HC Deb 18 July 1956 vol 556 cc1249-52
Lords Amendment

In page 10, line 39, at end insert: .—(1) For the purposes of the definition of the expression "holding company" in subsection (3) of section twelve of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, the Commission shall be deemed to be a company, and the said section twelve (both as originally enacted and as applied by any subsequent enactment, whether passed before or after the passing of this Act) shall have effect accordingly. (2) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of subsection (7) of section five of the Transport Act, 1953 (which relates to the application of the said section twelve where property is made over to a company under that section).

Mr. Watkinson

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

This Amendment is a clear gain to the Commission and removes an anomaly which, quite frankly, I and my advisers should have seen before. Section 1 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, states: … no person shall use a goods vehicle … except under a licence. It defines "use" by saying: … the person whose agent or servant the driver is, shall, … be deemed to be the person by whom the vehicle is being used. One of the effects of that provision is that drivers employed by one company or person may not drive a vehicle owned by another company or person.

The Amendment enables the Commission to save money and labour by making the most efficient use of its driving staff where two or more of its subsidiary companies use the same depot. For instance, if B.R.S. (Pickfords) Ltd., as a result of sickness, finds itself short of staff, a spare driver of B.R.S. Ltd. which is a separate company could be used to drive one of the Pickford vehicles. This is a sensible new Clause, and I hope that it will be accepted.

Mr. D. Jones

Is the right hon. Gentleman now telling us that if the new Clause is accepted companies controlled by the Transport Commission will be permitted to exchange their drivers? They cannot exchange their vehicles without applying for a new A licence to do so.

Mr. G. R. Strauss

That surely is so. It is a strange anomaly, but I think that the Minister might comment and say whether my hon. Friend is correct, as I am sure he is.

Mr. Watkinson

That is the purpose of the new Clause, but it has nothing to do with vehicles.

Mr. G. Lindgren (Wellingborough)

Will the Minister give us a little more information? Here we have an organisation which has a staff which both sides of the House agree to be in the main very effective and efficient. The other place has called attention to a weakness in the Bill which would have meant that each company would have had to have kept its staff separate. To run the organisation effectively and efficiently, and to make the best use of the staff available, staff which has a knowledge of the traffic being handled, the routes being run and the vehicles being used, may be alternated between one company and another. On this side of the House we accept that. It is effective and efficient, but the same argument applies with equal force to vehicles.

If a group of vehicles is available and the vehicles are required for particular traffics, why should there be unwholesome and uneconomic process of having to apply for new licences? In reply to an interjection by my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), the Minister said that private enterprise is not under this restriction.

Mr. Watkinson

What we are trying to do is to give the Commission exactly the same latitude as private companies placed in the same position.

Mr. Lindgren

Private companies placed in the same position have a surplus of vehicles with A licences and the Minister knows it. The Minister knows that there is considerable evasion and breaking of the licensing laws with private enterprise using vehicles with the wrong licences. Those of us who are associated with magistrates' courts know that until there is an accident we are not able to catch private enterprise using the wrong vehicles with the licences.

The Minister should make a concession. I admit that we have now passed the stage at which he could do that, but we are enabled to call attention to the fact that there should be mobility of staff to help in full employment of the staff and to prevent men standing idle. If the Minister would apply the same criterion to vehicles, British Road Services would be a much more effective organisation and would render a far better service to the trader, because it would not be held up by administrative rules and regulations when it wanted immediately to meet the demands upon it.

Mr. McLeavy

It may be said that the good wine usually comes at the end of the meal, and in a limited way I congratulate the Minister on accepting at least one commonsense view. I am sure that the members of my trade union who are engaged in this industry will feel that a commonsense attitude towards their employment has been adopted. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) developed another point about the interchange of vehicles where the same commonsense rule should apply. Nevertheless, we welcome this Amendment. What it proposes is obviously right. My one regret, now that we are parting with the Bill, is that the Minister has not been more forthcoming on the more fundamental matters which have been raised in our discussions.

Title

Postponed Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 6, after "Fund)" insert: to extend certain enactments relating to holding companies to the British Transport Commission".