HC Deb 04 August 1947 vol 441 cc1195-221

Lords Amendment in page 66, line 8, leave out "twenty-five" and insert "fifty."

The Lords did not insist on the above Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof:

Page 66, line 8, leave out "twenty-five" and insert "forty."

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. G. R. Strauss)

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

This is an Amendment which we have discussed in various forms, and with certain variations, many times in the Committee and in this House. We have stated our view very firmly—a view at which we have arrived after the most careful consideration—that if the Commission is to carry out the duty which is placed upon it in this Bill and to get a properly integrated transport service in this country, including a monopoly of the long-distance road haulage, it will only be able to do so if the local haulier is confined within a radius which is a reasonable one for local haulage. I have explained to the House on numerous occasions—and I do not want to repeat the arguments—why we consider 25 miles is reasonable. I have also given numerous examples of the views expressed by individual bodies by the Road Haulage Association itself, even on what constitutes long-distance and short-distance road haulage. All these expressions of view by outside bodies, including the road haulage industry, are round about the 25 miles limit. For these various reasons, I move this Motion. If there are any further points which have not been fully discussed by this House, or by the Committee, arising out of this matter—I cannot believe that there are—I shall be very pleased, if asked to do so, to answer questions, where the information is in my possession.

Mr. Orr-Ewing

I would like to refer to a point which I mentioned just now, but which it would then have been out of order for me to develop. That point was about what the Minister proposed should be done, immediately the chosen day arrives, in the case of areas such as that on the edge of which I live. I am speaking about the Bristol district and the effect upon road transport of the Severn Bridge. As I see it, if this Clause remains as it is and if the Lords Amendment is rejected, the effect will be that all the present transport between Bristol and South Wales will come under the heading of long-distance transport and, therefore, will be nationalised, and placed under the control of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. When the bridge over the Severn is built, transport between Bristol and South Wales will not be a problem of long-distance transport at all, but will come within the range of short-distance which the right hon. Gentleman has assured us he does not mean to touch.

What is going to be the effect? The right hon. Gentleman is going to remove all the Bristol-South Wales traffic from the hands of private enterprise and place it under the control of the Transport Commission, because it has to go round by Gloucester or across a ferry. We do not know if the distance covered by ferry is considered road distance. I do not know whether that point has been considered in another place. Is the distance covered by a lorry when going across the Severn by ferry included in the radius or not? At the present moment, when all this transport has to go round by Gloucester, it becomes long-distance haulage, and as such is taken over by the right hon. Gentleman. What is to happen when the Severn bridge is built? It will then be short-distance transport, but all the transport will be in the grip of the right hon. Gentleman and there will be none for private enterprise to carry the goods between Bristol and South Wales over this bridge as short-distance transport.

It will be of little use for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "That is perfectly easy; I will issue a lot of new licences." We must remember what has happened in the meantime. All the small men will have been absorbed and will be within the grip of the right hon. Gentleman, and the structure of Bristol-South Wales transport will have been destroyed. Then the right hon. Gentleman will come along and say, "Now we have got to grant more licences." But to whom? This is rather a serious aspect of the problem. I imagine that if I were a small man conducting business between Bristol and South Wales, and I was wiped out by this Bill, I should feel very sore indeed when I realised that within a few years, someone was going to get an opportunity which was denied me because of being able to go across the Severn bridge. I think this is a problem which should be answered by the right hon. Gentleman himself. The Severn bridge is not the only bridge in the world. It is not yet built, and if the present Government remain in power, it probably will never be built; but all of us, even members of H. M. Government, have dreams, and it may be that the dream will come true.

Mr. Shurmer (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)

What about Waterloo Bridge?

Mr. Orr-Ewing

Do not let us be too parochial in these matters. What will happen when the Principality is joined to England by this bridge? Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider this problem of fair play to the people who are going to come within his grip and remember their position now and the position they will be in when this bridge is built? I think this is a matter worthy of the Minister's consideration, and I hope he will now give us some indication on the matter.

3.0 a.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) has put ideas into my head which I had hardly dared to bring forward, but now I should not be out of order if I mentioned the question of the bridge across the Tay. I admit that that is even a greater chimera than is the bridge across the Severn. I feel that the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare is very apposite, because there are hauliers on one side of the Tay in the neighbourhood of Invergowrie and Dundee who take their stuff across the Tay to the other side. At the moment they must go right up by Perth to get across by road, which is a very long way. It is a fair question to ask the Minister, so long as the ferry passage is not counted in the present short distance, "What will be the position when these small men, who do the job at present, are wiped out of existence; what will be the position when the bridge is built, which will be a long way off?"These are perfectly fair questions. There is a very big trade from one side to the other. What provisions will there be to meet these particular circumstances?

Mr. Byers

I think the House ought to be grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the very frank speech he has made tonight. He says that the Government have given very careful consideration to this matter, but he advanced no argument to show what serious consideration. I take it it was the same consideration that they gave to the vehicles mentioned in the last Amendment. He says that the Government must have a monopoly, and that that is agreed to by Members on the other side. They have not the courage to go the whole way, and therefore they confine the local haulier to "a reasonable distance." I can tell them that 25 miles is not a "reasonable distance" in the County of Dorset.

Mr. Shurmer

The hon. Gentleman would not like to walk it tonight.

Mr. Byers

Under the nationalised road transport system it may well be that hon. Members will have to walk it. I am in favour of a number of nationalisation schemes, but I defy any Government to take under public ownership, and work it in the interests of the community as a whole, a system which depends on these very tiny units. Within five years that system will break down. If hon. Members want a real argument about this, let me tell them something about it. What had we to do when we wanted to shift stuff in the Army? We had to get an R.A.S.C. company or platoon, and when we wanted to get things done in a hurry, we had to rely on the regiment with one or two vehicles with one particular officer.

That is what the Government are attempting to do in this Bill, and they will rue the day when they brought in the nationalisation of road transport. I can see that as clear as daylight. It is all very well laughing about it. I am not interested so much in the haulier. I am interested in the efficiency of the transport system of this country. I notice that there was not one word in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech about the interests of the consumer. The whole of the Government's case was summed up in that very frank and quotable speech: "We have to have a monopoly; we have to eliminate competition; we have to confine the small man to 25 miles, otherwise the scheme will not work." If that is not a reason for voting against the Government, I do not know what is.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

The main reason why I want the House to disagree with the Motion proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary is not so much its gross unfairness, because that is a characteristic of Government Motions to which we are accustomed, but because it is completely contradictory of the argument which was advanced to us on the Amendments we were discussing a short time ago. In Clause 52, the Bill says quite frankly that goods shall not be carried if the vehicle at any time while the goods are being carried is more than 25 miles from its operating centre. In order to get the test—because that was what we were discussing before—which might even be de-fensibly put by the most cynical sophist, the right hon. Gentleman had to introduce into the Bill a provision that, in addition to the radius of 25 miles, there was a carry of 40 miles.

In another place, when it was sought to justify the Bill, the Lord Chancellor, speaking for the Government, said "Our proposition is to take over long-distance haulage, and the test of long-distance haulage is something over 40 miles." That was the test and, of course, under that test if a vehicle did not carry goods for 40 miles or more, even if it went outside the radius, the journey did not count as long-distance. That means it can carry one load out and another load in, and so long as it does not go the 40 miles, it escapes nationalisation so far as that load is concerned. But once the Bill comes into force, the vehicles that escape are not to be allowed to do the very journey which was omitted from the test of long-distance. The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but, really, no amount of head shaking will change the fact. I do not know whether he was in the House when the right hon. Gentleman answered by the most amicable head shaking certain questions which I put to him on the last Amendment. If the hon. Gentleman was here, he will remember that I put to him specifically whether a vehicle could travel 39.9 miles even though the last 14.9 miles was outside the 25 miles' radius. The right hon. Gentleman nodded assent, and the hon. Gentleman will find that I duly noted it by commenting on it in my speech, if he cares to look in HANSARD tomorrow.

On a moment's reflection, he will not deny it. Under the test, a vehicle can go anything up to 40 miles, even outside the 25 miles radius and that does not count as a long-distance journey. That is included in order to give some colour to this completely indefensible and groundless test; but when you come to nationalisation then you do not allow the vehicle to make a journey up to 40 miles. You limit and clamp it down to 25 miles. My hon. Friends and myself have been trying to imagine what the reason could be, not so much, as I say, for the unfairness, but for this extraordinary difference between the test and the limitation. There are two reasons which present themselves and my hon. Friends will, no doubt, develop them more fully that I shall. The first is, of course, that the Minister is afraid of the Commission's ability, that he cannot imagine this unfortunate and emasculated Commission that is not even to have enough power to appoint its own agents being able to compete with local hauliers if local hauliers are allowed one more than 25 miles. That is not a very hopeful view of the Commission's ability with which to start this new scheme. That is the first suggestion. It really looks—to say the least—as if the Ministry of Transport were extremely afraid of the Commission's ability, just as they are afraid of it even being able to appoint its own agents.

The other reason is—this may commend itself as more likely to hon. Members opposite—that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have such a fierce hunger for centralisation that they attempt this method of getting more and more short-distance haulage; and, after all, if they abandon the test—after they say of the test there must be not only a 25 miles radius but a 40 mile carry—it does not lie in their mouths to say a 25 miles limitation is not a short-distance haul. If they are so afraid of that competition and insist on these powers—that is one thing. If they want them all centralised in the Commission, we know where we are.

We on this side say—and I venture to prophesy this without any hesitation—that there is only one thing that is absolutely essential and that is that road transport ought to have local application. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary and anyone who has taken an interest in this Bill from the start to have a look and they will find that every journal except the "Daily Herald" and the "New Statesman" stated that the greatest weakness in this Bill, so far as road transport was concerned, was that it made no provision for decentralisation and the local application of road transport. During the past eight months we have sought in vain for some principle of local application. We have found none. The only principle we have found is more and more centralisation—as we have found in the rejection of this Amendment—and we say that this is control for the sake of control. It is not even planning in the way this has been suggested. It is merely trickery. The Government put forward a test, and get quite worked up about it if anyone dares to oppose the test, as to what is long-distance and what is short-distance transport. Then, when it is a matter of trying to smash competition so that the weak-kneed Commission can have some chance of functioning, they reject any test and adopt a fiercer limitation.

When one considers some of the calamities of this Measure, one is not surprised but rather shocked that contradictory arguments, and contradictory provisions, should be commended to this House, and one comes back to one thing, and one thing only, that for. the purpose, which is becoming more and more clear and obvious, of feather-bedding their own supporters in the railway unions, the Government are quite prepared to kill the road transport of this country, whatever be the cost to the consumer. Unless some further explanation is forthcoming, that fact will go out even more clearly to the people of this country.

3.15 a.m.

Mr. Basil Nield (City of Chester)

The Parliamentary Secretary, in moving the rejection of this Amendment, stated once again that the purpose of this part of the Bill is to acquire for the Transport Commission a monopoly in long-distance haulage, and it follows that the inference is that the Government should leave the short-distance haulage industry as it is. What we say is that the Government impose as a test a radius of 25 miles in order to catch the short-distance road hauliers. From a purely practical point of view, I ask the House to consider the effect of this qualification of 25 miles. In the built-up areas it is quite plain that a haulier left on his own account can never travel to the next town except in crowded parts of the country. It follows that in rural areas it leads him nowhere, and it is no exaggeration to say that this is not leaving hauliers in any part of the industry in a position to cope properly with the situation.

I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that what the Government most fear is competition from those who are left. That is the practical side of this matter. We are definitely certain that a 25 mile radius is quite unjust and unfair. In another place they have suggested 40 miles. That is little enough. I want to put to the Parliamentary Secretary a question which has been asked before, but not answered this evening, and it is about the position of operators in coastal districts. We are familiar with some of these districts where the arc of the circle may well be halved. Is there to be any special arrangement with regard to the hauliers in those areas? It would certainly be fair to do so. For those reasons, I ask the House to support my right hon. and learned Friend and not the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brigadier Mackeson (Hythe)

I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question which I. asked on the last occasion we discussed this Bill. Surely, when this Bill becomes an Act, if the radius is 40 miles as opposed to 25 miles, the amount of burden placed on the police to enforce it will be a good deal less than if it were 25 miles. How is it proposed to prevent these men from going outside the 25 miles radius? Are we to have police traps, traffic "cops," "snoopers," or blackboards? I do not believe it is right to have a law which it is difficult to enforce. When we hear the serious statement which is to come on Wednesday, we shall have to think quickly and clearly how we can save man-power, and I believe that to have a large number of men doing something to stop men who are only trying to earn their own living is not a very constructive action.

Regarding the coastal towns, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will make some statement. Surely, there should be some modification so that the areas which these people on the coast cover will be the same as for those operating inland. I can see in this connection that it is very much easier to prevent operators from going outside the 25 miles radius. In my own constituency, it is easy to cover the exits from the town, but in the Midlands it is practically impossible. I think this Bill is wide open to abuse. I do not believe it will be easy to operate, and it would be much better to increase the radius to 40 miles, which was about the range of operational transport during the war, rather than reduce it to 25 miles.

Mr. I. J. Pitman (Bath)

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look at this matter purely from the angle of administration. I do not wish him to assume from what I will now say that I agree with the policy of nationalisation, but only that I am accepting it for the moment and regarding this purely as an administrative detail. He has had an opportunity of studying in HANSARD what I said on the last occasion, in which I drew a distinction between a "mode"—a statistical term—and a "peak", another statistical term. The point in this issue is that on page 48 there is a mode—the operative words are in line 16— to a predominant extent, that is to say, the words" 25 miles "there are not a peak, but a mode. The short-distance haulier is defined in Clause 39 as, somebody who operates predominantly at 25 miles. He is often going outside 25 miles, sometimes as far as 75 miles, and occasionally up to 120 miles, but predominantly he is a short-distance haulier. When, however, we come to page 66 it ceases to be a mode and becomes a statistical peak; and if there is one thing that stands out as an administrative factor, it is that you cannot have the same figure in both cases. It is, logically, absolute nonsense, because the peak is a much more onerous and restrictive term than the mode. In other words, the haulier who has been a genuine short-distance haulier—I would like the Parliamentary Secretary's attention, because I think this is a sound point—that haulier, before nationalisation, is defined as a short-distance haulier, although he is operating occasionally over 25 miles, and it would be appropriate to give him a peak figure much in excess of 25. If you are looking about for a peak figure to give him, I should have thought mat for a mode of 25 miles, a peak figure of 50 miles would be a good one. In the original Lords Amendment it was 50. It has come down to 40. But there is one figure that it cannot be in logic, justice or anything else, and that is 25 miles. I submit that in this Amendment the Lords are not chiselling. They are not trying to defeat the main purpose of the Minister of Transport by putting in an arbitrary figure; they are trying to write into this a bit of sense, a bit of statistical logic. What is illogical is to put the same figure in the mode as in the peak.

Mr. O. Poole

The Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to say that he would answer certain questions, if he considered them reasonable, that were put to them. If he had adopted that attitude on a previous Amendment, we should all have been on our way home now, if not already in bed. We have discussed this on various occasions. I do not intend to repeat any of the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends, but I would like to ask three questions which, as a result of statements he or the Minister have made, are giving me concern.

The Parliamentary Secretary, in justifying the figure of 25 miles, has referred very often to a report or document produced by the Road Haulage Association or some other representative of the industry—some report drawn up before the war—in which that body recommended only 20 or 15 miles as being the correct short distance for road transport. The Parliamentary Secretary has, in fact, used that as an authority for the choice he has made, and he has made the point that the Government have been more lenient than that report suggested they need be. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman how he justifies quoting from that one report drawn up by a small section of the industry, if he is prepared to reject every other advice they have given him on the subject. Does he think it reasonable to keep putting forward this one paper and to keep on refusing all other subsequent opinions they have given? I am not suggesting that they were right in the first place, or right afterwards. I am only asking on what principle the hon. Gentleman accepts their advice in one instance and not in others.

Another question I should like to ask him is, how does he reconcile the decision he has made, based to some extent on the Report of the Select Committee that examined the road transport industry and road haulage organisation during the war, with that report? They published a carefully documented report. Lord Ammon, I think, was one of the members of the Committee. He has taken some part in the deliberations on this Bill in another place. I should like to know how the hon. Gentleman reconciles the Committee's recommendations and their report with regard to the distance.

One point has been made many times, and was made again tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing), and that is, the question of vehicles operating on the coast or on islands. I believe I am right in saying that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that the Commission have authority to issue licences to hauliers to exceed the distance for any purpose the Commission think necessary. Therefore, if that is the answer in particular places, a permit will be given for a haulier to go longer distances than 25 miles, I should like to ask—and I should be grateful if we could have a reply, because it was asked by many of my hon. Friends—whether the Minister intends to give any specific or general instructions to the Commission to guide them in issuing licences in those circumstances? Does he intend to say to them "It is my intention that—"—or "my opinion is that—" "—you should in these circumstances issue licences to allow hauliers along the coast or in peculiary situated districts to continue their operations"? Does he intend to give any guidance, or is it the intention of the Government that that point should be considered?

The last point to which I wish to refer is one I have raised on previous occasions, and I have never had a satisfactory answer to it, or any practical answer at all. It was raised again tonight by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson). The question is, how does the Minister intend to enforce these regulations? I do not wish to deploy the whole argument again, because I have done so before, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary knows it well. We have never had an answer to this question, and I should like to know how the Government think these restrictions, which are onerous, and unacceptable to the industry, are to be enforced. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will relax his attitude to answer some of these points.

3.30 a.m.

Mr. Digby

The Parliamentary Secretary rightly said earlier that there have been many opportunities for the Government to explain to the House why they have chosen this magic figure of 25. He has spoken of other figures, such as those referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. O. Poole). He mentioned tonight the figure of 30. But he has produced absolutely no convincing reason, either now or at any other time, why they have leapt at this figure of 25 miles. What is the magic in this particular round figure? I must say that we are as unconvinced this evening as we have ever been. The Parliamentary Secretary apparently thought it was not a very logical kind of figure, and he spoke of 2,000 square miles of area; but as has been pointed out, that is not applicable universally. There are the coastal towns, referred to this evening, and in many previous discussions on this Bill, and there is the obvious point that there are many districts where many of these square miles would have no road at all and the haulier would find the area allotted to him quite useless for the simple reason that he could not travel across it.

Those hauliers who are to operate within the 25 miles limit find that there is nothing to protect them, even within their small area, from the cut-throat competition of the Commission's own vehicles. The Commission's executive will take over some 10,000 of the railway compames lorries. A great many of them are engaged in short-distance work, and a great deal of it is skimming off the cream. These vehicles are to be in competition with those unfortunate road hauliers confined to this very narrow radius, but the short distance vehicles of the Commission will be subject to none of these difficulties. In short, there is the most complete unfairness, and there is the strongest case for going against this limit of 25 miles. The 40 miles suggested is a much more sensible figure, quite apart from the fact that it is more fair, as anyone will agree who is familiar with the Midlands or the South of this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes) has referred to the fantastic fact that hauliers will not be able to travel between Liverpool and Manchester or between Glasgow and Edinburgh. That shows how wrong this is, and I can think of no reason—and the Government has produced none—for seeking to stick to this magic formula of 25 miles.

Mr. Bossom (Maidstone)

The Parliamentary Secretary said that he would try to answer some questions, and I am going to ask him one which will affect seriously our food supplies. In Kent there are a number of canners of fruit. They can what they can, if they can get anything to can. Has the Parliamentary Secretary yet considered them? When the fruit is ripe, the fruit farmer telephones the canner and the factory then telephones the various hauliers, the same day, and the fruit is put into cans that night. It has to be done that way. But if the farmer or the canner has to telephone all over the place as a result of this Measure, what will happen? A great amount of the fruit canned in Kent comes from Hampshire, and that means that the present work cannot be done under this 25 miles radius. It cannot be done if all sorts of orders have to be complied with, because the whole process has to be completed in the one day, or the fruit goes bad. The fruit is collected, taken to the factory, and canned the same evening. If one has to wait for orders, or is not allowed to go more than 25 miles, much of the fruit will not be used, for the simple reason that our canners are not within 25 miles of the fruit farms. I would like to hear how that matter can be handled, and so would a lot of canners in Kent.

Mr. Wadsworth

There is one question I wish to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. Throughout the whole series of Debates we have not yet discovered why the Minister has selected a 25 miles radius. Why not take over the whole of transport? Why not take it all over, without exception of 25 miles. Why should not the Minister go up to 40 miles? I would like him to make that clear. I shall have to reply to that question in my own Division. For example, Bridlington, in my Division, is 40 miles from York and 35 miles from Hull, and people in Bridlington will want to know why they cannot take their transport either to York or Hull. In the same way, of course, the Hull people are isolated because there is no populated place within 25 miles. I would appreciate a really sensible answer to this question. Why have the Government decided on 25 miles? Why did they decide to leave a certain amount of transport free? That is a question which has never been answered in the whole series of Debates.

Sir W. Darling

I have been struck by the general title of this Clause. It is "Additional restrictions upon carriage of goods for hire or reward." It is quite clearly the intention of the Government to lay additional restrictions on the carriage of goods for hire or reward. In these days when we are looking for a freer system, is this the policy to which the Government should adhere? I am concerned about the plight of a haulier whom I know and who is condemned, under this Clause, to spend half his day idly. He is only allowed to operate his vehicle 25 miles. He can do all his little jobs in two hours. What does he do for the rest of the day? Does his vehicle lie idle and of no use? Is his valuable manpower to be stagnant? That is the picture which must occur to many in this House. A haulier is not a figment of the imagination. He is a figure we know, but are hauliers in many hundreds under Government insistence to be immobilised for half the day? That is the question which needs to be answered. Is this country in such an excellent position, with regard to manpower, particularly its delivery services, that it can afford to immobilise hundreds of thousands of men and vehicles?

Who is to be responsible for carrying out the Minister's instructions? Surely, that calls for more than a passing reference. Who is to carry out the hundred and one necessary regulations under this Clause? Is it to be the police? Are there to be new groups of traffic "cops," of persons who say, "Twenty-five miles, thus far and no further," or "Thirty-nine point nine miles, on you go; forty miles, you stop." Who are to be the enforcement officers? There will have to be some to see that the law is carried into operation. Is it to be a further burden on the police? Already, from every local authority, there are complaints of the cost of the police. Are we going to increase the number of non-producers for the purpose of harrying road hauliers? I think the Parliamentary Secretary should answer this with a picture in his mind of the ordinary transport system of England, Scotland and Wales—not of a transport system disturbed as if a bear had put his paw into a hive of bees. This smooth-running transport, with which we have been tolerably familiar, flexible and able to meet every exigency and unexpected circumstances, is now to be swept here and pushed there, restricted here and allowed to run elsewhere. That is the picture I see, and it is the picture which the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary should see from this Clause. If it is not a police State upon which we are entering, it is a police-controlled transport system. It is a State in which a man who wants to carry on his calling, who has the vehicles and the proved capacity for carrying on that calling, has to stand in the market place because no man has hired him; because he has done his 25 miles for the day, and can do no more.

Mr. G. R. Strauss

I think that most hon. Members will agree that very few fresh arguments have been advanced in the discussion on this Amendment. Many arguments have been advanced by hon. Members opposite against the principle of this Bill, which is that road haulage should be taken over by the Commission as one of their duties. Many hon. Members dislike that idea altogether, and argue against it. That I understand. But what we are discussing here is whether the limit beyond which a haulier can go without a permit shall be 25 or 40 miles. That is the sole matter in dispute on this Amendment. I would like to answer one or two points put by hon. Members who do not appreciate the limited scope of the matter which is before the House for debate at the moment.

The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) says that many hauliers will be standing idle, because most of their work is long-distance road haulage, and they will not be allowed to do it. But that part of their concerns will be taken over by the Commission, and the road haulier will be paid substantial compensation under the terms of the Bill; and not only his vehicles, but, of course, the men employed by him, will be working for the Commission, so that no one will be standing idle. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) asked us to consider the position of the canners in Kent, who can a great deal of fruit, and suggested that on their account we should accept this Amendment. This Lords' Amendment suggests that there should be a limit of 40 miles instead of 25 miles, and unless my geography——

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

This is an important matter. The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that the long-distance haulage would be taken over. The point which I tried to make was that under the test a 39.9 miles journey was still a short-distance journey. Those who have been doing journeys up to 39.9 miles, which is short-distance under the test, will now be limited to 25 miles. Therefore, so far as these journeys of more than 25 miles are concerned, these men will be standing idle, as the hon. Member for South Edinburgh said. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with that point.

Mr. Strauss

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to come back to that point after I have dealt with the point which I had in hand. I was dealing with the case of the canners. Hauliers, under this Amendment, would be permitted to go 40 miles from their base; but I am sure that it is more than 40 miles from the canneries in Kent to the fruit fields in Hampshire. Therefore, this Amendment would not help them at all. Supposing it is right to argue that the Commission would not be able to do this quick haulage as well as anyone else—an argument which I do not accept——

Mr. Bossom

Will the hon. Gentleman say how long it will take for an order to depart from the canner to the Commission, and for permission to be given for these trucks to go down at once? How long is that going to take?

Mr. Strauss

I would say just as long as it takes to put through a telephone call. I should like to go into that, but it would be out of Order to do so. Hon. Members opposite do not seem to realise that this is a wholly decentralised organisation. All that will be required will be one telephone call, and the lorries will be on their way. Let me deal with one or two other small points before I come to the main charge. It is suggested by hon. Members opposite that the whole thing will be complicated because new bridges may be built over the Tay or the Severn or somewhere else, which is going to make our scheme difficult or unfair. I cannot understand that argument at all. Twenty-five miles from base is going to be the limit for any road haulage firm unless that firm gets a permit; so I cannot understand hon. Members saying that it is going to be complicated or made difficult and unfair if a new bridge is built somewhere. Twenty-five miles from base is to be the area within which a local haulier can carry on unrestricted trade.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Pitman

It was not my point, but it was put by one of my hon. Friends, and it came to me fresh, as it did to the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary. The point in it, surely, is that there is the definition of a test, and then a bridge is built. What was 100 miles before becomes a 15 miles journey, and firms are penalised unnecessarily.

Mr. Strauss

I understand that point. I think hon. Members opposite—and I am now coming to one of the points made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—are confusing two aspects of the problem. There is, first, the problem of which firms are to be taken over altogether. How is the Commission to decide which firms are primarily long-distance road haulage firms and which are not? To decide that we have set out a formula in this Bill; it is rough justice, if hon. Members like, but as correctly as possible it divides the firms into those which are long-distance hauliers and those which are short-distance hauliers. Such tests are laid down in Clause 39. It does not follow at all that they must be exactly the same tests to decide the extent that hauliers who fall within the short-distance category will be permitted to operate. I think a great deal of confusion has been created by hon. Members opposite who have been trying to amalgamate the two definitions into one and saying that one must correspond exactly to the other. It is not. only not necessary that that should be so, but it would lead to serious complications if——

Mr. Orr-Ewing

As far as one can see, the words of the Parliamentary Secretary can only mean that the Commission would consider allowing transporters, for instance in the case I quoted between Bristol and South Wales, to remain short-distance hauliers and to give them a permit so to continue until the new Severn bridge is built, so that when it is built they can legitimately remain short-distance hauliers. Do I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly?

Mr. Strauss

I think I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly. If a haulier under the procedure laid down in Clause 39, remained a short-distance haulier it would be because of the test on his past performances. The performance over the last year is the test. His records in his books over a past period would be seen. If they established him a short-distance road haulier, he would be permitted to do 25 miles unless he got a permit from the Commission to go further. Whether a merchant would get such a permit or not would depend on the local circumstances and whether the Commission would be able to do the work better than the road haulier. It is a simple question, and is not complicated by the question of whether there are bridges or not.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

I would like to get this right, because the Parliamentary Secretary says it will be judged on what the man was doing the previous year. If he is going from Dundee via Perth to a town in Fife, which is a very long journey, he is a long-distance haulier and he is, therefore, taken over. The following year—it will not happen, but it might—the bridge is built; he is out of business and there are no hauliers. But we want somebody to do the short-distance work across the river. Who is to take it?

Mr. Strauss

Either the Commission, or a short-distance road haulier will do the business. Obviously, a firm that has gone out of business cannot do it. One or two other points have been raised. It has been asked, "What is to happen to the coastal towns?" The answer is that there has been inserted in the Bill a special provision in which the Commission are told to pay special attention to such factors in granting permits for over 25 miles. That is as far as it is possible to go.

Mr. Digby

What about directions?

Mr. Strauss

It is not a case of directions, since it is stated in the Bill: The Commission shall in the exercise of their discretion take into consideration the needs of any special circumstances affecting the locality in which is situated the operating centre of any vehicle to which a permit would relate.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft

What we want to know is, will the Minister give directions to the Commission in interpreting the provision he has just read out? Will he give a direction that, in interpreting that provision, special consideration should be given to coastal towns?

Mr. Strauss

I cannot say that my right hon. Friend will give directions of that sort, because there is no reason to believe that that special provision in the Bill will not be ample guidance to the Commission as to what the House has in mind. The question asked is not really relevant to the discussion, because the same problem arises where one is considering 25 miles or 40 miles, and that is the issue before the Committee.

Mr. Byers rose——

Mr. Strauss

If the hon. Member had attended the Committee upstairs more frequently, he would have known that we had discussions on that point over and over again.

Mr. Byers

If the Government had had the decency not to hold Committee meetings at the same time as sittings of the House, it would have been possible for Members to attend. It does not lie in the mouths of the Government to criticise our attendance.

Mr. Strauss

To get to the main point which, I think, is really far more relevant to the matter at issue: why did we choose 25 miles? Hon. Members select 40 miles and say it is sensible and reasonable, but they can give no argument why it should be. They demand to know why we should say that 25 miles is correct. I am not going to take long on this at this time of night, but I could give example after example where road transport authorities and the road haulage industry—not one but a whole number of them—in evidence before the Royal Commission, in publications and so on, have quoted a figure varying between 20 and 30 miles as being a fair criterion between short distance and long distance. I say that, quite apart from the fact that we believe it is right and fair, we are fortified by the knowledge that the authorities in the road transport and road haulage industry consider our figure is fair, too.

Finally, I want to deal with the most important point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) and other hon. Members, and I want to point out how utterly illogical and inconsistent are their arguments in this matter. They say that the Transport Commission cannot stand the competition of the road haulier. We therefore have to confine the road haulier to an area bounded by 25 miles radius from his base because if we allowed him to go further this weak-kneed Commission—I am quoting somebody's words—would be up against the competition of the independent road haulier and would not be able to stand such competition, and the road haulage work of the Commission would founder. They argue that at one time, and at another time they say it is wicked that the Commission should be allowed to compete within the 25 miles area against the small road hauliers because this powerful and efficient Commission is bound to drive them out of business.

They cannot have it both ways. Either the road haulage organisation of the Commission is likely to be so inefficient and bad that the road haulier need not fear it at all in his short distance work, or it will be so strong and effective that it need not fear competition over 25 miles. I want to put to the House that these arguments are completely contradictory. Either one or the other might stand, but I think they are both wrong. I would like the House again to realise that it is the duty of the Commission to integrate the transport services of the road haulier service of this country and to see that they are efficient—not only the Commission's road haulage service, but also that there exists an efficient and adequate private road haulier service. The Commission will have this duty imposed on it in Clause 3—to integrate an efficient transport service for the industry and people of this country.

Mr. Thorneycroft rose——

Mr. Cove (Aberavon)

Mr. Gladstone.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Thorneycroft

Did the hon. Member wish to address the House? I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary on this Amendment at any rate, has found his voice, though considering the length of his answer I am bound to say that I do not think he dealt adequately with the powerful argument addressed to him by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). May I have the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, or, if he does not fully appreciate the point, that of the Minister? Clause 39 defines what is ordinary long-distance haulage. I will quote the actual words in the Bill, because if I do so, I think the Minister will see how utterly inconsistent he is: In this Part of this Act, the expression 'ordinary long distance carriage' means…the carriage of goods by the person … for a distance of 40 miles or upwards…that the vehicle is…more than 25 miles from its operating centre. By implication and directly it is stated in the Act. Why is it in these circumstances that the man is not permitted to travel up to 40 miles when he is allowed to carry on? There is no reason whatsoever. These men after all, ex hypothesi, in the Government's own definition, are men who normally travel up to 40 miles.

Mr. Cove

On a point of Order. How can the business of the House be carried out when Opposition whips are asleep?

Mr. Thorneycroft

There may be hon Members who perhaps think this does not matter. I think the Minister will agree that this is a very important point. These are men who on the Government's definition, not on the definition of the Opposition, or of their Lordships' House or any other person, are men who normally travel more than 25 miles and indeed up to 40 miles distance. Why are they now not allowed to do it? The Parliamentary Secretary produced what I thought was an extraordinary argument. He said there was no conceivable connection between these two classes. What does this argument mean? It means you put people into a particular category because they do a particular thing, but having put them there, you do not allow them to do the very thing you put them there for. It is as if I was looking for a team of sprinters and said, "I want only men who"—[Interruption]—I might find some hon. Members opposite—"could do 100 yards in 12 seconds." I would put them all into that class, but having put them in, I would say, "You must not do 100 yards in 12 seconds, you must all take at least 15 seconds to do it."It is a preposterous state of affairs to have a contradiction as flat as that in any Bill.

I would ask the Minister to consider, apart from the extraordinarily contradictory nature and the unfairness of it, the effect on the road haulier. Just think of the man who normally has been carrying on business beyond 25 miles. That is the very thing the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) spoke on in a very eloquent speech—[Interruption.] It was a much more eloquent speech than we have heard from any Members opposite. He carries on business and normally part of his business was to go beyond 40 miles. It is untrue to say, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, that these vehicles are going to be taken over. They are not. They are not ordinary long-distance hauliers. It is perfectly true he may well lose a certain number of his vehicles going up to 50, 60 or 100 miles because of the definition; but those vehicles which the Government admit are perfectly proper trade for the short-distance haulier, he will not lose. These will stand idle until, I suppose, the Minister comes to the state of selling them when he cannot use them. I would ask the Minister, because I think he must have appreciated this point by now, if he can give one single reason why this category of men defined by himself as hauliers only going up to 40 miles, should not be allowed to travel up to 40 miles. If he can give one reason, perhaps not a very good one, I think some of his supporters behind will go into the Lobby with a lighter heart than they must have done this evening.

Mr. Hogg

I am less concerned with the blatant inconsistency of the Parliamentary Secretary than with the cynical want of candour with which the House of Commons has been treated this evening. We spent over two hours on the previous Amendment with the Government trying to justify their provision on the urgent grounds that they had to get within the scheme all the road transport they could. We are now dealing with the question of distance in which it has been made abundantly clear that, once you have allowed to remain outside the scheme men in a certain category—those who are habitually carrying out journeys of 40 miles for certain purposes—they will not be allowed to carry out those journeys for the purposes of the scheme once it comes into operation. If that be true and it has not been denied, what becomes of the argument that there was a shortage of vehicles? Either those journeys which were habitually carried out before will not be undertaken at all, or undertaken by a Commission who are so short of vehicles that they cannot allow them to be used. Earlier in the evening when the Parliamentary Secretary spoke he knew ail the time that the information had never been given. This illustrates more clearly than his extraordinary performance on the last Amendment that the whole attitude of the Government has been shaped by a cynical want of faith in the House of Commons.

Mr. Henry Strauss (Combined English Universities)

I hope the Minister will answer the question which has puzzled all of us. The question I am asking is not so much whether there should possibly be different figures in the two Clauses, but what is the answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) as to the figure in this clause. It is a simple question. No indication has been given by the Parliamentary Secretary of any good he thinks the figure of 25 will do. Incidentally he alleged an inconsistency on the part of the Opposition which I think is not an inconsistency at all. He said we suspected that this 25 miles must have been inserted here because the Commission were frightened of the competition of these people. Then he said it was inconsistent with that when we said they would be faced with the unfair competition of the Commission. There is no inconsistency at all and there is unfairness where one side is limited and the other is not, but the main question I am asking him is will he give one single reason, in answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Monmouth, why this limit of 25 miles is put in this Clause. I address the request to the right hon. Gentleman with greater confidence having regard to the decision of the House not long ago on the question whether we should adjourn. The House decided we should not. The House may have felt one of two things: either that the Minister was not dumb tonight, or, to take the less optimistic assumption, that if we did adjourn he might be no less dumb tomorrow. I believe that the House took the more courteous view that he was perfectly capable of responding tonight. I hope he will.

Mr. C. Williams

I have studied the Government's attitude on this matter, and I have come to the conclusion that I can give the answer which the Government have denied the House. They have fixed on the figure of 25 miles because they think there is sufficient business in that to enable a few people to go on for a short time. They have refused to allow it to be stretched to 40 miles because they think that if they did, there would be a comparatively large number of efficient transport workers. Their wish is to smash completely the transport system, but they are afraid that unless they do it bit by bit, there will be a lot of trouble. Therefore, they are putting in the minimum figure. They will not give any answer why, but it is all part of then wonderful legislation which, as in this Bill, is doing so much to wreck the country and bring us to the position we are in today.

Division No. 362.] AYES. [4.16 a.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Dumpleton, C. W Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Ede, Rt. Hon. d. C. Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Fairhurst, F. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Field, Captain W. J. Irving, W. J.
Attewell, H. C. Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Jay, D. P. T.
Austin, H. Lewis Foot, M. M. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St Pancras, S. E.)
Barnes, Rt Hon. A J Ganley, Mrs. C. S Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Barton, C. Gibbins, J Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)
Bechervaise, A E. Gibson, C W Keenan, W.
Binns, J. Gilzean, A. Kenyan, C
Blackburn, A. R Glanville, J. E. (Consett) King, E. M
Blyton, W. R. Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Kinley, J.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M (L'pl, Exch'ge) Griffiths, W. D (Moss Side) Lavers, S.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Gunter, R. J. Lee, F. (Hulme)
Buchanan, G. Guy, W. H. Leonard, W.
Burke, W A Hale, Leslie Levy, B. W.
Champion, A. J Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Collins, V. J. Hardy, E. A. Lindgren, G. S.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Camb'well, N. W) Harrison, J. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Cove, W. G. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Longden, F.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Herbison, Miss M. Lyne, A. W.
Deer, G. Hewitson, Captain M. McAdam, W
Diamond, J Hulman, P McAllister, G.
Dobbie, W. House, G. McGhee, H G
Dodds, N N Hoy, J McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Driberg, T. E. N. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W) Mackay, R W G. (Hull, N. W.)
Mr. Drayson (Skipton)

I cannot let the House part with this Amendment without making some protest on behalf of the numbers of my constituents who will be affected by this limitation to 25 miles. My constituency covers the Craven country of Yorkshire, where in many cases the distances are over 25 miles. In the southern part of the constituency the road hauliers go into the West Riding industrial areas, and to the industrial towns of North,' Lancashire, and their average journey would be 30 or 40 miles. What has surprised me in this discussion is that no hon. Members on the other side seem to have the same problems in their constituencies as we on this side are faced with in ours. It seems to me that they take no real interest in what the ordinary men and women—apart from the block votes they get from the trade unions—are thinking. The Minister himself seldom takes part in any of these discussions. I should like to hear his views tonight on this Lords Amendment. On every occasion he turns to his Parliamentary Secretary to get him out of his difficulties, and as he sits there, hour after hour, he is terrified even of nodding his head lest it should seem he is nodding agreement. I should like to hear the Minister's own views on this Amendment.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 66.

McLeavy, F Proctor, W. T. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Mallalieu, J. P. W Pursey, Cmdr. H. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Mann, Mrs J. Randall, H. E. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Mayhew, C P Reid, T. (Swindon) Tiffany, S
Mellish, R. J. Robens, A. Tolley, L.
Middleton, Mrs. L Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Mitchison, G. R. Sargood, R Wallace, H W (Walthamstow, E.)
Monslow, W Scollan, T. Weitzman, D.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H (Sheffield, C) Segal, Dr S Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Shackleton, E. A. A. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Moyle, A Sharp, Granville West, D. G.
Nally, W Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Nichol, Mrs. M E (Bradford, N) Shawcross, Rt Hn. Sir H (St. Helens) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Nicholls, H R (Stratford) Shurmer, P. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Noel-Buxton, Lady Silverman, J. (Erdington) Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Oliver, G. H Skeffington, A. M. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingreve)
Orbach, M. Smith, S. H (Hull, S. W) Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Snow, Capt. J. W. Willis, E.
Palmer, A. M. F Soskice, Maj. Sir F Wills, Mrs. E. A
Pargiter, G. A. Sparks, J. A. Wise, Major F. J
Parkin, B. T. Strauss, G R. (Lambeth, N) Woodburn, A
Paton, J. (Norwich) Stross, Dr. B Wvatt W.
Pearson, A. Stubbs, A. E. Yates, V. F.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F. Swingler, S. Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield) Symonds, A. L. Zilliacus, K
Porter, E. (Warrington) Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Price, M. Philips Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Pritt, D. N Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) NOES. Mr. Michael Stewart and
Mr. Simmons.
NOES.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J. Raikes, H. V.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R Joynson-Hicks, Hon L. W Ramsay, Major S.
Baldwin, A. E. Lambert, Hon. G. Sanderson, Sir F.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H Law, Rt. Hon. R K Spearman, A. C- M.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Bossom, A. C. Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Sutcliffe, H.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.)
Byers, Frank Low, Brig. A. R. W Teeling, William
Clarke, Col. R. S Lucas-Tooth, Sir H Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Mackeson, Brig. H. R Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Maclay, Hon. J. S Touche, G. C.
Darling, Sir W. Y Marples, A. E. Vane, W. M. F.
Digby, S. W Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Wadsworth, G.
Dower, Lt.-Col A. V G (Penrith) Mellor, Sir J. Ward, Hon. G. R.
Drayson, G. B Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Elliot, Rt Hon. Walter Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Fox, Sir G. Nicholson, G. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Fraser, H. C P. (Stone) Nield, B. (Chester) Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M Noble, Comdr. A H. P Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A Orr-Ewing, I. L. York, C.
Grimston, R V Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Hare, Hon. J. H (Woodbridge) Pitman, I. J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hogg, Hon Q. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.