HC Deb 09 March 1953 vol 512 cc841-3

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

68. Mr. D. JONES

To ask the Minister of Transport, whether, in view of the public interest shown in the matter, he will publish the report which he has received from the Central Transport Consultative Committee, dated 30th January, 1953.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I will, with permission, now answer Question No. 68.

I do not think that it would be proper to publish the document to which the hon. Member refers. It has not been submitted to me as a report, and in any case I am advised that the submission of any general report on the Bill is outside the competence of the Consultative Committee, as defined in Section 6 of the Transport Act, 1947. When visiting the Committee last autumn I did verbally express my willingness to consider comments from them on the Bill, but what I had in mind was to invite their views on Clause 27 which relates to their activities.

I have informed the Committee of my view about the limitations on matters on which it is proper for them to report, and this is, I understand, shared by some members of the Committee itself, and I have no doubt that the point will be considered by the Committee at their next meeting. In the meantime I cannot take cognisance of a document which has not been formally submitted to me as a report.

Mr. Jones

Will the right hon. Gentleman deny that on 14th October, according to Minute 242 of the Central Consultative Committee, he said he would be pleased to consider any suggestions the Committee wished to make on the provisions of the new Bill? Why did it take him all this time to find out about the report which was submitted to him on 7th February, signed by the Secretary of the Committee on 30th January, indicating their views about the Transport Bill? Have their views on the disposal of the road haulage undertakings and its consequences for the trade and industry of this country anything to do with his refusal to publish the report?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I made it quite plain when I met the Committee for the first time officially that I was anxious that they should have the opportunity to let me have any comments they might wish to make on the Clauses in the Bill relating to their own activities. Some doubt arose on the Committee whether I meant this to embrace the Bill as a whole. The Chairman of the Committee wrote to me to ask if this was so. I wrote to him, without any delay, on 5th February to say that was not so, and I was advised that it was not within their competence to comment on the Bill as a whole, their business being clearly with services provided by the Commission under such powers that they had for the time being.

Several Hon. Members rose

——

Mr. Speaker

The Prime Minister.

Mr. Manuel

On a point of order. You have allowed only one supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, on this Question, although four other hon. Members rose in their places. The matter is of sufficient importance to many of us to feel that another supplementary might have been allowed. Could I appeal to you to consider that?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member appears to be challenging my decision in the matter. The supplementary question which was asked by the hon. Member who put down the Question seemed a long one, and there was a long answer to it, and it seems to me that, if a matter of this sort is of the importance that the hon. Gentleman says it is, it should be raised at some other time, for it is not a proper question to be debated at Question time.

Mr. Manuel

Further to that point of order——

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot debate that now.

Mr. Manuel

I should like your guidance, Sir. You have indicated that the matter could be raised on some other occasion. Could I have your guidance as to how I could raise it and when I could raise it?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is well enough versed in the proceedings of the House to know when he can get an opportunity for himself.