HC Deb 28 July 1930 vol 242 cc228-34

Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments and Lords Reasons for disagreeing to certain Commons Amendments considered.

Message from the Lords:

The Lords disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 22, line 19,

Leave out ("either") and insert:

"(a) to carry a heavy locomotive; or

(b) to carry a light locomotive; or and to the Amendments made by the Commons in page 22, line 34.

Leave out ("either") and insert:

(" (a) by a heavy locomotive; or

(b) by a heavy locomotive or a light locomotive; or

(c) ")

for the following Reason:—

Because in the form in which the clause stands a specific reference to heavy locomotives and light locomotives is unnecessary.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison)

I beg to move, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendments to which the Lords have disagreed."

The Amendments are largely Amendments of form which are acceptable to the Government.

Message from the Lords:

They agree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 22, line 38.

At end insert "and shall not exceed the maximum weight permitted for the time being for a heavy motor-car drawing a trailer.

For the purposes of this section the expression placed in a proper position' means placed in such a position either on or near the bridge or on or near the road leading to the bridge as to be visible at a reasonable distance from the bridge to the drivers of vehicles approaching it, and the highway authority of any such road shall give to the bridge authority reasonable facilities for placing thereon any such notice as aforesaid."

But propose to amend it as follows:

In line 2, leave out "maximum weight permitted for the time being for a heavy motor-car drawing a trailer" and insert "aggregate of the maximum weights permitted for the time being for a heavy locomotive and the trailers drawn thereby when crossing a bridge."

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment to the Commons Amendment."

Again, this is largely a matter of drafting.

Message from the Lords:

They agree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 41, to insert new Clause C (Provisions with respect to the transfer of toll bridges and toll roads to local authorities), but propose to amend it as follows:

In Sub-section 3, line 5, leave out "subject, however, to the modification that the arbitrator shall have no regard to any increase in the revenue from tolls due to the construction of new bridges or roads, or the improvement of existing bridges or roads, by any highway authority since the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty."

Mr. SPEAKER

I have to point out to the House that this involves a question of Privilege, because the local authority may have to pay more on account of it.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment to the Commons Amendment."

I am bound to say that I think it is regrettable that this Amendment has been made to the Amendment that this House has made. It will undoubtedly tend to increase the amount of compensation that will be paid by the highway authority in taking over a toll highway or toll bridge, and to that extent it will make it more difficult to secure action on their part. But I am exceedingly anxious to be conciliatory as far as I can in connection with this Bill at this late stage of the Session. There is another Amendment which we shall be considering later which is exceedingly important, and, in view of our anxiety to secure the passage of the Bill as early as we can, I venture to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords Amendment to the Commons Amendment."

Mr. SPEAKER

I will cause a special entry to be made in the Journals of the House.

Message from the Lords:

They agree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 58, line 8.

At end insert—

(" (b) of any financial interest (whether as a partner or shareholder or as a result of any loan, guarantee, or other financial transaction) which any other person providing passenger transport facilities has in the business of the applicant or holder of the licence, and in the case of the applicant or holder who is a company of any right which any such person as aforesaid has to nominate any director of the company;

(c) of any such interest or right as aforesaid which the applicant or holder has in the business of any other person who provides passenger transport facilities within the area of the commissioners.")

But propose to amend it as follows:

After "facilities" in paragraph (G), line 5, insert "or controlling (either solely or in conjunction with any other person) the business of any person who provides such facilities."

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment to the Commons Amendment."

It will have been observed that there is a misprint on the printed form. The word "wholly" should be "solely," and I understand that it has been put in that form. This is to make somewhat more clear the provision as to declara- tion of interest of one road transport company in another, and the Government agrees to the Amendment.

Message from the Lords:

They disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 66, to insert new Clause J. (Wages and conditions of employment of persons employed in connection with public service vehicles) for the following reason:

Because in the absence of special circumstances and of the opportunity of full consideration of a novel precedent the fair wages resolution should not be applied by statute to private enterprise,

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON

I beg to move, "That this House doth insist on its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed."

I am bound to say that I think it is a matter of some surprise that their Lordships' House should have disagreed with this House on this new Clause which was introduced into the Bill. The new Clause was agreed to upstairs in Committee without a Division, and, although the right hon. Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Ashley), the late Minister of Transport, asked sue to examine it between the Committee stage and the Report stage, I did so and compared it with the provisions of Clause 19 and came to the conclusion that the Clause ought to remain. It will be within the recollection of the House that this Clause was not challenged on the Report stage except that the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) brought forward a proposal for a statement as to what the fair wages condition was. It was merely a matter of wording and that proposal was withdrawn. The Clause was unanimously assented to in Committee and not in any way challenged in the House itself on the Report stage. It will be seen that the House has passed the Clause without the slightest opposition.

It is right that I should explain briefly the purpose of the Clause. It is argued by the House of Lords—[Interruption]. I am sorry, but I really know what I am doing; hon. Members who interrupt must see the necessity, and a great body of workmen do see the necessity, of the case being stated. It is argued that this is an interference with the freedom of private enterprise. As a matter of fact, there are precedents far this provision in one of the Housing Acts and in the Beet-Sugar Acts. It has been the custom to insert a fair wages clause in Government contracts. We have to face the fact that we are setting up, partly in the hands of municipalities and partly in those of companies, a monopoly of road transport, and it is right that between one transport operator and another there shall be reasonably fair competition. It is fair to the great bulk of employers that they shall not be cut out by employers who impose bad conditions. Further, the great body of public servants who conduct and drive the services should be efficient, properly fed, and working under reasonable conditions. That is necessary and desirable in the interests of the service itself, and, indeed, in the interests of public safety. When the Bill was introduced originally in another place, we had words in that laid it down that the Commission in granting licences should have regard to the ability of the public servants to do their work and also to economy and efficiency. Those words were intended to cover something like this, but they were vague, and, after discussion, it was decided to attach a wages Clause to the Bill. We are supported by the Royal Commission on Transport. In paragraph 130 of their report they say: We also recommend that the commissioners should be empowered to attach conditions relating to hours, wages, and conditions of service. We consider that these matters may have in many cases a direct bearing on the safety of the public. Having regard to the fact that this Clause was carried in Committee with unanimous assent and without a Division, and having regard to the fact that it was not challenged on the Report stage, I earnestly trust that the House of Commons, which has always had a fair regard for the fair wages clause, will unanimously support me in my Motion that this House insist on its Amendment.

Colonel ASHLEY

I am glad that the Minister has moved to disagree with the Lords in this respect. Undoubtedly, there has been in the past, and still is, a great deal of labour engaged in this transportation work which is underpaid, and this Amendment will not harm the good employer but simply bring up the bad employer. Question put, and agreed to.

Message from the Lords:

They agree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 71, line 4.

At end insert:

"(d) The provisions of subsections (4), (5), (6) and (8) of section eighty-nine shall hare effect subject to the provisions of subsection (11) of section one hundred, and nineteen of this Act;

(e) In the application of section ninety a reference to the council of a county or burgh shall be substituted for any reference to the local authority of a county borough or county district."

But propose to amend it as follows:

In paragraph (e), line 3, leave out "local authority" and insert Council."

Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for insisting on one of the Amendments to which the Lords have disagreed.

Committee nominated of Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Charles Edwards, Mr. Hanbury, Mr. Herbert Morrison and Mr. W. R. Smith.

Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reason for insisting on one Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed reported, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes after Two o'Clock.