HC Deb 21 April 1953 vol 514 cc860-9

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 18, at end, insert: The report for any period shall set out any direction given by the Minister to the Board during that period.

Mr. Mitchison

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, at end, add: and any action taken by the Board in compliance with such direction. This Amendment raises a matter of very considerable importance and I am afraid that I shall have to dwell a little on the point to appreciate what is really involved. The Lords Amendment adds, at the end of line 18, on page 4, a provision that any directions given by the Minister are to be included in the report which the Board is called upon to make from time to time at least once every six months, and a copy of which is to be laid before each House of Parliament. This Amendment seeks to add to that that there shall also be included in the report and, therefore, laid before this House any action take by the Board in compliance with such directions.

It is important, I suggest, to see what those directions will actually be and in the original Bill they appeared on page 6 in Clause 3 (8): If any difference arises between the Commission and the Board as to the lines on which the Commission are to act in performing their duties under this section "— the Board's duties under this Section are to sell transport units— or as lo what properties should be included in, or what should be the conditions attached to the purchase of, any transport unit, or as to whether any tender for a transport unit should or should not be accepted, either the Commission or the Board may refer the matter to the Minister and the Minister shall give such directions therein as he thinks fit, and any directions so given by him shall be binding on the Commission and the Board. The procedure of the Commission is to be to invite tenders for transport units, but in performing their duties under the Clause the Commission has to consult the Board and under subsection (7) the lines of policy settled from time to time must meet with the approval of the Board. Then it goes on to say that: … no invitation to tender for a transport unit shall be issued by the Commission without the approval of the Board and no tender for any transport unit shall be accepted or refused by the Commission without the approval of the Board. There is a further provision as to the Board being satisfied about the price.

Broadly speaking, both the Commission and the Board have obligations of first-class importance on any view of any matter under this subsection, not only as regards specific tenders and whether they are to be accepted or refused, but also on a much more sweeping type of matter, to consider—and these are the lines on which the Commission are to act in performing their duties under the subsection—how one of the main purposes of the Bill is to be carried out.

I suggest that the two bodies concerned represent different points of view or different aspects of the process of sale. The Commission will be concerned in disposing of their property and also with their obligations, partly connected with the railways of the country and partly as a large and, in some cases, rather special owner of permanent road services that, in one form or another or for one purpose or another, remain at their disposal directly and indirectly.

Therefore, the Commission's point of view is the point of view that affects the whole interests of the country, and the responsibilities which He on the Commission make it necessary for the Commission to look far beyond the mere business of each individual sale, and consider the transport system as a whole and, particularly of course, those parts of it for which it will remain responsible. I mean by that, the railway services and the road services which will have been retained.

The Board, on the other hand, is wholly and primarily—I was going to say "only" and I do not think that is too strong—a selling body, concerned with nothing else than the mere question of getting rid of their property as soon as possible at whatever may be the appropriate price. Therefore, there are going to be questions of difference between the Commission and the Board. The urge on the Commission's side will be the urge in favour of an efficient and reasonable transport system in spite of the Bill, and particularly to look after the Commission's own permanent interests, which are partly rail and partly road, while the urge on behalf of the Board will be a very simple one, to sell as quickly as possible.

It is one of the fundamental defects of the Bill that anybody should be put in the position in which the Board is put under the Bill, having regard to the need for an integrated transport system and to the importance of it to the country. However, there it is, and so long as that is the function of the Board, and so long as the Commission has these other and wider functions and responsibilities, there is bound to be a conflict from time to time. I am not talking about a conflict with regard to any specific invitation to tender but as to the general lines of selling policy.

6.0 p.m.

It is on that matter specifically, among others, that the Minister may issue directions and may decide between them. The Board, which is the selling agency, has to report from time to time what those directions are. Where the directions are simply, "You shall accept this bid" or, "You shall refuse this bid," I agree that we should be talking about the merest trifles if we sought to add in the Bill a stipulation that the compliance with the directions of the Minister was also reported. We are, however, going a long way beyond that, because not only is there the general question of the lines of selling policy, but, also, the Board and the Commission will both have to consider something that lies halfway between those two things.

It is for them to decide what rights, obligations and the like should be attached to a transport unit and what property should be composed in it. It seems now that it must necessarily be one of the matters comprised in lines settled from time to time. We have in the Lords Amendments, as was intimated earlier, another method of procedure—that is, the transfer of property to companies with a view to the sale of their shares. As regards that, we have among the Amendments one to which I shall not refer in any detail, a new Clause "A."

If we turn to that new Clause we find at the top of page 4 of the Lords Amendments subsection (6) of the new Clause as follows: If any difference arises between the Commission and the Board under this section, the Commission or the Board may refer the matter to the Minister and the Minister shall give such directions as he thinks fit and any directions so given by him shall be binding on the Commission and the Board. Unless I have misunderstood the intention, those directions also would have to be reported in the six-monthly or other report given by the Board and laid before this House.

When one looks at that new Clause, the matters there involved are also of a sweeping character and, in some ways, broadly parallel with what is involved in the original Bill. The Commission have to consider whether it is expedient to form these companies at all and, in so doing, they must have regard to matters which are the subject of other Amendments to which we shall come later and, broadly speaking, to this kind of question: how to dispose by way of these companies of road haulage in such a way as to deal best with the need for large units in order to maintain important food services and, on the other hand, the need for small units, if there is such a need, in order to give the small man a chance and, I am sure we should all agree, to avoid a monopoly.

I cannot at this stage go in detail into what we shall have to discuss later, but I hope I have said enough to indicate that the questions upon which directions will be given under the new Clause "A," if it is agreed to, will be at least as important, perhaps even more important, than those which arise under the existing Clause of the Bill and to which this Lords Amendment is to be attached.

In those circumstances, this is the point of this Amendment. If the Minister gives general directions, if indeed he gives any directions which amount to more than the mere question of the acceptance or refusal of some specific bid, is it at all reasonable that, when the Board are making the report, they should report those directions without saying what they have done to carry them out? It becomes even more important when one considers what will happen on a question of selling policy. On the advice given to him, and on his responsible consideration of the position, the Minister will no doubt give broad directions.

Yet, after all, one of the faults and one of the difficulties of this Bill is that the Minister necessarily has to combine the characters of a salesman of public property and a responsible Minister of Transport. In this matter it will be his responsibility to combine those two duties. He may be in proper, full Ministerial control of the transport system of this country, but it takes two to make a sale and he may tell the Commission and the Board between them that they ought to proceed in this way or that way about it, but it will lie with the prospective buyers or, if I may put it more accurately, with Mr. Gibson Jarvie and the United Dominions Trust, as to what extent the directions of the Minister can be or will be complied with.

After all, we are now putting ourselves into the curious position of being as it were the negotiators of a bargain which may or may not come off but which has to be discussed in this place in full beforehand. Well, let us have all the story. Let us know it from time to time by that report, and let us be able to raise questions in this House, not merely on what the Minister has said should be done but also on what it has proved practicable to do in compliance with his directions.

May I put it a little more generally? If we are merely to have the directions of the Minister without being told what is being done in compliance with them, a report of that kind is a standing invitation to the Minister to issue the vaguest and most general directions, because then nobody will be able to know publicly what the Board or the Commission have been able to do in order to carry them out, and those directions in that form will be the least susceptible to attack and criticism in this House.

I suggest that it will improve the character of the directions of the Minister in the difficult position in which he has necessarily placed himself under this Bill, and it will improve the proper Parliamentary control over this business of a bargain sale of public property, if we are told not merely the broad lines upon which the Minister desires the sale to proceed, but the extent to which, having regard to the buyers and the bankers and the rest of them, it is proved wise or practicable to follow out those lines.

For all those reasons, I urge the House to accept the Amendment. It is a great deal more than a formal matter, and if it is not put in there will be no reality in the concession that was made by the Government in another place, by which they undertook to include in the report the directions given by the Minister. Incidentally, they were not at that time asked to make this addition, because another addition was proposed—and I agree that some of the comments that were made on that proposed addition were not altogether misplaced. This addition, on the other hand, seems to me to be a natural and, indeed, a necessary addition to what is proposed by the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Lindgren

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has graphically and at some length explained the reason for the Amendment. Here we have public property being disposed of. It is appreciated that a Disposal Board having been set up to dispose of property of the Commission, there may at some time be a conflict between the Commission and their view as to disposal, and the Disposal Board who have the responsibility for carrying out the sale. In that event provision is made for a decision by the Minister, a direction to the Board, as to his view of the method of sale.

The Lords Amendment in line 18, page 4, is a concession in the right direction, in that where the Minister has given a direction it shall be recorded in the report of the Board. As I understand it, the directions of the Minister may be particular or may be of a general character. One would assume that if there is a dispute as between the Commission and the Board, it would really be on a matter of general character rather than on a particular issue.

Therefore, if a direction of a general character is given by the Minister, and if, as the Minister has agreed to through another place and by the Amendment, his direction shall be recorded in the report, surely it is equally important, urgent and fair to the Minister, to the Commission, to the Disposal Board and to effective Parliamentary control, as and when their report comes before the House if the House calls it for discussion, that the action taken by the Board in response to the Minister's direction should be detailed in the report.

Therefore, my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment will enhance the value of the concessions made by the Government in the Amendment of another place—which we accept as far as it goes—and we hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment as a step forward in giving greater effect and protection from his point of view and that of the House to the Board and to the Commission.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

This point can be fairly easily resolved. Hon. Members who followed the debates in another place—I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will remember this—will recall that the noble Lord—I think, Lord Silkin—moved on the Committee stage an Amendment to require the Minister to lay before Parliament a statement of all directions issued by the Minister and of any action taken by the Minister under the Bill, together with his reasons.

That would have been clearly impracticable. In the strict letter of the law, it would no doubt demand that every telephone conversation should have been recorded, and noble Lords on both sides in another place eventually came to that conclusion.

Mr. J. A. Sparks (Acton)

Is the Minister moving an Amendment?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I am replying to the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member, but it makes it more comprehensible to everybody if the House can see this matter very briefly in the setting which has led to the hon. and learned Member's Amendment. Perhaps now the hon. Member will follow with the assiduity that he normally shows.

It seems to us that the directions are a different matter. Under the 1947 Act, the Commission are obliged to publish in their annual report any directions issued to them, and this would now cover, of course, any directions issued under the present Bill when it becomes an Act. It seems to us reasonable to require the Disposal Board to do the same.

The hon. and learned Member wants to go a stage further. He wants the action that is taken to carry out the Minister's direction also to be recorded. It seems to me inconceivable that the Disposal Board would not draw attention to any action that they have taken in regard to matters of sufficient importance to be recorded. In order to make quite certain, however, I see no objection to accepting the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member has moved.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."

Mr. H. Morrison

I want to ask the Minister a question There are all sorts of stories about of premature efforts being made—officers of the Commission or the Board being seen—with a view to getting information which is related to the possible purchase of vehicles or parts of the undertaking. I understand also that the hauliers' association have already announced, in anticipation of the passing of the Act of Parliament, that they have appointed their representative or representatives on to the Disposal Board.

I do not know whether the Minister can give any information about this, but it seems to me undesirable that while Parliament has a Bill under consideration and before it is passed, prospective purchasers should go hopping about, like vultures or hungry animals of some sort, trying to get a hand on these undertakings before ever the Act of Parliament is passed. I should not have thought it was proper on their part to have selected representatives to sit on the Disposal Board before the Act of Parliament gives them authority to make such a selection. We ourselves do not think that these vested interests ought to sit on the Disposal Board at all. We hear all sorts of things about premature action which is producing a very unhealthy atmosphere.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I do not really know to what the right hon. Member refers or what relevance this has to the Lords Amendment we are discussing. It is unfortunate, but no doubt in this world it is almost inevitable that some people should take premature action in advance of a Bill which they are entitled to think is likely to become an Act of Parliament. But, as to the Disposals Board, the Road Haulage Association do not appoint them; I appoint them. I take from certain representative users and providers of transport more than one name and from lists submitted I choose the Disposals Board.

I have made no statement whatever in regard to my intentions in that matter, and I shall wait until, in the fullness of time, this Bill receives the Royal Assent. Then I hope very quickly to be able to make such a statement. I do not see how this ties up with the Lords Amendment. I thought the right hon. Member rose to say "thank you" to me for having accepted the Amendment moved by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). Perhaps he would like to say that now.

Mr. H. Morrison

Thank you. I do not know whether I should go on my bended knees and say "thank you," but I am glad that the Minister has on this occasion taken the very exceptional course of accepting an Opposition Amendment. I hope that what hitherto has been thoroughly exceptional will tend to become the rule.