HC Deb 04 August 1947 vol 441 cc1243-53

Lords Amendment, in page 74, line 4, at end, insert: (c) This section shall not apply to any vehicle used for the carriage of any goods for distances not exceeding eighty miles or for the carriage for any distance of any of the goods specified in provisos (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of section fifty-two.

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

Page 74, line 4, at end, insert: (c) If on a complaint made by the holders of an A or B licence to the licensing authority that the Commission, in the exercise of their function of providing transport service for the carriage of goods by road, not being ordinary long-distance carriage, are competing unfairly against the aggrieved licence holders by seeking to provide more than a fair proportion of the facilities required, the licensing authority may, if it thinks fit, refer the matter with its report and recommendations to the Minister, who may make such order as in all the circumstances he may deem to be just, requiring if necessary the Commission to withdraw or alter such facilities.

Mr. G. R. Strauss

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

I urge this for two reasons. One is that it is wrong in principle that the Commission, having a duty placed upon it by Parliament, should be directly or indirectly subject to another authority in regard to the services which they consider it necessary to perform. There is a further reason which I think may appeal even more to hon. Members opposite. This Amendment is wholly unnecessary for three reasons: the first is that it is contrary to the duty imposed on the Commission by the Bill to create a state of affairs, which they would drive the private haulier off the road. The second is that the individual licensee has a full remedy open to him, if as is feared by the Lords, the competition of the Commission against the licensee in his road haulage work should, in fact, become so serious as to drive the licensee off the road. The licensee can then go before the Transport Tribunal when the charges are being made and allege that they are being unfairly or improperly operated to the detriment of existing hauliers.

Mr. An Hon. Member

Would that include complaints about the unreasonable number of vehicles in operation?

Mr. Strauss

It would not matter how many were in operation. Unless the charges were lower than those charged by the private haulier because there is no competition unless charges are below those of competitors. The hon. Member must agree with that.

There is a third complete safeguard. If the hauliers felt that the Commission were doing something contrary to the obligations and duties put on them by the Bill and were competing and driving off the road the existing road hauliers, the Road Haulage Association would be able to go direct to the Minister and tell the Minister the facts, and the Minister would, in the national interests, be able to give the necessary direction to the Commission. The Commission would do nothing so wrong as to drive existing hauliers off the road but one does not accept that, there is in the Bill and in the charges structure of the Bill, ample opportunity for the hauliers to take the necessary remedies to put an end to such a state of affairs should they exist, which I maintain is exceedingly unlikely.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Scottish Universities)

As morning approaches, the Government become more and more enthusiastic about the virtues of monopoly. Previously they said it was economically invaluable and now they say it is morally invaluable. We do not share the astonishing subservience to monopoly which seems to be the governing principle of the Minister and the Under-Secretary. Who could imagine, he said, that the Commission would do such a terrible thing as to drive the hauliers off the road? Besides, if it did, there are remedies. It really is not very difficult for a monopoly to try to squeeze others out of competition. It is not unknown in Government circles. I have seen the powerful Government Departments bullying the less powerful Government Departments and taking away their power. Monopoly is by no means perfect. That is why we wished for a defence of the private citizen who will have a very poor chance when this thing gets into action against the enormous monopoly. The Under-Secretary said it was desired to cover a very large portion of the field If it is in any way interfered with, the bias of the Under-Secretary will be towards the monopoly and against the private citizen. The next argument the Under-Secretary used was this. He said that the Commission would not want to drive the hauliers off the road; that, if it did, the haulier would have a remedy because he could appear before a tribunal when the charges scheme was made.

5.45 a.m.

The hon. Gentleman was asked a question by my hon. Friend as to whether a complaint could be made against surplus vehicles as well as charges. The Under-Secretary said that that was entirely irrelevant. Unless the charges are cut, mere superfluity of vehicles would not make any difference. Would it not? Has the Minister never heard of the practice in many places of nursing a vehicle which one desires to squeeze out? [An HON. MEMBER: "That was under private enterprise."] He does not seem to realise that he is setting up a body which is going into trade and will have the motive, and according to him, the duty of making itself the supreme authority in transport. It will be subject to exactly the same set of stimuli that the worst private monopoly has ever been subject to, and, in addition, will have a powerful machine with legislative authority, in so far as the Under-Secretary can provide it. A terrible monopoly is being set up, and if one listens to some of the arguments it will have the law courts behind it as well.

It is clear that competition could be effected by an attack on carrying capacity as well as charges. I advance that contention to the House. The private hauliers are very much concerned about it and would certainly desire some protection. And lastly, says the Under-Secretary, if they were being so knocked about, what would be their remedy? Their organisation, which by this Bill has been amputated, cut down, and bullied in every way, its long-distance enterprise entirely removed from it, and very much reduced from what it was before—this organisation can come before whom? The Minister—the man who has set up this great machine and says: The toad beneath the harrow knows, exactly where each point-prick goes, The butterfly upon the road, preaches contentment to that toad. But this is worse. The private individual says, "This powerful machine is grinding me under." The Minister says: "Grand; that is what I set it up to do. What are you complaining about?" That is what has been said all night. We might say, "You have voted us down time and again, and used your great majority to trample us down." "Splendid," says the Minister joyfully, "That is what we were elected to do; we had a mandate." That is what he will no doubt say.

Mr. G. R. Strauss

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman could not have read the Lords Amendment with which I am asking the House to disagree. In' that Amendment it is the Minister who is given the power to interfere.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

But really these dialectical tricks are scarcely worthy. This comes before the Minister in the course of an organised representation. The complaint made by the hauliers is, "We did our best to meet all possible objections." Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen say, "We did our best to ensure that the Minister would be there, but we certainly proposed it would be advanced as a non-statutory organisation wandering up, knocking at the Minister's door to be heard." But according to the proposals, on a complaint made by the hauliers to a licensing authority that the Commission was competing unfairly, the matter may be referred by the authority to the Minister. That is a very different thing from some powerful association of hauliers who have the right to complain equally of the things which the Minister in his wisdom sets out to do. We ask for a statutory procedure where a man may go as a right before the authorities in this country. After that the quarrel lies between the licensing authority and the Minister, not with the road hauliers organisation representing the private enterprise which it is the Minister's purpose to crush and extinguish.

We bring forward an Amendment, with which the only fault to be found as with our other Amendments, is that it does not oppose to the other place a blunt, uncompromising negative, but all that happens is that the Parliamentary Secretary says, "I cannot agree to this, I ask the House to reject this Amendment." Of course he has his majority and can do that, but he is certainly trespassing against the maxim that not only must justice be done but that justice must appear to be done. None of us in any private association, faced with alternatives such as that which would enable us to go before the licensing authority, make our complaint, and then ask the licensing authority to go before the Minister, or, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, for the private association to go forward—none of us would hesitate which to choose between the statutory control of the one and the bush-ranging approach of the other. All this, he says, is unnecessary because this monopoly is so pure, so good, so true, has such high ideals. All we can do is to answer in the words of Mr. Disraeli when he was approached by someone who said, "Mr. Gladstone, I believe," and retorted, "Sir, if you believe that you would believe anything." That is our answer to the Minister's contention that nobody would do anything wrong and therefore there is no purpose in guarding against it.

Mr. Raikes

I think the Minister's arguments cancelled each other out. He said it was wrong in principle for the Commission to be subject to another authority. Later he said the road hauliers' organisation would have direct access to the Minister. It is obvious that in the Minister's own mind he does not regard the road hauliers' organisation going to the Minister as being nearly as powerful as the road hauliers having the right, through the licensing authority, to approach the Minister, because if he did think so, he would not have maintained that while the road hauliers' organisation has direct access to the Minister, nevertheless the Commission is not subject to another authority. If the Amendment is carried, it does mean that another authority over and beyond the Commission would have the opportunity of examining unfair competition if it did take place. There is no need for me to play about with questions of the purity or non-purity of monopolies. I have known hon. Members on the other side deal with monopolies in more eloquent language than I can use at this hour of the morning. But because it is a public monopoly instead of a private one, that does not make it any more virtuous.

The Minister was below his usual form when he said that it was quite sufficient if the licensing authority had their remedy in regard to the rate structure. My right hon. and gallant Friend dealt with that. But, after all, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will remember the early days after the first World War, and they will both remember that the routes of the buses in London were very much overcrowded. What were known as "pirate" buses—buses that used to go along taking the cream of good routes—made it extremely difficult and awkward for companies to cover the routes. That was not a question of undercutting by rates; it was a question of undercutting by operating buses only in order to take large numbers of passengers as they appeared.

Mr. G. R. Strauss

That could hardly apply to goods vehicles, could it?

Mr. Raikes

Let the Parliamentary Secretary wait a moment, and he will see that I am going to develop the argument a little further. We shall see what the position would be in goods traffic. It would be this. As the matter stands, A and B licensees, if they want any additional vehicles at all in addition to those they already have, must go to the licensing authorities for permission to get additional vehicles. On the other hand, the Commission have none of those troubles to bother them. If the Commission decide for one reason or another that it would be an advantage in a certain area to have additional vehicles, they get those additional vehicles straight away. That is not all. When the time for the renewal of licences comes, the A and B licensees have to go before the licensing authorities to apply for licences for the same number of vehicles they have, apart from any additional vehicles they may wish to have.

Suppose that the Commission run unfair competition against the private road haulage vehicles. One cannot assume that the Commission, of necessity, will just not do that. Suppose in the course of a year or so after this thing has come into operation—this half-baked thing: if it does come into operation; but assume it does—there may be a larger number than before of vehicles run on certain routes by the Commission, which will affect the A and B licensees. When they go before the licensing authority for permission to use only their existing number of vehicles the licensing authority may then be compelled to say, "We are sorry, but in view of the fact that now there are considerably more vehicles being operated by the Commission than a year ago we cannot, of necessity, even give you your present number of permitted vehicles."

Now, that could very easily happen. It would be unfair competition—a competition which would not touch the question of rates, but competition which could bitterly injure the road hauliers. If it should be said that it would be impossible for the Commission to adopt such an attitude because it would not be economical for the Commission to use a larger number of vehicles, I would reply it might well be that, in the long run, from the point of view of the public, it would be very far from economical to have that competition stamped out; but that, from the point of view of the Commission, in putting that extra number of vehicles in competition with their competitors, it might be economical in the long run. If this Amendment is rejected, it will be an incitement to the Commission to use all the worst forms of private monopoly in a public monopoly to destroy reasonable competition.

6.0. a.m.

Mr. Digby

I think there is no doubt that when the new scheme comes into effect there will be a great deal of competition between the road hauliers left operating on the roads in their restricted radii and the Commission as a whole, and there is also no doubt whatever that this Bill is completely lacking in provisions to prevent that competition from becoming unfair. I, therefore, welcome this Amendment, although I am not at all sure that it goes far enough. One is going to have one law for the rich monopoly of the Commission, and another for the small haulier. The Commission will have all the resources behind it; it will be rich, and able to switch its resources into one area or another, and yet be able to fulfil the condition that it must balance out its income and expenditure. It will not be bound by distance; its vehicles can be operated for one week on short distance work and, when the traffic is different in the following week, the same vehicles can be used on long distance traffic. The vehicles can change their operating centres; they can switch from Bristol to the north of England one week and in the next they can be back again, at Bristol.

That is one advantage, and another is that the executive is not obliged, when it wishes to place more vehicles on the road, to go to any licensing authority for permission to use those extra vehicles. The executive thus has an enormous advantage, and it may well be that the small haulier will find himself at a great disadvantage. The "cream" may have been skimmed off in his area, and he may have found that the locusts have passed his way. He will then seek the renewal of his licence, as he is bound to do. What happens to the small haulier then? He may very probably be faced with the argument that there is no need for him to operate any longer because so many vehicles have been operating on short distance work in that area. It will be very easy for the Commission to get him out of the way. But this is not all. He will not be able even to get the compensation given to those who are dispossessed under this Bill. The Commission, without this Amendment, can ruthlessly cut out such competition as may be left, and then turn round and refuse compensation to those cut out. I do appeal to the Minister, through the Parliamentary Secretary, to consider this aspect. It is something which is no mere alteration to the drafting of the Bill. It is a real safeguard, and it is needed.

Mr. Assheton

I am extremely disappointed that the Parliamentary Secretary did not see his way to say that he would accept this most modest proposal from another place. We have really got to find some means of controlling these monopolies which are to be set up, and the very little control there will be over them is at the hands of the Minister We are often told by hon. Members opposite of the dangers of private monopoly, but this is nothing compared to the dangers of the great public monopoly. If private monopoly becomes too vast, the State can smash it. There is always that means, but when the monopoly is run and organised by the State, then nothing can stop it. We are told that the interests of the road haulier will be protected by the Tribunal. But, as has been so well pointed out earlier tonight, that is not the case at all. This Tribunal deals only with routes, but not with the volume of traffic at all. There is nothing in that argument This proposal which the House of Lords has sent down to us is most modest. It is an attempt to compromise, a genuine effort by the other House to suggest something to which the Minister could agree. The whole matter is left in the hands of the Minister himself. I make a last appeal to him to see if he cannot accommodate the House of Lords in this Amendment and do at least some measure of justice to these small road hauliers.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower

The right hon. Gentleman might well have accepted this Amendment without injuring the Bill in any way. It was a fairly helpful Amendment

Division No. 364.] AYES. [6.7 a.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.) Reid, T. (Swindon)
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Roberts, A.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Irving, W. J. Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.) Sargood, R
Attewell, H. C Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Scollan, T.
Austin, H Lewis Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Segal, Dr. S.
Barnes, Rt Hon. A. J Keenan, W. Shackleton, E A A.
Barton, C Kenyan, C. Sharp, Granville
Bechervaise, A E. King, E. M Shawcross, Rt Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens:
Binns, J. Kinley, J. Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Blackburn, A. R Lavers, S. Simmons, C. J.
Blyton, W. R Lee, F. (Hulme) Skefington, A M.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Lewis, A. W J. (Upton) Smith, S. H (Hull, S. W.)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Lindgren, G. S. Snow, Capt. J. W.
Bramall, E. A Lipton, Lt.-Col. M Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Buchanan, G Longden, F Sparks, J. A.
Burke, W A Lyne, A. W. Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)
Champion, A. J McAdam, W. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Collins, V. J McAllister, G. Stross, Dr. B.
Corbet, Mrs F. K (Camb'well, N. W.) McGhee, H G Swingler, S.
Cove, W. G. Mackay, R W. G (Hull, N. W) Symonds, A. L.
Deer, G. McLeavy, F. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Diamond, J Mann, Mrs. J. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Dobbie, W. Marsden, Capt. A Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Driberg, T. E. N. Mayhew, C P Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Dumpleton, C. W Mellish, R. J. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Middleton, Mrs. L. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Fairhurst, F. Mikardo, Ian Tiffany, S.
Field, Captain W. J Milchison, G. R. Tolley, L.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S Monslow, W. Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)
Gibbins, J Morris, Lt.-Col. H (Sheffield, C.) Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Gibson, C. W Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Gilzean, A. Nally, W. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N.) West, D. G.
Greenwood, A. W J. (Heywood) Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) Noel-Buxton, Lady Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Gunter, R. J Oliver, G. H. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Guy, W. H. Orbach, M. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Hale, Leslie Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Hardy, E. A Pargiter, G. A. Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Harrison, J.. Parkin, B. T. Willis, E.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Paton, J. (Norwich) Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Herbison, Miss M. Poole, Cecil (Lichfield) Wise, Major F. J
Hewitson, Captain M. Porter, E. (Warrington) Woodburn, A.
Holman, P. Price, M. Philips Wyatt, W.
House, G. Pritt, D. N. Yates, V. F.
Hoy, J. Proctor, W. T. Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Pursey, Cmdr. H
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Ranger, J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Hannan,
NOES.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Conant Maj. R. J. E. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Assheton, Rt. Hon R Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E Grimston, R. V.
Baldwin, A. E. Darling, Sir W. Y Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Beamish, Maj. T V. H. Digby, S. W. Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C (Wells) Dowar Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Bossom, A. C Drayson, G. B. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Byers, Frank Fox, Sir G. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Clarke, Col. R. S Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone) Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Cliff[...] Brown, Lt.-Col G Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M Mackeson, Brig. H. R

I can only think that whatever considered Amendment was put down on the Order Paper tonight, the right hon. Gentleman would not accept it. It is quite useless and a waste of the time of this House. I cannot but feel that the power of this large majority is being abused and that the smallest people can expect no justice.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 56.

Maclay, Hon. J S Raikes, H. V. Wheatley, Colonel M. J
Marples, A. E. Sanderson, Sir F White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Spearman, A C. M. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Mellor, Sir J Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.) Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury) Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Nield, B. (Chester) Thorneycroft, G. E P. (Monmouth) York, C
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P Touche, G. C.
Peto, Brig. C. H M Vane, W. M. F TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Pitman, I J. Wadsworth, G. Mr. Drewe and Major Ramsay.
Poole, OBS (Oswestry) Ward, Hon G. R

Lords Amendment to Commons Amendment in lieu of Lords Amendment in page 106, line 8, disagreed to by this House: In line 4 of Clause (Arbitration Acts do not apply to proceedings before referees or boards of referees), leave out from "Service" to end of Clause, agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Assheton, Mr. Barnes, Mr. David Jones, Mr. McLeavy and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe; "Three be the quorum."—[Mr. Barnes.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated U. the Lords.