at Norwich. Passengers may thus have to face a wait for an hour or more before continuing their journey by rail. Anyone wishing to reach home by bus in the area of the closed line must leave London not later than the 3.30 p.m. train from Liverpool Street. In those circumstances a businessman or resident of Wells-next-the-Sea wishing to make a day trip to London will spend nearly nine hours in the bus and train and about three hours in London—always assuming, of course, that the train arrives at Liverpool Street on time.

What are described as "limited" bus services are shown on the bus timetables, and it is announced that those buses which pass through some villages and large hamlets will not stop there, even by request, to pick up or set down passengers. It is known that passengers have to leave or board these buses approximately one and a half miles from their homes. What a prospect in winter or wet weather for those who have to use this transport daily in going about their usual occupations! Only this morning there is a paragraph in the county paper recording, that at a meeting of the Fakenham and District Chamber of Commerce a protest had been sent to the bus company concerning the working of the bus services. It is estimated that 60 working hours per week were lost by employees having to leave work early to catch the 5.17 p.m. bus to Walsingham and Wells. Complaints were also made of the inefficiency of the railway parcels service. This information is topical news and reports the protest of responsible local traders.

I have tried to make a case for the reconsideration and review of the closing of this section of the railway, which for years had played an important part in the daily lives of those who live within its boundaries of service. I have not spoken without a knowledge of the bitterness which our Norfolk folk feel towards those who are responsible for this retrograde and tragic step. I have done so knowing full well that in order to achieve 348 the blessings of leisure and pleasure which should be available to all, our needs to travel are as great as those of other people. The past Minister has gone. We shall look forward to the future trusting in the present Government to do what is right, just and fair in mitigating the real, but I hope only temporary, hardship of country folk.

§ LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, in rising to speak, in the main on a single topic to which I shall come in a moment, perhaps I may be allowed at the outset, since this is the first speech I have made in this Parliament, to add my congratulations to some of my friends now in the Government, friends I have formed either in another place or here. I would mention only the Leader of the House, an old friend, and perhaps the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who is to answer to-day's debate and who came to the House not only with a reputation as a very great advocate, which he certainly is, but with a reputation for a great interest in law reform. That interest, I dare say, will have the effect that from time to time we may be intervening in the same debate and frequently, I expect, in opposition. May I say that I shall try to keep an open mind about everything he is going to say, and I hope that occasionally he may find something of value said on his own topics, no matter from which section of the House the speeches may come.

The passage in the gracious Speech to which I wish to devote attention is this sentence: A Bill will be introduced to give workers and their representatives the protection necessary for freedom of industrial negotiation". It is now known that this refers to a Bill which Her Majesty's Government consider is rendered necessary or desirable by the decision in Rookes v. Barnard, which was given by the House of Lords in January of the present year. Apart from a little information that was given in another place by the new Minister of Labour, that is about all we at present know about the intended legislation.

Because I have from the first days when I went to the Bar taken an interest in trade union law and have also been greatly concerned in Parliament with questions of individual liberty which are involved, I intend to confine myself to 349 this single topic and to put some matters before the House on which I hope the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack may be able to enlighten us. I do not know whether he will be able to add to what was said in another place by his right honourable friend the Minister of Labour, but perhaps I may assure him that I would much rather he gave me no information than that he gave some premature information which would prevent his giving further consideration to some of the points which I intend to put before him.

May I make one preliminary observation? I shall have necessarily to say something about the facts of this case and the legal issues which it raised, and I wish to do so as simply as possible in language which I hope will be clear to laymen. But I know that I do so before the critical eyes and ears of two men who, apart from the Law Lords who heard the case, know more about it than, I suppose, anybody else. One is the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who appeared for the defendants both in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, and the other is the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, whose firm acted for the plaintiff and whose son. Mr. S. C. Silkin, Q.C., successfully argued the case for the plaintiff in the House of Lords with great learning and hereditary skill.

I think I should very briefly give the facts of the case, and perhaps I can most conveniently do that by shortening a few paragraphs of the headnote. The plaintiff, Mr. Rookes, a skilled draughtsman, employed by the British Overseas Airways Corporation in their design office at London Airport for nine years, on November 24, 1955, resigned his membership of the Association of Engineering and Shipbuilding Draughtsmen, his trade union. By an agreement made in 1949 between employers and employees in the civil air transport industry, which formed part of each contract of employment between B.O.A.C. and members of the trade union, it was provided that no lock-out or strike should take place and any disputes should be referred to arbitration.

The design office was the subject of a "closed shop" agreement and on the plaintiff's refusal to rejoin the trade union all the union members in the design office decided, on January 10, 1956, by resolu- 350 tion, to inform the Corporation that, if the plaintiff was not removed from the design office within three days, the other employees of the Corporation who were members of the union would withdraw their own labour; and notice was served accordingly on B.O.A.C. The Corporation, being informed of the resolution by the defendants, officials of the union, and having reason to believe that some of the employees in other unions would do the same in sympathy, suspended the plaintiff from his work and two months later dismissed him, giving a week's salary in lieu of notice. The plaintiff brought the action, the subject of this case, against the defendants for damages for using unlawful means to induce the Corporation to terminate its contract of service with him.

Let me say at once that the issues of law are extremely difficult, and many students when the decision was first given were puzzled about its full consequences and the possible effects on industrial negotiation and trade union practice. It was indeed even suggested in some quarters that the decision withdrew from the protection of Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, the threats of a trade union official to the employer to call a strike in breach of the contract of employment. The case has no such extreme result, and I am very glad to say that the noble and learned Lords, Lord Pearce, Lord Upjohn and Lord Donovan, have made that fact amply clear by their speeches in a later case that came before the House of Lords, the case of J. T. Stratford and Son Limited v. Lindley, which is at present reported in [1964] 3 Weekly Law Reports, p. 541. In addition to this reassurance given by the noble and learned Law Lords, the T.U.C. has itself, after taking legal advice, issued the reassuring advice which was quoted by my right honourable friend Mr. Godber in another place last Friday.

Nevertheless, I want to make it clear that I feel a good deal of sympathy with the new Minister of Labour and indeed with all other laymen who may feel some confusion when they seek fully to understand this important case. The report in the High Court and the Court of Appeal covers no less than 73 pages and the report of the proceedings in the House of Lords, even as it appears in 351 the Weekly Law Reports, covers 69 pages; it will be rather longer when fully reported in the Law Reports. Therefore I am not at all without sympathy for the Minister of Labour and other laymen who seek to discover precisely what the case decided.

If the sole purpose of the proposed legislation were to clarify the law as it is now established to be, there might be much to be said for such proposed legislation, even though it would be untrue to say that it is urgently needed. But it is one thing to clarify the law. It is quite another thing to change it. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, in his agreeable speech in which he seconded the Motion for an Humble Address used these words, after mentioning the paragraph about which I am speaking [OFFICIAL REPORT, November 3, 1964, col. 25]: I would only say in this connection that the purpose of such a measure would be to remove any doubt or dubiety which might have arisen out of recent interpretations of the law. I have no complaint about that; not a word there about reversing the decision and the legal rights which that decision established in such a manner as would secure that no future Mr. Rookes would succeed in similar circumstances. I would ask this very simple question: will the new Bill clarify the law as now established or will it alter the law so that no future litigant treated as Mr. Rookes was treated will have any remedy at all? Whatever the answer to that question, I think noble Lords will think that the question is a fair one.

Let me make my own position absolutely clear. I do not suggest for a moment that the Statute law affecting trade unions could not be improved. But the questions raised by trade union legislation are very difficult. They raise problems which affect not only trade unions and their officials, not only employers and employed; trade union law affects the public and individual freedom and human rights. Even a man who quarrels with his union has a right to justice and must not be treated as an untouchable. My own view is that far the best thing would be an expert examination of the whole problem of trade union law such as has found favour in many quarters. The proposal that 352 there should be such an inquiry received very strong support from my noble and learned friend Lord Radcliffe in his recent speech to the Law Society's national conference, which noble Lords may have seen reported briefly in The Times of the 23rd of last month. But if Her Majesty's Government reject that view and are determined to alter, and not merely to clarify, the law established by the Rookes v. Barnard decision, how are they going to do it? They are quite wrong in thinking, as I shall try to show, that there is some easy and fair method of restoring the position which in the words of the Minister of Labour last Friday in another place "everybody thought existed".

Here I must return to the actual decision. What Rookes v. Barnard established is this: first, that there is a tort of intimidation, that intimidation is an actionable wrong; and, secondly, that Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, provides no defence to the person who commits such a tort. The result of those two propositions was that Mr. Rookes succeeded in his action. What is the nature of the tort? Perhaps I may describe it most simply in the words of a very celebrated textbook, Salmond on Torts, in a passage expressly approved by Lord Justice Sellers in this case: Any person is guilty of an actionable wrong who, with the intention and effect of intimidating any other person into acting in a certain manner to the harm of the plaintiff, threatens to commit or procure an illegal act. That is the tort. The Court of Appeal thought that the illegal act must be something criminal or tortious and that the mere threat of a breach of contract was not enough. For that reason they reversed the decision of Mr. Justice Sachs. On appeal to the House of Lords they were in turn reversed and the judgment, except as regards the measure of damage, of Mr. Justice Sachs was upheld.

What I would point out to your Lordships at this stage is that all the Judges, in all three Courts, Mr. Justice Sachs in the High Court, the three Lords Justices in the Court of Appeal and all the Law Lords in the House of Lords, were of opinion that this tort of intimidation existed, that it was an actionable wrong. The only point on which the Court of Appeal differed was whether a 353 threatened breach of contract was sufficient to constitute the wrong. So much for the tort. If the tort had been committed, then the Law Lords decided that Section 3 of the 1906 Act provided no defence. Perhaps I may read that section, which is quite short, in order that your Lordships may have it in mind. It says: An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute is not actionable on the ground only that it induces some other person to break a contract of employment, or that it is an interference with the trade, business or employment of some other person or with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or his labour as he wills. That is the section which, it has been held, does not protect those who commit the tort of intimidation. When the Minister of Labour speaks of "restoring the position", which is apparently to be the purpose of the legislation foreshadowed in the gracious Speech—restoring the position which everybody thought existed—what does he mean? Which of the two propositions is it proposed to reverse or amend? The point about "the position which everybody thought existed" is highly misleading, and I shall show why.

Let me be absolutely frank with the House. I admit that I did not myself expect the decision which was reached in Rookes v. Barnard. In fact, I believe that my first conversation with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in this House was a discussion on this particular case on which I asked for enlightenment on certain points. I freely admit that I did not expect this decision. But that was not because I had made any mistake in interpreting Section 3 of the 1906 Act; it was because I did not know enough about the law of intimidation.

Here I went wrong in very good company indeed, because the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack argued most forcefully, both in the Court of Appeal and in the House of Lords, that there was no such tort. It is fair to point out that there are in our reports few cases of a plaintiff recovering damages for this tort—in fact, the one principally relied upon by the plaintiff in the present case was the case of Tarleton v. M'Gawley, a decision of Lord Kenyon in the year 1793. Nevertheless, as I have said, every Judge in 354 this case has held that the tort existed in Common Law, and I have read the passage which appears in the textbooks.

I have admitted, therefore, that, in common with others, I did not expect this result, through insufficient knowledge of the tort of intimidation. But it would be quite untrue to suggest that, once it had been established that this tort existed, everybody agreed that Section 3 of the 1906 Act would give protection. There was no such general agreement. Here I can speak with complete confidence, because eighteen years ago I happened to write a little book on trade union law, and this point I managed to get right. If I may quote the passage in dealing with Section 3 of the 1906 Act (I will not bother the House with all I wrote on this section, though it occupies only two or three pages) I said this: The word 'only' in the section is important. If there are other unlawful acts such as violence, the section will give no protection. My question, therefore, is whether it is intended to suggest that once the tort had been established there was any general agreement that persons would be protected in the course of trade disputes by Section 3. I say that there was no such agreement. I have quoted from my own little book. I could quote from a book of my friend the late Cyril Asquith, later the noble and learned Law Lord, Lord Asquith of Bishopstone, who had written a little book on the same subject a few years earlier—in fact, I think that no legal commentator on the Act of 1906 could conceivably overlook the importance of the word "only" in the section.

Having put, I hope reasonably clearly to the House, what are the two propositions which were established in this important case, what I want to know is this: which proposition is it now proposed to modify? Is it proposed to abolish or redefine the tort of intimidation? If it is so proposed, how is it proposed that this tort should be redefined?—because it is now established that this tort exists at Common Law, and, contrary to what the Court of Appeal thought, to constitute a wrongful act a threatened breach of contract is sufficient. That then is one alternative—is it proposed to abolish or redefine the tort? Perhaps that is not intended.

The other alternative is this: Is it proposed to leave the tort as it is, but to 355 give those who engage in trade disputes a new immunity to commit it? Those seem to me to be the alternatives if the new legislation is not for the purpose of clarifying the law as it now exists, but for changing the law so that in any future case the same result will not be reached. If the proposal is to abolish or redefine the tort, I beg the Government to study, as I feel sure they will, the speeches of the noble and learned Law Lords before they come to any such far-reaching decision. If, however, they are considering, as a possible course, restricting the tort to the limits which the Court of Appeal thought applied, then I hope they will carefully study the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, in, among other passages, a passage which I should like to read. He said: Threatening a breach of contract may be a much more coercive weapon than threatening a tort, particularly when the threat is directed against a company or corporation, and, if there is no technical reason requiring a distinction between different kinds of threats, I can see no other ground for making any such distinction. That is the one alternative—abolishing or redefining the tort.

Perhaps, however, they do not propose to legislate about the tort, but propose to add an additional immunity to those conferred by Section 3 of the 1906 Act, if the act is in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. If that is what Her Majesty's Government are contemplating, I hope they will remember that, in the opinion of many learned commentators, that section already goes too far. Far from its being extended, there are serious grounds raised by learned commentators for thinking that it already goes too far. Perhaps I may cite for that proposition a learned Law Lord whom I have already mentioned, my late friend, Cyril Asquith. This is what he said in his little book on trade unions, dealing with that section: It is true that a 'lightning' strike in breach of contract is more effective than that which allows existing contracts to run out. It is often possible to profit (temporarily at least) by violating solemn engagements or procuring their violation by others, but there seems no sufficient reason for legalising the practice, whether it is indulged in pursuance of a trade dispute or in any other connection. If it interests the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I also made some observations on the same subject in my little book.

356 The House has been very patient. I beg the Government, and particularly the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, to consider these matters most carefully before bringing this legislation forward. My remarks are prompted by no hostility whatsoever to trade unions. On the contrary, I believe that, if they demand and secure a measure generally proved to be unjust, they will tarnish, and tarnish quite unnecessarily, their reputation. If I may quote from Measure for Measure: O, it is excellent To have a giant's strength, but it is tyrannous To use it like a giant". I repudiate entirely the suggestion which seemed to be implicit in the remarks of the Minister of Labour that only the trade unions and employers need be consulted. Human rights are also concerned, and they are involved either directly or indirectly. May I remind this House of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations as long ago as 1948? Article 20 of that Universal Declaration says: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. 2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association. My Lords, the man who breaks with his trade union may be a troublesome fellow. He is not an outlaw to be denied all legal remedies for oppression.

There is only one other thing which I wish to add. I have never myself agreed with either of the two extreme doctrines that are put forward about a mandate. I have never thought that, if a Party have mentioned something in an Election Manifesto and win the Election, they are automatically entitled to pass it into law, unless they can convince at least the House of Commons of its wisdom. On the other hand, I do not think that the mere omission of a subject from a Party manifesto means that, if there is a good case for legislation, the Government may not be entitled to bring that legislation forward. But since it is sometimes important to see whether a Government have a mandate or not, I would say just this, in conclusion. I note that from beginning to end of this document of not inconsiderable length, "Let's Go With Labour for the New Britain: The Labour Party's Manifesto for the 1964 General Election" 357 there is no mention whatever of this proposed legislation. I am very glad that the Bill foreshadowed is not a Bill for which they either sought or obtained any mandate.

§ VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to listen to the noble and very learned Lord, Lord Conesford, in debate, even when one happens to sit on the opposite side of the House from him, and even, as must occasionally happen, when one disagrees with him; although I am happy to say that I find myself able to agree with Lord Conesford on many occasions. On this occasion I must say that, as a complete layman in the business of the law. I have been plunged into the most utter fog, both by the whole business of Rookes v. Barnard and also by the noble and learned Lord's explanation of it. The only thing of which he has managed to persuade me—no doubt there are other more learned persons in the House who have been persuaded to further things—is that I cannot understand the matter, that it may go a great deal further even than the noble Lord thinks, and that legislation is certainly needed to do something. We cannot leave the matter as it stands.

I rose to my feet with the intention of speaking about transport, and in many ways, of course, I am extremely glad that I shall now be addressing my remarks to a Government represented in this matter by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, rather than to one represented by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. Nevertheless, I feel 3 little sad, because there were many occasions when I very much enjoyed the "turn ups" I used to have with Lord Chesham, even though the position was usually won by him by a vote of the House. I used to believe—I still believe—that he was extremely good at putting his case. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, was magnificent at studying his brief. But I always used to think what a rotten brief it was in the matter of the waterways.

In many ways I am glad to know that there has been this change of office by the two noble Lords, but I do not think the present incumbent of the office will suffer from what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, called the "despon- 358 dency and despair" normally to be found in the Ministry of Transport. I quite understood why the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, suffered from this despondency and despair. Frankly, I think he had a very dirty deal. I think he had an extremely dirty deal because I do not consider that most of the problems which affected and afflicted the Ministry of Transport were the fault of that Ministry. I think they were the general fault of the whole Conservative Government.

The fact of the matter was that in the course of letting what they called "freedom" work, and in the course of a long period of laissez-faire, they produced an effect which I have noticed very much in passengers in small boats. If you do not do something, there often comes a point among passengers in a small boat when they all become attracted to something which is happening on one side of the boat. They then all flock over to that side, if you let them, and the effect, if you let it go far enough, is that the whole vessel will turn bottom up. I am not saying that Britain has reached that sad state yet. Nevertheless, it is true that Britain has developed a very ugly list to starboard owing to the laissez-faire policies of the previous Government, which permitted, and indeed encouraged, the population of this very small island to flock into the South-Eastern corner of it.

There is a small incantation which I should like to see all Ministers, and, indeed, all those with responsibility on the opposite Benches, repeat to themselves every day. It goes like this: Factories attract workers. Homes attract people. Roads attract traffic. If they were to repeat that to themselves every morning and every evening, I think that this country might be in a much better state. I am in entire agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that the road building programme of this country should be extended and not curtailed. But it is a question of where these roads should be built, as, indeed, it is a question of where the factories in this country should be built, and where the houses in this country should be built. The extreme example which we have just had called to our notice was the question of where the offices in this country should be built.

359 Until we get some rebalancing of this country we have absolutely no chance, as I can see it, of ever getting sense into our transport policies. We have to arrange things so that people can move about freely. We have to get away from complete overcrowding and over-use of our transport in one corner and complete disuse of our transport in other places. It is no good trying to compete with the transport problems and the other problems of this country simply by accepting them, as the Conservative Government did in the South-East Study, and hoping that, by adding to the general facilities down in this South-Eastern corner of the country, we are going to get the matter straight. We shall merely attract more people here, we shall attract more traffic here, and the position will simply get worse and worse.

We must, indeed, build more roads, but they must be in the other parts of the country. We must build more factories in the others parts of the country, and more homes and all the rest of it, and in that way we shall be able to get the matter straight. Once we have done that we shall start to solve the problems, we shall start to attract the traffic away from London which is rapidly reaching a position of seize-up and standstill, and we shall start to solve Dr. Beeching's problems, because we shall start to reduce that terrible commuter traffic which costs the railways such vast fortunes every year. We shall start to put more life into the more distant parts of the country, and thus, again, solve Dr. Beeching's problems in parts of the periphery.

Here I must say how much I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Wise, when he spoke about a part of the country which I know and from which some of my ancestors came. I know very well that that sort of problem occurs in Devon and Cornwall, where I was politically campaigning recently, in my own native Wales, in Scotland and everywhere else. We cannot solve any of the problems of the roads, of the railways, or, indeed—and these are the transport problems which I know best—of the waterways, unless we get a considerable rebalancing. In the case of the waterways we have precisely the same thing happening. It is no coincidence that 360 there is now talk of opening the Kennet and Avon Canal, which is in the South, at the same time as there are suggestions that we should close the Leeds and Liverpool Canal far in the North. It is all part of the same overall picture, of a country which has developed a very serious list due to a shifting to one side of all its passengers.

I want to say a few words about the waterways. I imagine that this is expected of me by now. In any case, it is a subject which I do not think any of your Lordships is likely to tackle. The waterways are in a quite extraordinary position. After the resistance of the Conservative Government for many a long year to anything such as the Inland Waterways Association suggested being done, for multiple use of the waterways rather than for cargo, they surrendered and said, "Yes". I will tell your Lordships the net result of that change, because it is really worth knowing.

At the end of a year of operation of the waterways for multiple purposes rather than as purely cargo waterways, it was discovered in their first accounts that the waterways had halved their working loss. They had reduced their working loss from something over £1 million to something over £500,000. That figure, of course, does not include the capital and interest side. If that is included it amounts, I believe, to a reduction of 26 per cent. in their working loss. It is still a very notable figure, and if Dr. Beeching had managed to do anything like that on the railways I feel sure that many people would have been willing to have him canonised, or, if they had not made him a saint, they would, at least, have been willing to give him a coronet. We who suggested this new policy on the waterways have been extremely glad to see that it has achieved so much. It has not, of course, cured the troubles of the waterways; they go deeper.

I remember that when the Transport Bill was going through this House (the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, was speaking for the Government at the time) I was considered extremely rash because I got to my feet on Second Reading and said that if that measure was passed, and if a further measure which I foresaw was also passed—presuming, of course, that those two measures were passed reasonably near the beginning of the five years—the 361 waterways would pay within five years. I said it then. Marty politicians have got up and said things which they have later regretted, but I not only said it then: I have repeated it is print several times since, and I say it again now.

I know very well that a further measure is at the moment being prepared by the British Waterways Board, and that when that measure goes through, which I hope will be very soon in the future, the waterways will pay. I am not saying, of course, that this measure is the work of the new Government. In fact, I know that much of the preliminary work was done by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and I know that the only reason it was not put through earlier was that it was an extremely complicated measure.

The waterways, your Lordships will be amused to hear, are at the moment controlled by 600 antiquated Acts of Parliament, many of which are over 200 years old. Almost all the remainder are over 100 years old, and almost the entire lot are inapplicable to the present circumstances. I could amuse your Lordships for hours—naturally, I will not; but I could—with the many extraordinary things to be found in these Acts. The one small one I quoted in Parliament was quoted in Punch, which does not necessarily show it was amusing but does mean that there is a certain element of it which is worth reprinting.

When these old Acts go that will make a proper policy possible on the water; and not only will it make a proper policy possible on the water, but, with the new and reasonable powers which will come, it will be possible to charge for a great many services which the waterways now have to give free, or at very small cost. This is not only my opinion. I have spoken, of course, to many other people interested in the waterways, many of them extremely good business men, and it is their opinion also that within a very short number of years after the passage of that measure we shall have the extraordinary situation that, among all the non-paying parts of the British transport system, the poor, old, antiquated waterways will be the only ones that break level financially. This is actually going to happen, and it is perfectly extraordinary.

However, that does not necessarily help us very much. The waterways, even 362 when they have broken level, are not necessarily the waterways we wish to have. The fact of the matter is that our waterways, as a system used for multiple purposes—used for water distribution, for fishing, for pleasure and all sorts of other purposes for which a waterway can be used, apart from the carrying of cargo—will pay; but they will not carry the traffic which we require to be carried.

The fact of the matter is that, as cargo carriers, they are too small to serve the purposes we need, and that no simple increase in the size of the existing waterways will do the job at all. What is required if we intend to carry by water is an entirely new system. It may even be necessary, in my opinion, to put the new system under a different board from the present British Waterways Board; or perhaps it might be better to take such waterways as we have which are capable of carrying heavy cargo and hand them to the British Waterways Board; to let the present British Waterways Board build the new system which is required; and to hive off the small waterways, which are more in the nature of light cargo, amenity and water-supply waterways, and put them under some separate body whose purpose is not, in the main, the carrying of cargo.

That is not to say that these minor waterways cannot carry cargo. In point of fact, there is every possibility that they can—and here I want to bring to the attention of Her Majesty's new Government the fact that it has been shown that, by the licensing of the cargo narrow boat (licensing it as a lorry is licensed, rather than charging it tonnage and mileage, as it has been charged so far), it is possible to make cargo-carrying on the waterways pay. Under tonnage and mileage, a cargo-carrying narrow boat, it works out, pays about £180 a year in tolls. Under licence, they have been licensed at a rate whereby they pay £25 a year in tolls—that is, slightly less than one-seventh of the amount. That may seem a very great reduction, but it is fair, my Lords, because under the tonnage and mileage system a cargo narrow boat was in fact paying seven times as much as heavy road transport which had the capacity to carry out the same mileage and tonnage in the course of the year. In other 363 words, the cargo narrow boat was being made to pay seven times what its rival paid—and how it was expected to flourish in these circumstances I do not know. That it survived at all is extraordinary, and the fact that it has survived is a matter for pleasure and congratulations. I only hope that the cargo narrow boat will now be placed on the same financial level as the heavy lorry.

That does not mean that I am tied to the figure of £25 a year. It may be that in the future the heavy lorry will come to be charged more. There have been many studies which go to show that the heavy lorry is, in fact, on its present licensing figures, very considerably subsidised. If the licensing of the heavy lorry is raised, then let the licensing of the cargo narrow boat be raised in the same measure. But they should be put on an equal and equitable basis if they are meant to compete with each other. It is clear that in the past they have not been meant to compete with each other.

However, that is a minor matter. What we need now are major waterways which can really carry cargo. The whole of Europe is going in for building waterways which will take a standardised craft, one of 1,350 tons. That craft, with the completion of the Rhine—Danube Canal and other waterways, will be able to take a load of German tractors as far, if necessary, as Asiatic Russia without transhipment and return, of course, with valuable cargoes from Russia right throughout Europe.

Such a vessel can even cross the sea; it is big enough to use the whole of the North Sea as an inland waterway. Yet once it gets to our ports it cannot go on right up to our factories. It has to tranship, and transhipment is the most expensive operation in the transport set-up. The whole success of road transport is due to the fact that it does not have to tranship. There is only one point missing from that, so far as road transport goes: if we were connected by a solid land bridge to the rest of Europe the set-up would make beautiful common sense; but we are an island and all heavy goods arrive in this country by ship. That means that at some point in every journey there has to be a transhipment, a transhipment at the ports. If we could re- 364 move that last transhipment and bring the goods right inland, as they are doing in Europe, one of the greatest single factors which stands against our goods, both imports and exports, would be removed. This, of course, has nothing to do with the present small canals; this means big waterways, giant waterways.

My Lords, there is only one other point I wish to make. Let nobody think that there is a great advantage in speed in transport. People say: "Oh yes, road transport is so much faster." This is a great advantage for some things, a great advantage for "one-off" types of deliveries, where something is needed in a hurry and where the value of the transport is greatly increased by its brevity. But the major part of all cargo carrying by all commercial firms is not of that kind; it is what I might call "pipe-line" transmission of goods, a steady flow of goods. This was clearly explained to me (it is not, I am afraid, my own simile) by a well-known operator of cargo craft. He said "Have you ever worried about how long it took the water which came out of your taps to travel from the reservoir? You never have! I should not think that you have ever thought about it. The fact is that so long as it keeps coming, you don't mind in the least."

The truth of the matter is that it is the cost of transport that really counts in business, which of course is why we must leave a very wide margin of freedom to the businessman to use the transport which suits him best. But the cost of transport is not affected by speed in the way that might be imagined. There are two costs in transport. One cost is the actual cost of carrying the goods, and the other is the percentage per annum, of the capital cost of the goods in transit. If goods are in transit for one day, it is one day's worth of, let us say, 6 per cent. per annum, or whatever is the percentage figure that the firm has to put against its capital. If it is two days, it is two days' worth of that 6 per cent.; but the difference between one or two days does not represent a very great sum. If the transport is speeded up so that the journey takes one day instead of two, then one day's worth of interest is saved: and this is not a very great sum. But if the speding-up is more expensive than that one day's worth of interest, then the process is financially not worth while.

365 That is the sole criterion, so far as the steady flow of pipe-line goods is concerned. In practice, the halving of the time of a journey like that is an extremely expensive business, and in almost any case much more expensive than the interest on the time saved.

For these reasons, slow transport is much more valuable in these "pipe-line" transmission operations than fast transport. It is interesting to note in this particular case that where a rate of interest is high, there is, of course, an advantage in faster transport; but otherwise the slow transport has a greater advantage. If, on The other hand, roads are subsidised so that it becomes more profitable to carry "pipe-line" goods by road, that creates an entirely different situation. It means pushing the slow goods on to the fast lanes, and so blocking the fast lanes themselves. It is most important that we sort out this problem; that we get the goods which ought to be travelling slowly to travel by the slow media and, by that very method, get the fast goods travelling fast. Until we can do this, there is no hope of getting any sense in British transport.

§ THE EARL OF SHANNON

My Lords, you will undoubtedly be very pleased to hear that I have three very compelling reasons to be extremely brief. The first reason is that I have already this afternoon been accused of being unduly verbose over the subject of a supplementary question, and for this I must offer my apologies. The second reason is that I know your Lordships are all most anxious and keen, as I am, to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, who immediately follows me. I am pleased to see that he does not look unduly weighed down by Lord Chesham's "Twenty Questions" the answers to which are going to receive a lot of attention. The third reason is that, coming in to bat after the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and other noble Lords, there is really not very much left to say on transport.

However, there is one little point which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has already touched upon but which I should like to stress because, as a manufacturer, it very strongly affects me. Our transport system is only one 366 of the many machines which we use to produce our exports. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth (I am sorry to have to keep referring to him) used a most descriptive phrase. I do not entirely agree with it but it was most descriptive. He said that our transport system is an extension of our conveyor belts. I do not quite agree with that because normally a product goes through a machine but once before it ends up in the customer's hands. But this is one machine through which it goes time and time again. So it is not just an extension; it is right in the middle of the conveyor belt and on the end as well. It is important right from the moment when the raw materials come from the mine, get machined and then go somewhere else to get machined again, until the last minute when the goods are received in the customers' hands.

It is no good saving seconds of floor-to-floor time in producing a particular component when, having got the order at considerable expense somewhere abroad, you pack it nicely and off it goes, only for it to be found very often, as I am sure noble Lords in a similar position have found, that the lorry arrives back again, because it has not been able to get to the docks in time or has missed the ship. One knows what is going to happen then, The agent abroad or the customer is going to ring up and ask where it is. We cannot afford to have the transport machine as the weak link in our chain of production. I know that it will be said that everything we want to do to the transport system will cost too much, but I cannot emphasise too strongly that we cannot afford not to invest money in this machine, because we have to go on using it time and time again in all our processes. We cannot have an archaic transport machine working at half-throttle.

I agree most thoroughly with the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that the last Government started to do something, more than has ever been done before. Perhaps it would be a little unkind to say to them, "Too little, too late", for it was a start. We have had a change of Government. Do not let us go on being lulled by the argument that everybody else in other countries has trouble with transport. That is no reason why 367 we should have it. Do not let us indulge too much in great festivities at the opening of motorways, saying, "How wonderful it is!", because, after all, as one noble Lord said emphatically when addressing a conference elsewhere, we are only doing what most other nations on the Continent did a quarter of a century ago. Our appetite has been considerably whetted by the last Government. We have great hopes that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, is going to tell us not only that he is going to continue—we do not want just to continue—but also, please, at an increased rate. We just cannot afford not to.

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN)

My Lords, first of all, may I thank noble Lords who have made personal references to me—except perhaps for those references to my birthday, because I am getting like the ladies and want to forget birthdays now. I have listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and to other noble Lords who have spoken on transport in this debate. I am sure that the House will understand if on this occasion I do not attempt, as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, tried to encourage me to do, to set out in detail the policy which my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport will follow on all the aspects of transport.

We are developing this policy and the details are now being prepared. As the noble Lord will appreciate, the first and proper place for a full statement on the future transport policy of the Government is in another place, where it will be made by the Minister of Transport.

§ LORD DILHORNE

My Lords, are we to understand from that that the statement will not be made in this House?

§ LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is a lawyer. He ought to understand constitutional law so far as this country is concerned.

§ LORD DILHORNE

My Lords, I hope I do. The noble Lord stated that the statement was to be made in another place. I was merely inquiring whether it would be made here as well.

§ LORD LINDGREN

Statements generally are. Surely things have not changed 368 in the last few days. Statements are normally made in another place by the Minister responsible and, for the convenience of this House, they are repeated here. As a Government we will carry out that time-honoured Parliamentary tactic. I see that noble Lords already have on the Order Paper Motions on road safety and on roads and road transport. I think that this will split up the debate in a way which will enable us to deal with these questions in perhaps more detail. I am sure that we shall have other opportunities to debate the Government's policy on transport as a whole and the detail of different parts of it when our policy is announced.

I will try to answer some of the points that have been made in this debate, but if time does not allow or if I overlook some of them, I will check to-day's debate and write to noble Lords on any points that I may leave unanswered. First of all, I want to fulfil a promise that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and to other noble Lords, following the statement on railway closures made by my right honourable friend in another place and repeated in this House on November 4. On that occasion noble Lords put a number of questions, which I said I should be prepared to answer in to-day's debate. If I may, I will fulfil that promise and concentrate on this vital question of railway closures.

I was particularly struck by one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said, following the statement on November 4. He quoted the section of the Statement which read [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 261 (No. 4), col. 39]: I shall accordingly consider all closure proposals against the background of future economic and population trends, taking fully into account the possible economic and social consequences, including road congestion". The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, went on to say: My Lords, that has always been the case. There is here nothing new whatsoever". I do not propose to follow him in quibbling about the words used or not used in the Statement, and I have not troubled to compare the words used in it with words used in Statements made by the previous Government on closures. But if the noble Lord really believed that there is nothing new in the policy of this Government, then he is very much mistaken. It is not a matter of drafting. 369 What matters is the whole approach and policy of the Government to transport and its place in a fair and thriving economy.

Unlike the previous Government, we believe that transport must be properly planned and co-ordinated on a national basis to ensure the most effective use of resources, judged in terms of what will give the greatest benefit to the community, instead of merely what gives the greatest profit. Here is the real sting of our policy so far as the Party opposite is concerned. We are concerned with the nation as a whole, with service to the nation, and not only with profit. Where there can be viability, of course so much the better, but the social consequences of a closure must be taken into account. So when we come to deal with a closure, it will be against a totally different background. If I may, I should like to sketch this background, as briefly as possible.

We shall have effective central and regional plans for the economy as a whole. As the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said—and I am glad that he said it—my right honourable friend the First Secretary of State has already outlined in another place the broad framework within which these plans will be developed. Transport will be an essential element in these plans and the whole process of planning, national and regional, will provide the economic and social background, which our transport plans must serve. It is a two-way operation.

We believe, for instance, that with the growing congestion on the roads, particularly in urban areas, we should not lightly set aside the advantages of the railways, particularly for carrying large numbers of people o and from work. It is not sufficient to consider only what is happening at the moment; rather we suggest that we must look ten or possibly twenty years ahead and try to assess what the transport requirements will then be and see how they can best be met. We think that when we have done this we shall find that there are many railway lines which, although not used to capacity now, will prove to be among our most important transport assets. As the roads become more and more congested, people will be glad to revert to the speed, comfort, safety and regularity of rail travel into city centres. We, accept, of course, 370 that our forward planning may well show that some of these rail services are not likely to be wanted in the future. In those cases we shall not hesitate to close the services. But it seems important to us to work out the transport plans, both national and regional, first, and to make sure that no decisions are reached meanwhile to allow closure proposals, which are likely to conflict with those plans.

In all this we shall be getting away from dealing separately with each form of transport. We see transport as a whole. We shall see what are the real economic and social needs of the community for transport, and how these can best be met by the different forms of transport, planned and working together. We will cut out wasteful competition, both in services and in investment. We will take full account of a wide range of social factors, not forgetting many people who are often forgotten when everything is judged on a purely commercial basis—the very old and the very young, and the people in the scattered rural areas to which my noble friend Lord Wise referred this afternoon.

We have inherited a transport system which has been allowed to develop piecemeal. Our roads are overcrowded and our cities are jammed with traffic. The number of road casualties is appallingly high. Public transport is struggling to continue to provide a service that people need. It is bound to take time to put transport on a properly planned basis, serving the real needs of the country. But we have already made a start on the new national planning which is the only way to sort it out. We have said that we shall consider railway closure proposals against the background of future economic and population trends, taking fully into account the possible economic and social consequences, including road congestion. Noble Lords opposite—if the noble Lord would like to have a committee meeting with his noble friend perhaps he would do it outside.

§ LORD DILHORNE

I really do not think I should incur that observation from the noble Lord. If I say just one thing to my neighbour sitting on the Bench beside me, it is not usual to comment. I was not seeking to interrupt the noble Lord.

§ LORD LINDGREN

I am sorry; but it was a little distracting. I withdraw. I was about to say that noble Lords opposite may say that they have used similar words in the past. But here there are two big differences. First, we mean them; secondly, we are developing the overall economic and transport planning, without which the words would be meaningless.

The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, raised a number of points on the Statement. First, he suggested that my right honourable friend was arrogating to himself decisions about day-to-day running of the railways. I take it (the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong) that he was referring to the arrangements made with the Railways Board for a preliminary look at closure proposals before they are published by the Board. I really cannot see how this can be said to be interfering with day-to-day management. The Minister has the last word on a passenger closure. If on national or regional planning grounds—which the Railways Board may not know of—a proposed closure is clearly not a starter, what is the point of going through a long procedure of advertisement and consideration by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee? This causes a lot of anxiety, trouble and expense, to a great many people. Surely it is sense to avoid this wherever possible. The Railways Board themselves have recognised that this is a sensible minor modification in the procedure.

Next, the noble Lord referred to the cost of deferring closures and to the effect of building up a new streamlined railway system. On the first point, we fully recognise that there are substantial savings to be made for the railways and the country through the implementation of closure proposals. The Statement made a week ago referred to them specifically. We shall pay full attention to this aspect in considering particular closures, but I suggest that we must not be blinded by the cash accounting. We must recognise that in broader economic and social terms there are even bigger amounts at stake if wrong transport decisions distort our planning and stop the economic growth that we must have.

On the second point, I cannot accept that by taking the time necessary to find the right answers on closures we shall slow down the build-up of an effective railway system. Our policies for trans- 372 port are far more likely than those of noble Lords opposite to provide a proper rôle for a modernised railway system in the future pattern of transport in this country. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, over wide sections of the community in this country the previous Minister of Transport was not looked upon as the Minister of Transport at all; he was considered to be the Minister for Roads and Road Haulage.

The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in a series of other questions, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred to modernisation. It ill becomes the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, to suggest that this Government might in some way impede the modernisation of the railways. The modernisation of railways has been upset over the last thirteen years by the previous Government for purely political reasons. The railways have suffered from modernisation, reappraisal of modernisation, centralisation, decentralisation and reorganisation. If only railwaymen had been left to get on with their job, instead of having to prepare new sets of plans for successive Ministers of Transport, modernisation of the railways would have proceeded much better.

One thing that the past Government succeeded in doing was to bring the morale of all grades of railwaymen, from officers to the manual grades, to the lowest ebb it has ever reached and it is this that has caused some of the problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred. I am certain that a new approach to transport, with the railways playing their full and proper part within the transport system, will raise the morale of railwaymen and enable the railways to develop in the manner in which they should.

The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, asked some further questions to-day and, as he said, he kindly sent me a list of the questions he was likely to ask. I think that in the statement I had already prepared to make to the House I have met, if not fully to his satisfaction, most of his points on a general basis. But if, w hen I have finished dealing with his points, there are any others and he cares to raise, I will gladly give way to him.

The noble Lord asked, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, what was going to happen to the present road programme. He chided the Labour 373 Party with doing very little between 1945 and 1951. He was entitled to say that, but I would remind him that we had come through one of the most devastating wars, and that there were not the national resources which could be afforded to the development of trunk road services in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, reminded Lord Chesham, the record of his own Government is not very good. They failed to do anything at all until 1960. The present road programme developed from the plans made at that time, and the plans which he has left "in the pipe-line" are to be continued. As the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, well knows, from the conception of a project to starting work is a good five years. I can assure him, on behalf of the Minister, that the programme which he left will be proceeded with, and even, if possible, subject to resources being available, extended.

The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, referred also to the question of the Channel Tunnel project. The question hardly arises at this stage. The Channel Tunnel is not yet committed as a firm investment project. It was not so committed by the last Government, and a whole range of problems must be solved in agreement with the French Government before that stage is reached. As my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport announced on October 29, we are to continue with the arrangements in hand with the French. Apart from the geological survey new in progress, these arrangements provide for joint official studies of the legal position of the Tunnel and of how it should be financed. To put it briefly, the noble Lord is well aware what the position was under the last Government, and it is exactly the same now. Officials are going ahead and, again briefly, it is "business as usual" so far as the previous Government and this Government are concerned on the Channel Tunnel.

The only other points to which I think I must specially reply, out of courtesy to the noble Lord, are those he put in regard to the freedom of British Road Services. The previous Government did not believe in competition. They believed in restricting the public sector of industry in order to give free opportunity to the private 374 sector. British Road Services were restricted in their activities by the previous Government; they were restricted by legislation. We shall put British Road Services in a position in which they are free to compete on an equal basis with any other road haulage contractor. We will give them every opportunity which the other contractors have. Further than that I cannot go at the present moment, because, as I say, the Minister will have to make a general statement on future policy for transport.

Now we come to "C" licences, and I am afraid that here I have nothing to say, because the matter is under consideration. But I must admit that I have a bias which is against that of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I do not think that any efficient, effective transport system can be worked out unless the problem of "C" licences is tackled. It is quite right for the noble Lord, Lord