HC Deb 18 July 1956 vol 556 cc1222-48
Lords Amendment

In page 6, line 24, after "section" insert: or under the next following section".

Mr. Watkinson

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

This is a drafting Amendment, arising from the addition of the new Clause A which will fall to be discussed in a moment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment

In page 6, line 28, at end insert:

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 7, to leave out from "exceed" to the end of subsection (1) and to insert: the difference between the number of vehicles to which subsection (1) of the last preceding section applies and the number of vehicles disposed of before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, under subsection (2) of the said section".

As you said, Mr. Speaker, the two Amendments are alternatives. The first would amend the Clause in such a way that it would be left to the Commission itself to determine how many vehicles it wishes to retain in reserve in connection with contract vehicles.

The Lords Amendment would, as I understand, mean that the Commission would be directed to retain a small float—a small reserve—of vehicles in its contract vehicle fleet. At present, it has a very large number of contracts with well-known firms such as Lyons, Cadbury's, and the like. It is obvious that some of those contract vehicles are often undergoing repair and maintenance, and it is necessary to call on other vehicles to do their work.

This matter was raised during the Committee stage, and from the Opposition benches it was very strongly pressed that the Commission was being put in a very difficult position inasmuch as it would have no reserve of vehicles to draw upon. Therefore, in another place, this proposed new Clause was moved by the Government, which seeks to permit the Commission to retain these additional vehicles, but the number has to be agreed by the Road Haulage Disposal Board and the Commission, or, in default of such agreement, by the Minister.

We do not consider it necessary that this decision should have to be reached by the Board in consultation with the Commission. Surely it is the Commission's responsibility to decide how many vehicles it requires to keep in reserve. As the Clause now reads, the Commission will not have licences for these reserve vehicles, but will use the licences which are attached to other vehicles when the reserve vehicles are required to be used.

Clearly, the total fleet in operation will never exceed the total number of vehicles for which contracts have been entered into. Our first Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment, in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, in line 5, which we would very much like to be accepted but which, I fear, will not appeal to the Government, would enable the Commission to retain as many vehicles in reserve as it considers necessary, purely for the purpose of fulfilling its contract operations. The purpose of our second Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 7, is to ensure that the Commission shall be able to retain all those contract vehicles which are not disposed of by the end of the current year.

During our debates, it became quite clear that the Commission would have to dispose of any contract vehicles where it had failed to obtain a renewal of its contracts. If one of the well-known firms to which I have referred were to decide not to renew its contract with the Commission, those vehicles which had previously been used by the Commission for carrying out that contract would have to be disposed of. It could easily happen that the Commission would enter into another contract with a different firm, but under the terms of the Bill it would not be possible for the Commission to transfer its vehicles from the contract which had expired and had not been renewed, and use them for another contract which it had entered into. It would have to dispose of the vehicles which it had been using, and purchase new vehicles to carry out another contract.

The Transport (Disposal of Road Haulage Property) Bill as it first came to the House provided that the Commission, in any circumstances where it had not succeeded in renewing a contract, could not use those vehicles for any other purpose but would have to dispose of them even if the Commission required to enter into fresh contracts. That seemed to us a most ridiculous provision, and in the course of passing through its various stages the Bill has been amended to some extent.

Even so, the Bill still provides that the Commission cannot retain contract vehicles which have been used to fulfil a certain contract if the contract is not renewed, but must dispose of them. That appears to us to be a ridiculous provision. The Commission has at its disposal good vehicles which it is using in competition with others in contract work. It makes tenders to obtain contracts in fair competition and on an equal basis with private enterprise. To its credit it has succeeded in obtaining a large number of contracts in fair competition with the private hauliers, and many of its contracts have been renewed.

3.45 p.m.

In the course of business, contracts vary and customers change, and the Commission loses some of its contracts, but at present, when contracts are lost, perfectly good vehicles have to be disposed of and new vehicles have to be purchased in order to carry on any new contracts. There cannot be any justification for that. It is a ridiculous performance, particularly at this time when the Commission has imposed upon it a severe capital restriction. The Commission is not allowed to spend more than a certain amount on new vehicles in the course of a year. It has agreed with the Minister how much can be used for new vehicles during the current year, and it is quite clear that it is thereby restricted in the number of new vehicles which it may purchase.

I therefore suggest that this proposed new Clause is not adequate for the purpose which we had in mind when the Minister gave an undertaking in Committee to look into this matter. He has gone a certain way to meet the views expressed from this side of the House, but, in our view, he has not gone far enough. I suggest that as a very minimum the right hon. Gentleman should accept our second Amendment which would mean, in effect, that at the end of this year any contract vehicles which stood in the possession of the Commission when contracts had not been renewed, would automatically remain the property of the Commission and could then be used by the Commission for whatever purpose it required in connection with its contract work.

Those contract vehicles would clearly be confined to contract work, but they would be available for fresh contracts, for substitution of vehicles where existing contracts were in operation, and the Commission would then be in the same position as any other private haulier. It would not hamstring or restrict, as would be the case as the Clause stands at present.

Mr. Frank McLeavy (Bradford, East)

I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) in his arguments on our first Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment, in line 5. It seems to me to be unfortunate that the Minister does not agree that the Transport Commission should decide for itself the number of vehicles which it ought to retain. The attitude of the Minister will react unfavourably against the development of the Transport Commission's services.

The second Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment, in line 7, has even greater force and certainly ought to be accepted. In these days, when the Transport Commission is being severely restricted financially in accordance with general Government policy, it is indefensible that the Commission should have to purchase new vehicles in order to carry out a new contract when, if the Minister had agreed, the Commission could have had a reserve of vehicles available for new contracts.

It is abominable that in an Act of Parliament the Commission should be compelled to dispose of vehicles which are temporarily out of service. We should leave the Commission to decide in its wisdom whether or not any vehicles which are surplus to immediate requirements should be disposed of. It seems to me to be tying down the Transport Commission in a most unhelpful way, and impeding its functions in fulfilling its very important responsibilities in the road transport system.

There ought to be some flexibility. There is an overwhelming case for saying that the Commission should retain what vehicles it requires, provided they are not licensed, and should be able to retain them so that it can either use them for spare parts and renewals to other vehicles or as a reserve to meet the emergencies which always arise in transport, the emergency of having an unusual amount of breakdowns in the fleet, for instance, when it would be necessary to transfer some of the licences in order to carry out contract responsibilities.

I do not think that the Minister will deny for one moment that the Transport Commission, with its vast fleet of vehicles, is a vital factor in our road transport system. To cramp its flexibility of operation in the way proposed by the Lords Amendment would be to do something which, to my mind, would be against the best interests of the industry.

If the position were reversed, and the Transport Commission were in the position of the Road Haulage Association, I question very much whether the Conservative Party would tolerate for one moment this interference with the freedom of the industry. We hear a lot from the Government about the utmost freedom being given to individuals and to industry. Here is a case where, not in the interests of national transport but in the interests of a small section of road hauliers, we are imposing restrictions and limitations which may do a great disservice to the industries of our country.

After all the appeals which have been made for greater productivity and for greater effort in order to extricate ourselves from the economic difficulties with which we are confronted, the proposal contained in this Lords Amendment does not seem to fit into the picture at all. It does not seem to ring true. It is no good the Government or the Prime Minister talking about the nation being in mortal peril or about the new "Battle of Britain" having to be won this time by the many and not by the few, if, on the other hand, we make it impossible, or try to make it less possible, shall I say, through this stupid Amendment, for the Transport Commission to carry out its responsibilities to the nation.

In conclusion, may I say that the transport unions are watching these things very carefully. We are watching them because we are anxious—just as anxious as the Government—that road transport shall continue to prosper, and that our transport undertakings shall play their part in the recovery of our industrial prosperity. We of the transport unions look upon this Amendment and the principle behind it as a retrograde step, not conducive to the best interests of the country. I hope that even at this eleventh hour the Minister will say he will try to end this nonsense and accept the Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment which was so well moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East.

Mr. James Harrison (Nottingham, North)

I should like to say a word or two in support of our Amendment. The Transport Commission is being very severely pressed financially at present, and looks like being in that position for some years to come. The Amendment which we propose will make for economy in the operation of this valuable service to small-scale private traders. I hope that the Minister will look very carefully at what we suggest. Our Amendment does take the matter considerably further than does the Lord's Amendment, and will provide for a very necessary economy in the overall structure of the Transport Commission.

I should like to draw attention to a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). He said that these vehicles will remain the property of the Transport Commission. That ought to be qualified, I think, in this way. If this Amendment is carried, the vehicles will automatically remain the property of the Commission, but, should the Commission decide to dispose of that property, it is perfectly at liberty to do so. We are thus appealing for greater freedom for the Commission in this particularly trying time.

Mr. Watkinson

Perhaps I should, as briefly as I can, explain the facts behind the Amendment which was moved in another place, because it does represent the honouring of a pledge which I gave this House, and it is a considerable concession to the British Transport Commission.

The background is this. Originally, under the 1953 Act, the Commission was given no latitude at all as to the action it took with these contract hire vehicles; it had to dispose of them. By this Bill, a considerable change is made, it being decided by this House that contract hire vehicles could be retained, provided the contract—I want to be fair and say, providing the contract for which they were originally hired—was maintained and retained by the Commission.

When we discussed this matter in Committee, it was put by several hon. Members opposite, I think, that the Commission had been accustomed to having a float of about 100 vehicles which it used, quite properly, as replacements for contract hire vehicles when they were under repair, and so forth. The present proposal in the Lords Amendment—and we ought to be quite clear about this, first, because it is an important concession—is that a figure shall be agreed between the Commission and the Disposal Board, or, failing agreement there, it shall come to me, as to the number of vehicles which the Commission may retain as a necessary float to manage its contract hire fleet.

While it is not for me to decide the number, I do not think that it would be unreasonable to assume that the number will be about 60 vehicles, as compared with the 100 vehicles which the Commission had originally. I do, therefore, say that this is quite a considerable concession.

Mr. G. R. Strauss

Could the Minister explain why the number should be 60, when it has been 100? Why the reduction?

Mr. Watkinson

The reduction comes about because the actual fleet of contract hire vehicles has been reduced, as I think the right hon. Gentleman knows. I have the figures here, if he wishes me to give them. It was originally about 1,800 vehicles. That is the peak of the contract hire fleet; at its greatest, it was 1,800. It has been reduced to about 1,300, and that came about really under the 1953 Act, because that was the beginning of the disposal of the contract hire fleet, which was then stopped by this Bill. There is now a contract hire fleet of 1,300, and I am advised that the Commission might retain of that 1,300 about two-thirds. In other words, it might retain about two-thirds of the contracts and would therefore retain about two-thirds of the vehicles.

4.0 p.m.

Therefore, putting it all on the same basis, it seems to me not illogical to assume, although I cannot commit the Disposal Board as to this, that the size of the float that will be agreed will be in the nature of about 60 vehicles.

Mr. Ernest Davies

Can we get the numbers correct? I have with me the fifth Report of the Road Haulage Disposal Board, in which the figure of contract hire vehicles for which the Minister's consent has already been given to a special rate under the 1953 Act is 1,982. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a figure of 1,800, and it would appear that there has been a greater reduction than he has stated.

Mr. Watkinson

I will have the figures checked. I was advised that the figure was 1,800 but, on the other hand, I am sure that that Report was not wrong. If the figure is in excess 1,900 or more, the important point for the House to consider is the size of float that is likely to be left for the contract hire fleet. I am advised that the figure which might be agreed would be about 60 vehicles, which, I think, is not an unreasonable number.

Mr. Harrison

What is the value of intruding into the business of the Transport Commission to that extent for so few vehicles?

Mr. Watkinson

I was coming to that.

On the wider issue, first there are one or two other facts which should be considered. It is said that it will be a great burden and illogical upon the Commission to have to sell these lorries if it does not regain the contracts. The hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy), who is an expert on this matter, knows, however, that in most cases a new vehicle goes with a new contract. In most cases, a trader says that he must have a new vehicle to start a contract hire arrangement. Therefore, in the normal course of business, it often happens that a lorry or box vehicle is sold at the end of a contract because the new contract demands a new vehicle. Indeed, a contract itself is often for the useful life of a vehicle. I do not know, therefore, that there is a great deal in that point from a practical point of view.

Mr. McLeavy

While, in some cases, a new contract might insist upon new vehicles, it may well be that in negotiations between the Transport Commission and a new contract hirer it is pointed out that, because of the economic position and the financial restrictions imposed by the Treasury, it would be in the interests of the country that a new vehicle should not be bought. If vehicles are not licensed except for a new contract, why should we not leave to the Commission the decision whether it should use the old vehicles by agreement with the new contractor or should buy new vehicles?

Mr. Watkinson

That is the other side of the point. One takes either one view or the other. My view is that we must leave on the Commission the responsibility for selling these vehicles if it does not renew the contract. I am only saying that that is to some extent reinforced by normal commercial practice.

The main point which is before the House is whether the Government and whether I have implemented the pledge which I gave. I think I can fairly say that I have implemented it, because the float of vehicles which will be agreed will be a reasonable float in relation to the size of the contract hire fleet which the Commission will retain. Therefore, in those circumstances, I have no option but to advise the House to reject the Amendments and the one that goes with it.

Mr. G. R. Strauss

The Minister has not in the slightest degree met the point which we now have in mind and which we are trying to press upon the Government. He has, it is true, met the point which was raised in Committee about the need for a float. We consider that it is wrong for him to try to restrict this and to dictate to the Commission what the size of the float should be. He shows the usual mistrust of the business intelligence and wisdom of the Commission in telling it what float it should have, as if the Commission is not capable of deciding itself what will be economic. Why should it want a bigger float than is necessary?

On the other point which we raised in Committee, and which I must now press further, the Minister has not met us at all. The Bill as it stands creates a quite ridiculous situation which nobody can possibly justify. The right hon. Gentleman in his earlier statement today said he wanted to apply to the Commission the principles of enlightened private enterprise. I invite the House to consider the principles which the Minister is now insisting that the Commission shall adopt.

The contract for contract vehicles may be for a year, two years or some other period. There are contracts with the various big firms—Lyons, Cadbury's, A.B.C. and all kinds of others—who use these vehicles for their purposes, but the Commission runs the vehicles for them. These are the contract vehicles. Many of the contracts will fall in between now and the end of the year. That is the point with which we are dealing. I do not know the exact number—it may be some hundreds—but the contracts will come to an end.

It may well be that some of the contracts will be renewed and some firms may want to make other arrangements or run their own vehicles. Other firms may say, "We should like to enter into a contract with you for doing the same sort of work, with the same kind of vehicles, and using the vehicles which you now have on your hands as a result of the other firm not renewing its contract." According to the principles, not only of enlightened private enterprise but of common sense, the Commission should be able to say, "Very well. These vehicles which we are no longer using for, say, Lyons, we will now use for Cadbury's. All that is necessary is to paint the vehicles a different colour and to put on the name of Cadbury instead of Lyons." I take these names at random. That would be the economic and wise thing to do.

The Government, however, are insisting that if Lyons say that they do not want these contract vehicles any longer, they must sell the vehicles, although the manager who organises this side of the work may have on his desk an application from Cadbury's for exactly the same number of vehicles under a new contract. The Minister's intention is that the old vehicles which Lyons had been using must be sold and new ones bought for Cadbury's. That is the situation as we understand it, and we have very carefully studied the Bill and the new Clauses which have been passed in the Lords. That is why we have introduced our Amendments.

If we have misinterpreted the position, as is quite possible, the Minister will no doubt tell us, but we suggest that the present situation and the present proposal put before the House by the Government are wholly indefensible, wholly uneconomic, contrary to the principles of all business, whether private or public, and should be rejected by the House.

It is for that reason that we strongly urge that our Amendments to the proposed Lords Amendment should be accepted and that the House should reject this bit of ridiculous nonsense which stems from the distrust by the Government—I am not sure whether by the Minister or by his back bench supporters—of giving the Commission freedom to do anything at all, and their desire to restrict and hamper it in every way. This proposal by the Government should be replaced by the common-sense suggestion incorporated in our Amendments that the Commission should be allowed to use the vehicles which become surplus because one contract comes to an end for a new contract when the new contractor wants similar or identical vehicles. I hope, therefore, that the House will support our Amendments.

Mr. David Jones (The Hartlepools)

I am wondering whether we can describe the conduct of the Minister as that of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. I am not quite sure whether he is now behaving as Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde. Earlier today he talked about having amicable consultations with the British Transport Commission, and some of his hon. Friends suggested that in the not distant future it might be possible for the Commission, bringing into the account all of its undertakings together, to break even. How does the right hon. Gentleman expect to get the co-operation of the other sections of the Commission's undertakings when he adopts this attitude to one of them?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) has just pointed out that these contracts are for varying periods and that they fall out at various times of the year. They are for varying sizes and varying numbers of vehicles. If I understood the Minister correctly, he said a moment or two ago that, irrespective of the circumstances prevailing and regardless of whether or not, when a contract ended, there was another firm prepared to enter into a contract for the use of the vehicles, the vehicles no longer required for the previous contract had to be sold as chattels in the secondhand market.

The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as we do that the kind of business to which these contracts relate has been increasing during recent years. More and more firms are realising that the handling of vehicles, the servicing of vehicles, is a specialised job which they have considerable difficulty in finding space and manpower to do themselves. They find added advantage in having their vehicles put in first-class condition on the roads first thing in the morning, having been already serviced by somebody else. They can anticipate, in consequence of such contractual arrangements, that the vehicles will be ready to provide them with the services they require day by day.

There are contracts for as short a period as two years, and a contracted vehicle may have been new when the contract was started. Yet the right hon. Gentleman says that if a contract falls out at the end of two years, although the contract vehicle is only two years old, and regardless of whether or not there is another firm willing to take up the contract, the vehicle has to be sold in the second-hand market. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, all that is required to make the vehicle ready for a new contract is to paint out the name of one firm and to paint in the name of the newly contracting party. Yet the Commission is to be obliged to put the vehicle on the market for sale at the best price it can get.

It is a second-hand vehicle, anyhow, and the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as we do that the bottom is falling out of the second-hand market. Yet the Commission is to be compelled to sell as chattels in the second-hand market vehicles which it could put to good use for another six or eight years under new contracts. It is to sell them regardless of their value and for any price it can get. Somebody has to make up that difference to the Commission, perhaps by the continuation of the levy for a longer period. Somebody will get a bargain, a good article cheaply.

That is the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, and yet he has probably to meet the railway people, and to plead with the leaders of the three railway trade unions to ask their members to give of their best to make the railway part of the Commission's undertakings a success. They will read in the newspapers that the Commission has been forced to sell vehicles on the market at half their value. Is this the kind of thing the Minister has in mind when he talks of the best principles of private enterprise? This kind of thing will not do.

The right hon. Gentleman refused earlier today to tell us what the anticipated deficit will be at the end of the year. I will tell him. It will be nearer £120 million than £115 million. We know for certain that it was £70 million at the end of last year, and all the people best qualified to do so who have examined the accounts expect that it will be another £45 million by 31st December. That makes at least £115 million.

4.15 p.m.

Does the right hon. Gentleman really expect by this sort of behaviour to get the best out of the people engaged in this industry, whether on the roads or on the rails, in the docks, or in coastwise shipping? What is the use of the Prime Minister making his appeals at week-ends when other Ministers do this kind of thing merely to satisfy the back benchers on their side of the House? Why does not the Minister stand up to his back benchers and tell them that this undertaking has to pay its way? I propose, with my right hon. Friend's approval, to go into the Lobby in support of this Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment.

Mr. Norman Cole (Bedfordshire, South)

There are three things that can be said in answer to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss). I shall state them briefly, First, this is not such a major matter as he and hon. Members opposite wish to make it out to be. We all know that there are many new contracts which demand new vehicles, and not only new vehicles, but vehicles of special types. For those contracts second-hand vehicles used for other contracts are not suitable by age, type or design.

Secondly, as I listened most carefully, as I always do, to the right hon. Gentleman I was forced to the opinion that he was—and I think he knew he was—over-simplifying the matter. The firms about which he talked do not simply go to one contractor. They seek competitive tenders from several enterprises, private and nationalised. The right hon. Gentleman was naive in drawing that simple picture of a contract lying on the desk of somebody in the British Transport Commission, waiting only for a signature, or a quotation and a signature. It did not deceive any of us. What firms do is this. They seek from private enterprise and the Commission competitive tenders, and they accept what they regard as the best tenders for the carriage of their goods.

Thirdly—and I will be blunt about this—we want private enterprise to have an equal crack of the whip with the Commission, and we want the Commission to have an equal crack of the whip with private enterprise.

Mr. G. R. Strauss

Would the hon. Gentleman then suggest that if a private enterprise firm has a contract by which it carries someone else's goods, and the contract comes to an end, the firm should be obliged to put its vehicles on the market to sell, and that it should be impossible for that company to contract for their use by some other company?

Mr. Cole

There are two complete answers to that. The first is that for many contracts different types of vehicles are needed. The second is the argument which I have put many times in Committee upstairs and on the Floor of the House, that the British Transport Commission vis-à-vis a private enterprise firm is a giant, a giant in comparison with the much smaller enterprise, so that the comparison is not valid. A private enterprise man may have to buy new vehicles. What we are aiming at is putting the Commission on a private enterprise efficiency basis, and keeping private enterprise on a competitively efficient basis.

Finally, I come to something to which hon. and right hon. Members opposite are very careful not to refer. They wrap a blanket of silence around it, and yet it is most important in the consideration of this matter. If the Amendment made in another place were not in the Bill, what would happen in the general pool of the Transport Commission to vehicles released from a contract which came to an end and not allocated to a new contract? That is what we on this side of the House should like to know.

Mr. McLeavy

rose—

Mr. Cole

I do not think that many hon. Members could tell me that authoritatively.

Mr. McLeavy

I am very sorry that the hon. Member should make that statement, because in the course of my speech I made the very point to the Minister himself. I will repeat it for the benefit of the hon. Member, who apparently was not listening when I was speaking. I suggested to the Minister that these vehicles would not be licensed in any case, because they would be surplus to requirements. The Commission would be allowed to retain them in case of exceptional breakdowns in the system of service and possibly to use them as spare parts for the repair of other vehicles, which would be cheaper than sending them to auction. That is the answer, and I am sorry the hon. Member was not listening.

Mr. Cole

It was not a question of not listening. I did not happen to be in the Chamber at that moment, but the hon. Member has still not disposed of the question whether these vehicles might be used in an emergency in the general pool of the Transport Commission. Secondly, does the hon. Member really think that it is an indication of business efficiency to keep what, according to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), will presumably be a large number of vehicles immobilised, up against the wall, unlicensed, with all that that means in immobilised capital, and their only destiny to be cannibalised for the repair of other vehicles?

Mr. McLeavy

It is sound business practice to allow the undertaking to decide for itself and not to impose a decision upon it.

Mr. Cole

There would be a large number of vehicles which are not to be used by the Commission, not to be licensed, only to be used in emergency in the event of a breakdown and otherwise kept against the wall for no useful purpose and the keeping of tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds

of capital locked up for no purpose. We should enable the Commission to run its affairs on a private efficiency basis. I hope that the House will agree with the Lords Amendment and will reject the Amendment moved by the Opposition.

Mr. Watkinson

The first Opposition Amendment is clearly a wrecking Amendment because it destroys the whole purpose of the Lords Amendment and, indeed, of the Clause. The second Opposition Amendment would allow the Commission to retain another 500 vehicles, which, again, is outside the purpose of the Bill. Therefore, despite this very interesting debate, I must continue to advise the House to reject the Opposition Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 165.

Division No. 265.] AYES [4.24 p.m.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Davidson, Viscountess Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Alport, C. J. M. Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery) Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Digby, Simon Wingfield Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Dodds-Parker, A. D. Hirst, Geoffrey
Armstrong, C. W. Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Holland-Martin, C. J.
Ashton, H. Drayson, G. B. Holt, A. F.
Astor, Hon. J. J. du Cann, E. D. L. Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Atkins, H. E. Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Horobin, Sir Ian
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Baldwin, A. E. Duthie, W. S. Howard, John (Test)
Barber, Anthony Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Barlow, Sir John Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Barter, John Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Baxter, Sir Beverley Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Farey-Jones, F. W. Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Fell, A. Hyde, Montgomery
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Finlay, Graeme Iremonger, T. L.
Bidgood, J. C. Fisher, Nigel Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Bishop, F. P. Fort, R. Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Braine, B. R. Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale) Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Freeth, D. K. Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Joseph, Sir Keith
Brooman-White, R. C. Gammans, Sir David Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Garner-Evans, E. H. Keegan, D.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. George, J. C. (Pollok) Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Burden, F. F. A. Godber, J. B. Kerr, H. W.
Butcher, Sir Herbert Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan Kirk, P. M.
Campbell, Sir David Gower, H. R. Lagden, G. W.
Carr, Robert Graham, Sir Fergus Lambert, Hon. G.
Cary, Sir Robert Grant-Ferris, Wg-Cdr. R. (Nantwich) Lambton, Viscount
Channon, H. Green, A. Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Gresham Cooke, R. Leavey, J. A.
Cole, Norman Grimond, J. Leburn, W. G.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert Gurden, Harold Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Cooper-Key, E. M. Hall, John (Wycombe) Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) Linstead, Sir H. N.
Corfield, Capt. F. V. Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Crouch, R. F. Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd) Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Longden, Gilbert
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Cunningham, Knox Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Currie, G. B. H. Henderson, John (Cathcart) Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)
Dance, J. C. G. Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Macdonald, Sir Peter Pickthorn, K. W. M. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
McKibbin, A. J. Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Teeling, W.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Powell, J. Enoch Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Profumo, J. D. Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)
McLean, Neil (Inverness) Raikes, Sir Victor Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Rawlinson, Peter Touche, Sir Gordon
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Redmayne, M. Tweedsmuir, Lady
Maddan, Martin Renton, D. L. M. Vosper, D. F.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Ridsdale, J. E. Wade, D. W.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) Rippon, A. G. F. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Markham, Major Sir Frank Robertson, Sir David Walker-Smith, D. C.
Marlowe, A. A. H. Roper, Sir Harold Wall, Major Patrick
Mathew, R. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Maude, Angus Russell, R. S. Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Mawby, R. L. Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Sharples, R. C. Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh Soames, Capt. C. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Moore, Sir Thomas Spearman, Sir Alexander Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Nairn, D. L. S. Stevens, Geoffrey Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.) Wood, Hon. R.
Nield, Basil (Chester) Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.) Woollam, John Victor
Oakshott, H. D. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. Yates, William (The Wrekin)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. Studholme, Sir Henry TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Page, R. G. Summers, Sir Spencer Mr. Legh and Mr. Bryan.
NOES
Ainsley, J. W. Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Albu, A. H. Gibson, C. W. Mort, D. L.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Moss, R.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Greenwood, Anthony Moyle, A.
Awbery, S. S. Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Oram, A. E.
Bacon, Miss Alice Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Orbach, M.
Balfour, A. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Oswald, T.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Owen, W. J.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) Hannan, W. Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.) Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Beswick, F. Hastings, S. Palmer, A. M. F.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Hayman, F. H. Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Blackburn, F. Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) Pargiter, G. A.
Blenkinsop, A. Herbison, Miss M. Parker, J.
Blyton, W. R. Hobson, C. R. Paton, John
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Holmes, Horace Pearson, A.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.) Hoy, J. H. Plummer, Sir Leslie
Bowles, F. G. Hubbard, T. F. Popplewell, E.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Brockway, A. F. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Probert, A. R.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Pryde, D. J.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Hunter, A. E. Randall, H. E.
Burke, W. A. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Rankin, John
Burton, Miss F. E. Irving, S. (Dartford) Redhead, E. C.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Reeves, J.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Janner, B. Reid, William
Carmichael, J. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Champion, A. J. Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Chetwynd, G. R. Jones,Rt.Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Clunie, J. Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Kenyon, C. Snow, J. W.
Crossman, R. H. S. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Sorensen, R. W.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) King, Dr. H. M. Stones, W. (Consett)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Ledger, R. J. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Deer, G. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
de Freitas, Geoffrey Lindgren, G. S. Sylvester, G. O.
Delargy, H. J. Logan, D. G. Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Dodds, N. N. Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Timmons, J.
Donnelly, D. L. McGovern, J. Turner-Samuels, M.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. McKay, John (Wallsend) Viant, S. P.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) McLeavy, Frank Warbey, W. N.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Mahon, Simon Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.) Wheeldon, W. E.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Mann, Mrs. Jean White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Fernyhough, E. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Fienburgh, W. Mikardo, Ian Wilkins, W. A.
Forman, J. C. Mitchison, G. R. Williams, David (Neath)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Monslow, W. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Moody, A. S.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley) Winterbottom, Richard
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) Woof, R. E. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.) Younger, Rt. Hon. K. Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) Zilliacus, K.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. G. R. Strauss

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the said Amendment, in line 10, to leave out subsection (2).

4.30 p.m.

Here, again, I feel that the Government are behaving foolishly and once more showing their distrust of the Commission. They are saying, in effect, that every time one of the vehicles which will be operating under contract goes for repair and one of the reserve vehicles is put in its place, the Commission or the British Road Service Contract Company will have to go through the paraphernalia and the nuisance of applying for a licence for the relief vehicle before it can operate. As, presumably, that will happen frequently, it seems to be putting an unnecessary and foolish burden on the Commission and, maybe, on the licensing authorities as well.

We suggest, therefore, that this subsection is unnecessary. Since the Minister has himself taken powers to restrict the number of reserve vehicles which the Commission is allowed to run, although it was unlikely to want an excess number of vehicles, we feel that this provision is contrary to all reason.

The Minister said that he would apply to the Commission the principles of enlightened private enterprise, but I suggest that here, as in the previous Clause to which we moved an Amendment, these are not principles of enlightened private enterprise but principles of Bedlam. Would not it be far wiser to leave the organisation and arrangement of such detailed technical matters to the unfettered control of the Commission? The Government ought to trust it rather than make it go to the unnecessary trouble which is being forced upon it by this objectionable subsection.

Mr. J. Harrison

With every respect, I want to differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss). He has suggested that the provisions of this Bill, even as amended in another place, are principles of bedlam when applied to the contract carrying business of the British Transport Commission. I do not believe they are principles of Bedlam. I believe they have been deliberately put into the Bill especially to contract the operations of road haulage under the British Transport Commission.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) mentioned equality of opportunity. I believe that these Clauses are designed deliberately to handicap road haulage carried on by the Commission, and thereby to give private enterprise a chance to get in. Our experience of the operations of British Road Haulage undertakings is that they have been able to beat private enterprise when operating on level terms. That is why I say that these are not principles of Bedlam but have been deliberately designed by the Government to hinder road haulage undertakings under the Commission, and so I hope that my hon. Friends will press this Amendment.

Mr. McLeavy

I support this Amendment strongly. I think there is a case here for the Minister to consider whether, even if the vehicles in question retain the licence, they will not be able to operate until new contracts have been obtained or are to be used in substitution of other vehicles. If I am wrong, perhaps the Minister will correct me?

I do not know whether it would be correct to say that the A licences could lie in abeyance—which means that they would not be usable—until the British Transport Commission wanted to use them either to replace existing vehicles or to carry out a new contract.

As I see it, the position is that the A licence would be revoked immediately, and then the Commission, if it wished to use the vehicles at a later date to meet its requirements, would have to go through the formality of applying to the licensing authority to get the vehicles relicensed. It seems to be a clumsy method. I should have thought that the Minister's point would have been amply satisfied if he had merely said that the licences could not be used unless for the purposes laid down in the Bill.

It is important that we should cut down unnecessary administrative costs and unnecessary employment in administration. In the case of A licences for vehicles where a contract has ceased, it seems to me that a lot of clerical work by the Commission and the licensing authority would be avoided if the licences were left with the Commission and sufficiently strong provisions were incorporated—I believe it is so laid down in the Bill—to prevent the Commission from using the licences except for the replacement of other vehicles or for new contracts.

It seems to me that a lot of absolutely unnecessary work and complication is being created. I would urge the Minister to look at the matter again. We ought to do everything we can, even in this small way, to reduce wasted clerical work by the Commission, the licensing authority and the Ministry. Economy in manpower would result from the accumulation of administrative economies of this kind. The Government should set a lead to industry in economising in this way. I was always taught that very often a person who economises in small things economises in large things as well. I hope the Government will endeavour to avoid unnecessary duplication and leave the Commission in peace to get on with the magnificent work that it is doing for industry.

Mr. D. Jones

The Minister advanced the thin argument that the last Amendment was a wrecking one. He cannot say that about this Amendment, which stands entirely by itself.

The Minister is proposing to make it permissible for a number of vehicles in excess of the statutory requirements at any given date to be made over to the companies. However, that is not to be decided by the Commission. Already the Road Haulage Disposal Board and the Commission are to agree on the number of additional vehicles to be handed over. So far as it goes, that is all right, but, even at that point, if there is disagreement, the Minister comes into the picture and decides what the number shall be. Therefore, the Minister in the first place has a right indirectly to decide what number of spare vehicles shall be carried. In case the Minister later retorts that that is the business of the Road Haulage Disposal Board, I would remind him that in a very short time he or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be moving an Order to bring the Board to an end on 28th August. Therefore, from the time this business starts—

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Watkinson

The decision as to the numbers will be taken before the Board ends its duties.

Mr. Jones

I am glad the Minister has said that. It is an additional reason for an Amendment. If all the work is to be done beforehand, there is no need to give the Minister a residual power in the event of disagreement.

The right hon. Gentleman will decide how many spare vehicles a company shall be entitled to hold. So far as it goes, that seems to be reasonable and in keeping with enlightened principles of free enterprise. However, the Minister goes on to say that not only is the Board going to decide in advance how limited the spare vehicles shall be but it is to be made as awkward as possible for the company to use the spare vehicles.

The Amendment says: Where any vehicles are made over to a company under this section, any A licence under which they were authorised to be used before they are so made over shall cease to have effect. … Therefore, even if an A licence existed right up to the day before a vehicle was made over, it would cease to have effect, and every time such vehicles were afterwards used as replacements the company would have to go to the trouble of applying to the licensing authority.

It might happen that a vehicle is required only to replace one vehicle for a short time. If that vehicle again becomes spare for a week, does it mean that the A licence obtained three weeks previously is then null and void, and the company has to go through the whole process again? If in a period of 52 weeks the vehicle is used temporarily to replace ten or a dozen vehicles already operating in the fleet, does it mean that the company has to make ten or a dozen applications to the licensing authority? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind when he speaks about the enlightened principles of private enterprise?

I rather incline to the view expounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. J. Harrison) that the provision is designed simply to harass the Commission and the companies over which it has control. There can be no other reason for it. Deletion of the provision would not affect the primary purpose of the Clause. It cannot even be argued that this would wreck the Bill. All that it is seeking is to do what the ordinary companies would do, faced as they are with the difficulties which arise in any modern transport concern of having to replace vehicles at short notice when carrying a limited number of vehicles which could be used instantaneously to replace vehicles in the fleet.

The right hon. Gentleman ought not to harass the Commission to this extent if he wants to get from it and from employers the co-operation which he talks about, both in this House and in the country. He should look at this matter again and not make it almost impossible for the Commission to operate on up-to-date commercial lines. If he really meant what he said when he talked about the enlightened principles of private enterprise being applied to nationalised undertakings, he will give the Commission at least a reasonable chance in the open market to do this job properly. If he accepts this Amendment, it will not wreck his Bill nor wreck his new Clause; it will merely bring it in line with modern commercial practice.

Mr. Watkinson

It has been fascinating to sit here and listen to this very interesting debate and to realise that it would never have arisen at all if it were not for the fact that I had given a considerable concession to the Opposition in this part of the Bill. It does not appear to be welcome. That is no doubt the lot of those who try to give concessions to their opponents and perhaps it indicates that we should not give them. There does not seem to be much gratitude for what is, after all, quite a major concession.

All that I would say on this Amendment—which is a very proper Amendment to put forward—is that all that the proposals seek to do is to put upon the Commission the normal commercial practice which any other operator of a hire fleet of this kind would have to perform. That is that he has to obtain an ordinary A licence under the ordinary procedure of the 1933 Act for vehicles when he wants to bring them from reserve or use them in substitution while a vehicle is being repaired. There is nothing special or novel about that.

Mr. D. Jones

Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that he does not know of a single ordinary commercial firm which carries A-licensed vehicles in excess of its daily demands?

Mr. Watkinson

I am not saying anything of the kind. I was saying that the purpose of this proposal, which is a substantial concession to the British Transport Commission, and should really help it in the operation of its contract hire fleet, is what is done under the normal commercial arrangement of A licences as applied in the normal commercial private hire field, and it is on those grounds that I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

The Amendment would also, incidentally, if I were prepared to accept it, further delay the Bill. I think that perhaps the Opposition and myself are on common ground in wanting to get this settled—and I agree with the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) in saying this—in order that the Commission may get on with its very necessary job of providing a better service and, indeed, a very good service to industry. So I must advise the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Ernest Davies

The Minister has rejected our Amendment with the minimum number of words and with the minimum amount of argument. He said that he had made a "substantial" concession, and he also used the word "major" concession. The House should bear in mind what is this major concession.

The right hon. Gentleman told us, in replying to our earlier discussion on a former Amendment, that it was 60 vehicles. Here is the British Road Service to be left with some 7,750 vehicles for its general haulage and some 1,300 as contract vehicles and for the present its parcels and meat services, and now he is making a concession of 60 small contract vehicles.

Mr. Watkinson

It is the relation between 60; and I must make it plain that I am not committed to that exact number of 60, as against 100. That is a substantial proportion of 100.

Mr. Davies

I do not agree. When the Commission decided, as it did in the past, that it required 100 vehicles as a reserve for its contract fleet, and that contract fleet has been again reduced by the action of Government concessions from 1,900 vehicles to 1,300, the Minister, by reducing the float from 100 to 60, is reducing it out of proportion to the reduction in the total fleet. Surely a float of 60 is not a large reserve for some 1,300 vehicles.

What I do not understand is that the Minister informed us that the Disposal Board is going to fix the number of these vehicles before it is dissolved on 28th August. Will the Board know by 28th August how many contract vehicles are to be left with the Commission? So far as I understand it, until the end of the year the Commission has to renew its contracts or put up the vehicles available for disposal, and by the end of August it will not necessarily know how many of these vehicles are to be left with it.

There are, I believe, some 500 vehicles which are still uncertain and for which the renewal of contracts has not yet been completed. It may be that most of these will be required but, on the other hand, some will be put up for disposal. So to fix this reserve at 60 on, presumably, a rigid, inflexible basis seems to be treating the Commission rather unfairly. Although there is a concession of about 60 vehicles, what we are arguing about is purely the question whether these 60 vehicles shall have A licences or not, if they happen to have them at the present time. That is all that we are asking the Minister to concede.

We must get this matter in proportion. Although we are cutting down the Commission by this great number of vehicles for disposal, although the Minister has whittled down the number which he is allowing it to retain by taking 7½ per cent. of its vehicles away and fixing its tonnage at a level which means that it loses another 100 vehicles, and although he is refusing to allow the Commission to take over vehicles with C licences and reducing the total fleet below that originally proposed when the Bill was originally introduced, he is refusing the Commission 60 A licences for its contract vehicles. This is a pretty mean action on the part of the Minister.

The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have any sense of proportion in regard to British Road Services and the road haulage fleet of the British Transport Commission. All we are asking is that where the Commission is transferring to its reserve these 60 or more vehicles, if they carry licences at the present time they shall be allowed to continue to have those licences. It will then be saved the trouble of applying to the licensing authority every time one of its contract vehicles goes out of service for repair or maintenance and it substitutes one of the reserve vehicles. It will have all the bureaucratic administrative bother of applying to the licensing authority and obtaining the necessary formal permission. That is an unnecessary labour imposed on the Commission, and I think that the Minister should not treat the Commission with such contempt as he does.

The right hon. Gentleman said that this would further delay the Bill. That is not quite a fair argument, because he knows full well that if this Amendment were carried there are arrangements whereby this House and another place get together and decide on whether they shall accept the Amendment or not. If they accept it, then the Bill can receive the Royal Assent in the usual way. It is quite clear that between now and the Summer Recess there is time for the necessary arrangements to be made for the Bill to receive the Royal Assent as now planned.

I do not think that there is any argument in that for rejecting the Amendment. The Minister is rejecting it because he dare not make this further minor concession for fear of the back benchers who have caused him to whittle down the number of vehicles which the Commission is to retain.