The purpose of the proposed new Clause, as I understand it, is to allow the Secretary of State, when he is considering whether to introduce a confirming Bill, to have regard to any recommendations by the Chairmen and by the Commissioners, whatever may have been the past history of the provisional Order. It will provide further, though it is not expressly stated, that he shall not have regard to the recommendations of any Government Department unless there has been some modification of the provisional Order by the Commissioners after they have drafted the provisional Order and have held their inquiry. As things stand at present, a large discretion is permitted, and I think rightly permitted, to the Secretary of State to consider, not only any recommendations by the Chairmen and by the Commissioners, but also by Government Departments. The history of the use of this power is, I think, its justification. I do not think that it has been used in any autocratic way. Since the Second Reading Debate my right hon. Friend and I have con- sidered the cases in which that power has been exercised during the 15 years since 1918.

It is true to say that the policy of successive Secretaries of State has been to attach the greatest weight to the recommendations of the Commissioners and the greatest importance to maintaining their authority. In every case where the Secretary of State has had to consider his attitude, he has in recent times consulted the chairman of the Commissioners wherever possible. Many of the modifications which are introduced at that late stage and taken into account are alterations or modifications which the promoters and other parties have themselves invited in consequence of some error or omission which took place in the proceedings before the Commission. It is most important that that power should be fully retained. I have been able to trace only one case in the last 15 years which would have been struck at under the proposed new Clause. It was a case where a Government Department, namely, the Ministry of Transport, recommended in their report that a certain Clause should be added to the provisional Order. The recommendation was rejected by the commissioners, and the new Clause was not in fact added by the commissioners. It then came under consideration by the Secretary of State at the time, and he incorporated the new Clause in the provisional Order, the reason being that it appeared that the omission of the new Clause had been made in error, the commissioners having been led to suppose that that Clause would only be necessary if another Clause were incorporated in the Provisional Order. In point of fact the other Clause had not been incorporated. That was however a misapprehension. It was necessary to correct it by the insertion of a new Clause at the invitation of the Government Department concerned. It was inserted. It met with no objection, and it has been a necessary and a beneficial part of the Order.

That is an illustration of the kind of case which arises, and which requires that the discretion of the Secretary of State should not be trammelled in the way suggested in the proposed new Clause. The most careful consideration has been given to the proposals of the Clause, and the conclusion has been reached by my right hon. Friend that he is unable to accept it. He, however, authorises me to give to the Committee the assurance that under the new conditions which this Bill will create his discretion will be exercised as cautiously and sparingly as in the past, and, in particular, the fullest respect will be paid to the views of the commissioners. I think that with that assurance there may be general concurrence in the considered opinion of the Government that the Clause proposed is not required, and that the existing procedure should be preserved.