HC Deb 18 July 1956 vol 556 cc1253-65

5.10 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson)

I beg to move, That the Draft Road Haulage Disposal Board (Abolition) Order, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved. This is an Order for the abolition of the Board which was set up by the Act of 1953. It is a very great pleasure to me to move that the Order be approved. I hope that after a certain amount of controversy this afternoon I may have the support of the Opposition now that we have reached this further business. The Opposition made it quite plain that they did not like the 1953 Act, and during all the stages of the Bill which has just been passed by the House they made it plain that they did not think it went far enough. But it is largely as a result of the modifications made by the Bill to the provisions of the 1953 Act that the functions of the Road Haulage Disposal Board can now be said to be completed.

I am confident that the House will join in paying a tribute to all those who have been concerned with the administration of the disposal of these vehicles, and that those who were most disapproving of the policy will join me in paying tribute to the way in which that policy has been carried out by public-spirited men. We are all familiar with Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve's long record, of his having been asked upon a number of occasions to take over the administration of particularly difficult public undertakings, and on each occasion acquitting himself with distinction. We are confident that the same will happen when, under the Crown Estate Bill, he takes on still another public responsibility. Mr. Orchin, as his Deputy Chairman, and the other members of the Board who were appointed to represent certain interests which were likely to be affected, have co-operated with the Chairman, and the Minister has never been called upon to discharge his deciding function in the event of a difference of opinion amongst the members.

I should also like to pay tribute to the way in which the British Transport Commission has fulfilled its work. It was that body which was responsible for the disposal of the vehicles under the general control and supervision of the Board. It was an unpalatable task for the Commission, because it involved selling vehicles which were running at a profit. On behalf of the Government I should like to express our admiration for the integrity and high sense of duty with which the Commission has discharged the obligation placed upon it by Parliament.

The work done has been upon a considerable scale. No less than 29,400 vehicles have been offered for sale in 28 lists of transport units and four companies. Of the remaining 6,000 vehicles not offered for sale, nearly 2,000 were contract hire vehicles, to be sold under the special arrangement made between the Commission, the Board and the Road Haulage Association. Another 3,600 were the Commission's originally retained fleet.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)

I do not see anything about this in the Order.

Mr. Molson

I thought that at the time when the Board was being wound up it might be appropriate to refer to the work which has been done, but if you do not think that is in order upon this occasion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I certainly shall not pursue the matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I have to carry out the rules. We can talk only about what is contained in the Order, and it is a simple Order, dealing with the abolition of the Disposal Board.

Mr. Ernest Davies (Enfield, East)

Surely, if we are debating an Order which provides for the winding-up of the Board, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it is in order to debate whether the Order should be passed, and whether the Board should be wound up. Surely we are entitled to consider whether the Board's task has been completed or not. I thought that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was explaining how the Board had undertaken the task.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That may be so. I would not differ from that. If the matter can be dealt with in that way I shall be quite happy.

Mr. Molson

In that case, with your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will explain that it is the completion of the work put upon the Board by Parliament which justifies the Order for winding it up. Of the 10,200 vehicles offered but not sold, 4,200 belong to the parcels company, 500 to the meat company, and the 5,500 additional general haulage vehicles are those which, under the Bill, the Commission is now allowed to keep.

The last page of the Sixth Report of the Board indicates the responsibilities which it has not yet discharged and which, under the Order, will fall to be discharged by the Minister. The Board is conducting an audit of all vehicles for disposal under the 1953 Act. All remaining vehicles suitable for disposal in transport units will be offered in a final list. There will then remain only a number of vehicles which the Commission will have certified as non-runners, and the Minister has agreed to the sale of these as chattels.

There is a further matter relating to premises and other property and, finally, the matter which has been discussed this afternoon, relating to the disposal of spare vehicles additional to those required for contract hire. Because this work has now been completed I commend the Order to the House.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies (Enfield, East)

I am sure that we all agree with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in congratulating the British Transport Commission upon the way in which it has co-operated with the Road Haulage Disposal Board in the very unhappy task of disposing of its vehicles. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen, in the recent issue of the British Transport Review, an article by a member of the Commission's staff, Mr. Raymond, which describes in some detail the colossal task involved in organising the sale of the vehicles in conjunction with the Disposal Board.

We should congratulate the Commission on the smooth way in which it succeeded in carrying on while the disposal of vehicles was taking place. It reflects great credit on the whole of the staff that, despite the dislocation caused by the disposal, they were able to continue to operate the services of the Commission at a profit. In fact, last year's Report shows that the profit was well over £4 million, despite the fact that the fleet was running down throughout the period.

No tears will be shed over this Order, which brings the Disposal Board to an end. We on this side of the House would have preferred that the Board had never come into being and certainly it has lived far longer than was ever intended. I recall that during the debates in this House while the 1953 Act was passing through its various stages there were prophecies made from the Government Front Bench about the period during which it would be necessary to keep the Board in being.

When the present Secretary of State for the Colonies was Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation he said that disposal would take place by the end of 1953. Although, by that time, no vehicles had been sold, the right hon. Gentleman still went on with his prophecies. He stated that there would be about 10,000 vehicles sold by April, 1954. In fact, by June, 1954, only 5,000 had been sold and it was not until the end of that year that 10,000 vehicles had been disposed of.

It was not the fault of the Board that it encountered such difficulty about disposal, and I wish to pay a tribute to the work done, although it was work of which we disapproved. But the Act of 1953 imposed very difficult conditions on the Board and made it impossible—as we on this side of the House always predicted that it would be—for the Board to dispose of the full fleet of the B.R.S. The early sales were a complete flop; there is no question of that. The first lists that were published resulted in few bids and it was only by abandoning the original intention of the Act and by disposing of the vehicles in small units of ones, twos, threes and fours that the Board was able—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is now going beyond the bounds of the debate. We are dealing now only with the future.

Mr. Ernest Davies

I was endeavouring to show that the Board had failed in its task and, therefore, that is was not to be regretted that it is being wound up. The Board also failed to sell the parcels and meat organisations.

We are concerned about the second part of the Order, by which the functions previously carried out by the Board are to be handed over to the Minister. We are worried that this power should pass to the Minister because of his actions in the past. We saw the changes which occurred during the passage of the Bill. We saw the right hon. Gentleman departing from his original intention, and the recommendation of the chairman of the Board, that there should be 7,750 vehicles for general haulage.

That figure was cut down by 7½ per cent. regarding licences, and was then further cut down by fixing the total tonnage of unladen weight of the vehicles at a few hundred tons less than the figure which the Commission had said was necessary if it was to retain that permitted number of vehicles. The result was a further reduction by 101 vehicles which, in effect, means that the Commission's total fleet will be substantially less than was originally intended, and recommended by the chairman of the Board. In fact, the advice of the chairman has been set aside by the Minister.

Under this Order the Minister has power to carry out the functions given to the Disposal Board by the Bill which we discussed earlier. The right hon. Gentleman has the power to sell the parcels and meat organisations. It will now be for the Minister to decide when the two companies formed under the provisions of the Bill are to be put up for sale and whether he will accept the advice of the Commission about the tenders which may be received. It will not be an impartial Board, consisting of Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve and his fellow members, which will make the decision, but a prejudiced Minister. I say "prejudiced," because of the right hon. Gentleman's previous actions in regard to the Commission. He has treated the Commission with contempt. He has been mean and petty in the way in which he has handled its affairs.

It gives me considerable concern, although the Minister has given us an undertaking that he will not use the powers conferred on him by the Order, and does not propose to put the parcels organisation up for sale for a year or two until it has been revealed how commercially successful it may be. Presumably, the more successful the organisation is, the more it is likely that private enterprise will be interested in purchasing it; and the more likely it will be that the Government will desire to sell and to hand over a profitable national undertaking to private enterprise for profit-making purposes.

The Minister will not be concerned about the interests of the Commission, or whether the Commission will get a fair price, but simply about disposing of the parcels or meat organisations. Therefore, there is reason for concern about the way in which the Minister will exercise the power which passes to him from the Board under the terms of this Order. Instead of handing over the power to the Minister, it would be far better if it ceased to exist altogether; in other words, if this Order consisted entirely of the first part, and the second part was deleted.

That could easily be done by bringing to an end all disposal both of general haulage vehicles, as is now done, and parcels and meat organisations contracts, and the rest of it. It could have been stated that, with the termination of the Road Haulage Disposal Board under this Order, we stop all attempts at making further sales of vehicles and Commission-owned companies. Then the Minister would not have this power and the Commission would be left to get on with the job of running a successful road haulage undertaking. Obviously, we shall support this Order because it brings to an end a Board which, however well it may have done so, performed a task which did not commend itself to us and which we opposed at every stage. But we do not accept the Order without some qualms and some fears.

If only the Government had had the courage to stand up against their own back benchers and against the road haulage interests outside this House, and to listen to the advice coming from this side of the House, as well as from a large section of industry which has been filled with praise for the work which British Road Services have been doing, the first part of the Order would have been all that is necessary, and all further action in regard to road services disposals would have been brought to an end.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. James Harrison (Nottingham, North)

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, at the beginning of his speech on this Order, said that it gave him great pleasure to move it because it will abolish the Road Haulage Disposal Board. I wondered what particular aspect of the work of the Board it gives him great pleasure to abolish, and I am quite willing to give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he can indicate to us what is the pleasurable side of the abolition of this Board to him. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned, also, that the Minister will take over responsibilities that have been up to now those of the Board.

I suggest that this proposal will in no way enable him to take over the road haulage disposal functions of the Board, because the Road Haulage Disposal Board has not yet completed, and has no intention of completing, because of modifications in the recent Bill, its original task. Therefore, it cannot be within the Ministry's power to do what the Road Haulage Disposal Board was doing in the first case, because the new Bill modified the original proposal considerably.

It gives me great pleasure to support this Order to abolish the Board because of the obvious injustice to the British Transport Commission's undertaking. The Commission was running these vehicles at a profit, and, while it was running them at a profit, along came the Government with a new Act of Parliament telling the Commission that it must dispose of them. It seems to me that that was a definitely cruel thing to do to the Commission and its road haulage undertaking, which was building up its fortunes in the busy transport industry of this country.

We were also told that this would be the chance for the little man to return to the industry. The operations of the Road Haulage Disposal Board would enable the little man to return. One result of these sales of vehicles, chattels and goodwill is that the little man has not come back into the industry at all. There have been sales of small lots of vehicles, but these sales have usually been made to people who are already in the industry, who, by the acquisition of a few more vehicles, were able substantially to increase their business. The excuse made in the first place was that this was the little man's opportunity, but the result has not been that he has come back into the industry. I remember very well that in the debate on the Bill the Minister referred to this particular aspect of it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think that point might be left outside the discussion on this Order.

Mr. Harrison

I am speaking about the pleasure which the Minister expressed in regard to this Order, but, if that is your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will continue by saying that I believe that this Order will be long remembered because it is a monument to the doctrinaire policy of the Government towards the nation's transport. What is more, it represents the introduction of politics into the industry, and not only that, but this cancellation notice gives us the idea that the Minister will still be able to muddy the waters, because he will still be personally responsible for some more disposals.

I feel that this Order will long be remembered as a shameful episode in the Government's history, and that it was only introduced to pacify the road haulage interests which were so bitterly declaiming against the nationalised industry. Their bitterness against the Transport Commission's undertaking was created by the success of the Commission's road haulage undertaking. That undertaking was proving a success far beyond the dreams of many people in this country, but, before it became too successful, the wrecking party started and the Bill which this House passed a short time ago was synonymous with the aims of that wrecking party.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. David Jones (The Hartlepools)

I should like to begin by calling your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that this Order is in two parts. First of all, it seeks to dissolve the Board, and, secondly, it seeks to transfer the remaining functions of the Board, so far as they continue to operate, to the Minister. I say that in advance in order that, as I hope, you will not rule me out of order when I seek to discuss some of the powers which will remain and which, by virtue of this Order, are to be transferred to the Minister of Transport.

The Parliamentary Secretary to any Ministry has, during the course of his career, some distasteful tasks to perform, but I should have thought that at least two other people ought to have been present this afternoon to hear the Joint Parliamentary Secretary reading the committal rites of the Road Haulage Disposal Board. Those two people should have been the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Colonial Secretary and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. One remembers over the years some of the dissertations which they made from that Dispatch Box between 1952 and the present time. For example, I can remember the present Colonial Secretary standing at that Dispatch Box and proudly proclaiming that within twelve months of that day the majority of these vehicles would be disposed of.

Earlier this afternoon, we discussed the question of the number of spare vehicles that are to be left with the companies, and I drew attention to the fact that this Order gives two bites at the cherry to the Minister of Transport, who was good enough to interrupt to say that all these factors would be settled before the date on which the Board was to come to an end. When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was reading out the remaining powers which will be left after the demise of the Board, I observed that they included the subject of spare vehicles, and I should like to know which of the two right hon. Gentlemen is right. Is it the Joint Parliamentary Secretary or is it the Minister? Was the Minister correct earlier on when we discussed an Amendment from another place and when he said that all these figures of spare vehicles would be decided before 28th August, or is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary right when he says that the residue of this power now passes into the hands of the Minister?

In my judgment, it will be entirely wrong for the Minister to be statutorily entitled to take two bites at this cherry—first of all, that he should exercise the power of the Board, when the Board no longer exists, and, in the event of disagreement between himself, in place of the Board, and the Commission, should be able to come in, in a judicial fashion, and decide a matter on which he has already fallen out with the Commission. That seems to me to be an impossibility, even for the present Minister of Transport, and I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what exactly is to happen.

The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to pay a richly deserved tribute to the members of the Disposal Board, including their distinguished chairman. In the last fifty years nobody has ever had a more distasteful task to perform on behalf of a Government. The right hon. Gentleman was also good enough to pay tribute to the British Transport Commission. Its task was the hardest of all. Some of the members of the Road Haulage Executive Committee had worked long and laboriously building up a magnificent organisation out of 4,000 separate companies, and at one stroke they were committed to selling off the vehicles at far less than their value. The tribute was indeed richly deserved.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that all the vehicles which still remain to be sold are to be put into a final list. Will that list be made available? Will it be concluded before 28th August, or is the Minister again to play the role of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as he attempted to do in so many other connections with the Transport Commission? If the list is not to be finally disposed of before 28th August, will the Minister exercise the functions of the Board in approving the prices offered for vehicles, and then, if the Commission disagrees with the price, will he act in a judicial capacity to settle a disagreement between himself and the Commission?

I regret very much that it is not possible to propose Amendments to the Order. If paragraph 2 ended at the fifth word it would be an admirable job. From time to time during the last three and a half years some of us have asked successive Ministers of Transport how long the Commission was to be subjected to this lack of firm decision, and for how long its property was to be offered in the open market.

Ought not the Minister to decide that on 28th August, when the Board comes to an end, all further interference with British Road Services ought to come to an end? He has already made two attempts to sell the 500 vehicles in the meat fleet, and on not one occasion has there been a suitable offer. He has already attempted to sell the parcels fleet which is doing a magnificent job assisting our economy. Is the Commission to be saddled permanently with a doubt whether it is to continue to retain these two admirable fleets; is it to be prohibited permanently from building up and developing these two services so that they become far more efficient than they are today, in the hope that at some date in the future somebody will make an offer which the Minister will accept?

Do not the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary think that this is the opportune moment to bring all this doctrinaire policy to an end? I suggest that they have a glorious opportunity. The Disposal Board is to come to an end on 28th August, and the Transport (Disposal of Road Haulage Property) Bill will probably have received the Royal Assent before we rise for the Summer Recess. Ought not the Minister now to bring the whole thing to an end and decide that on 28th August all further interference with the Commission shall cease? If he does that the Minister will earn the praise not only of the Commission, but of all trading interests in the country.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Molson

As a matter of courtesy I ought to answer some of the questions which have been asked. We have not had quite the enthusiastic approval of this Order by the Opposition that I had hoped we might have. On the other hand, the general tone has been that at any rate they welcome the Order for what it does.

I should like briefly to answer the last two points made by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones). It is the case that the remaining vehicles have been put into a final list. The list closes tomorrow and tenders are called for for next week. The hon. Gentleman asked whether—on the adjudication as between the Commission and the bidders—the Board would have taken the decision before it is dissolved. The answer is that those decisions will have been taken and therefore, the responsibility will not devolve upon the Minister.

The hon. Gentleman concluded by making a plea that we should bring to an end the whole of the disposal. I would only say that the Opposition welcomed the Bill of 1956. They chanted paeans of praise and self-congratulation that some of their forecasts had been justified and they told the country that the Government had made very substantial conces- sions to the point of view which they have put forward. I think that it would have been graceful and charming on the part of the Opposition if they had expressed their gratitude for what they had received and had not asked for something more.

Mr. D. Jones

The paeans of praise would have been very much louder if the 1956 Bill had been a one-Clause Bill. That is all that was required.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss (Vauxhall)

The few words which the Parliamentary Secretary has just uttered spur me to make some comment. First, he said that the Order did not appear to have received enthusiastic approval from this side of the House. I assure him that our enthusiasm at the ending of the Road Haulage Disposal Board is unbounded. We thought at the beginning that it was given a wretched, miserable job by the Government, which it carried out exceedingly well, of damaging as far as it could the interests of the British Transport Commission by breaking up its magnificent road haulage organisation. It had the job of breaking up the structure of the Commission and seriously weakening its financial position, and thereby doing irreparable damage to the interests of British transport. As far as we are concerned, the sooner we say goodbye to this miserable Board, the better.

There remains a certain amount of work to complete and the Minister of Transport will now have to do it. We shall watch him closely and ensure, as far as we can, that there is an end to this wrecking process, which so far has been carried out at the behest and as a deliberate part of the policy of the Government, who believe in breaking up nationally-owned industries however valuable their work may be.

I must make one other comment arising out of the words of the Parliamentary Secretary. He said—and I presume he was joking and could not have been serious—that he expected us to welcome this Order and the Transport (Disposal of Road Haulage Property) Bill, 1956, and to express our gratitude to the Government. In case he said that with any degree of seriousness, I must reply.

We said from the outset that the road transport policy of Her Majesty's Government was fallacious, ill-advised and wrong. We prophesied that it was so ridiculous that it was bound to break down. When it did break down and the Government had to produce the 1956 Measure to stop the disintegration, it is true that we said, "There you are. We told you that this was bound to happen." But why should we be expected to express gratitude to the Government for carrying out only three-quarters of their evil intent instead of 100 per cent? The Government have done irreparable damage. True, they have not gone as far as they promised to go in the early stages. Now that the instrument they used for the purpose is being wound up, we are exceedingly glad, but we do not thank the Government who are responsible for all the harm that has been done by their policy during the past years.

Resolved, That the Draft Road Haulage Disposal Board (Abolition) Order, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.