TRANSPORT BILL

HC Deb 20 July 1962 vol 663 cc819-77

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(THE FOUR BOARDS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 3, leave out "Inland Waterways Authority" and insert "British Waterways Board".

11.13 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay)

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

It may be for the convenience of the House if at the same time we consider the next Lords Amendment, in page 2, to leave out lines 8 to 10.

I should tell the House, if the House has not already spotted it, that there are no fewer than 81 other Lords Amendments to the Bill related to the same subject

The subject is the change of name of the Inland Waterways Authority. As the Bill was originally drafted we used that title believing that it was a little more descriptive of the functions this body would perform. It was, however, represented to us by the Inland Waterways Association that the initials I.W.A. had become very well known to many people in the waterways world as being the initials of that association, and that, if we had Inland Waterways Authority, the current tendency to describe bodies by their initials would almost certainly lead to confusion. In Standing Committee we agreed to look at the point. In consequence, in another place Amendments were made to change the name to British Waterways Board. It has, incidentally, the extra advantage that the use of the name British Waterways, which is applied widely to the British Transport Commission's waterways property, will not have to be changed and there will consequently be a saving of money.

I hope that that explanation of these Amendments will satisfy the House and that the House will agree with them. I am not quite sure how we should proceed with the other Amendments scat- tered through the Bill, but perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you would take into consideration that we have had this debate upon this change and take those other Amendments without further debate when we reach them.

Mr. Speaker

Yes.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss (Vauxhall)

. I wish only to say that in Standing Committee the view was expressed on all sides that it really was rather ridiculous that all the other bodies should be called "boards" and this single one "authority," that that view was accepted tentatively by the Government, and that on second thoughts the Government have agreed to accept the views expressed in the Standing Committee and to have these alterations made.

Mr. Grant-Ferris (Nantwich)

As it fell to me to put this point to my hon. Friend in Committee, I should like to say on behalf of all those interested in the subject how grateful we are for the courtesy and consideration he and his right hon. Friend have shown in adopting the changes set out. There is no doubt about it that the other name would have led to great confusion. The new arrangement, although perhaps not the one which we might have chosen, is at any rate a great deal better than the former, and I should like to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend for that.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 39, after "in" insert: the operation, management or administration of docks, or ".

Mr. Hay

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

This Amendment was made at Report stage in another place following an undertaking by the Government in the Standing Committee of this House that we would consider an Amendment to the Bill to provide that experience in dock management should count as one of the qualications for membership of the Docks Board under Clause 1 (5). I think this is a useful Amendment to meet—I am relying on my memory—a point which was ventilated in the Standing Committee where we said we would gladly see if we were able to do something about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 45, leave out "Inland Waterways Authority" and insert "British Waterways Board".

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Hay.]

Mr. Grant-Ferris

In the interests of saving wear and tear on your voice, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it would be possible for you somehow to cut down the time on putting the questions on these Lords Amendments by taking them en bloc. I am quite sure that nobody would have any objection to that procedure if it is possible.

Mr. Speaker

I am much obliged to the hon. Member. I will follow that course as far as I can. It may, of course, be interrupted by Amendments on other topics, but otherwise I shall follow that course on consequential Amendments, if the House will allow me.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 8.—(LONDON BOARD'S ROAD SERVICES OUTSIDE LONDON.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 20, at end insert: (6) Any order under the last foregoing subsection shall be made not later than the vesting date.

Mr. Hay

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

It provides that the Minister's order under Clause 8 (5) shall be made by the vesting date. This order is one which certifies the routes on which the London Transport Executive had power to carry passengers by stage or express carriage services at any time in the year ending with the date of publication of the Bill. The certification of these routes is of some importance, because the London Board is given certain powers under Clause 8 (1, b and c) to carry passengers both on those routes and, with the consent of the Minister, beyond them.

So we gave an assurance in another place that the order would be made as long as was possible before the vesting date, but we agreed that an Amendment might be made which would require an order to be made within a specified time. Since the order has to be made on vesting date so as to allow London Transport the powers it needs to operate on the routes concerned without its services being dislocated, there could, I think, be no objection to an Amendment which compels the order to be made by that date. We shall complete our consultations about the order with the interested parties well before vesting date.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

New Clause A.—(DEVELOPMENT OF LAND.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 22, leave out Clause 11 and insert:

New Clause A

"A.—(1) Subject to this section, each Board shall have power to develop their land in such manner as they may think fit.

(2) Each Board may, in particular, and subject to this section,—

1. (a) retain any part of their land which is not required for the purposes of their business and develop it for use by other persons, and
2. (b) where the use of their land for the purposes of their business can be combined with its use for other purposes, develop the land by constructing or adapting buildings thereon for use wholly or partly by other persons,
• with a view to selling or otherwise disposing of any right or interest in the land or, as the case may be, the buildings or any part of the buildings, after the development is carried out.

(3) A Board shall not incur any substantial item of expenditure in developing their land for use for purposes which are not the purposes of their business without the consent of the Minister, and the Minister may from time to time give directions to the Boards indicating what is to be treated for the purposes of this section as a substantial item of expenditure.

(4) Where a Board propose under this section to develop any land for use otherwise than for the purposes of their business they shall have power, with the consent of the Minister, to acquire by agreement adjoining land for the purpose of developing it together with the other land, but the Minister shall not give his consent under this subsection unless it appears to him that the other land cannot be satisfactorily developed unless the adjoining land is acquired by the Board.

Except as provided by the foregoing provisions of this subsection, a Board shall not have power to acquire land for purposes which are not related to any of the activities of the Board other than the development of land."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Hay

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

Clause 11 has undergone various vicissitudes in another place. I think I can explain briefly to the House what the current position is. This is the Clause which deals with the development of their land by the boards. In another place at the Committee stage four Government Amendments were made to it. They have all been incorporated in the new Clause which was inserted on Report stage in another place, and now appeals on the Notice Paper.

What we seek to do in Clause 11 is to make it clear that where the boards have surplus land which they want to develop, they should be free to dispose of the land as developed whether by outright sale, by lease or by tenancy for use by another person.

The first of the Amendments deletes the general reference to retention or disposal of surplus land in Clause 11, and provides accordingly.

The second Amendment made in another place to the original Clause in effect remodels subsection (2). As the subsection originally read, it was not clear whether the erection of buildings of any description for use for purposes other than the purposes of their business related to the use of that land by and for purposes of other persons or by the Boards themselves.

Our intention clearly is that when the boards develop surplus land by erecting buildings for purposes other than the purposes of their business, those buildings shall be used by other persons and not by the boards. To give an example, a board might find that some of its surplus land would bring in its best return if flats or other housing accommodation were erected for sale or lease to someone else for use quite unconnected with the purposes of the board It is not intended that in circumstances like that a board itself should use such buildings for such general purposes but should sell or lease them to other people for their use. So the second Amendment clarifies the intention of subsection (2) and makes clear that when a Board develops land for purposes other than the purposes of their business those purposes are to be the purposes of other persons to whom the land and buildings might be sold, leased or rented. This is a very technical matter, and I apologise to the House for having to put it on record, but I hope I have made it clear. The third and fourth Amendments made to the Clause are purely consequential.

All I need say in conclusion is that our remodelling of the Clause conveys a much clearer picture of what our intention is with regard to the powers to be vested in the boards. I hope that the House will agree to the new Clause replacing the Clause that we had in the Bill when it was previously with us.

I would remind the House that there is another new Clause which deals with the development of the boards' land in London, which raises rather different issues, and it would be preferable if we could delay any discussion of that point until we reach that new Clause.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro)

I wish to put on record how grateful I am sure those who are concerned with the administration of railway land will be for the Clause. As one who was formerly in the legal department of a railway company, I can say that nothing was more destructive to the proper use of railway land than the law as it was then. There was a tremendous waste of land in that it could not be used for purposes for which it might usefully have been used. The original Clause was a great improvement upon the position, but I now congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends and those in another place upon having made an even more substantial improvement in the new Clause. I think it will probably work very well.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 14.—(Supplemental provisions RELATING TO THE BOARDS' POWERS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 39, leave out from "business" to "and" in line 41.

Mr. Hay

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

The Amendment deletes from paragraph (k) of subsection (1) of Clause 14 the express reference to the provision of electricity as one of the powers of the boards. The background to this is that at the present time the British Transport Commission, in agreement with the electricity authorities, provides surplus electricity which it generates to third parties when this is convenient to itself and to the others concerned. The situation arises principally in certain docks where it is convenient for the Commission to provide some of its tenants with electricity from its own ring main. At one time we thought that some express power ought to be included in the Bill to put it beyond doubt that this activity could go on. As passed by the House, the Bill made special provision for it in the paragraph to which I have referred. That gave the boards a general power to turn their resources to account so far as they were not required for the purposes of their business. But my right hon. Friend was subsequently advised that this reference to electricity was unnecessary, and, accordingly, it was deleted in another place.

I can reassure the House that a deletion of this kind does not make any difference at all to the existing practice. In fact, I think that it might be said that it more truly reflects the present practice of removing express references to a matter of no great importance, and it thereby avoids any possible misleading impression which could be created that the Boards could become significant generators or suppliers of electricity on a grand scale throughout the country.

The Amendment results in a reversion to the position Which obtains at the present time, when the Commission undertakes the work as a purely marginal activity without having any express statutory authority under the Transport Act, 1947.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 28.—(Powers exercisable subject to Minister's consent.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 44, after "activity" insert "or".

Mr. Hay

It might be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if we dealt at the same time with the Lords Amendments, in page 26, line 45, leave out from "assets" to second "and" and in page 27, line 2, leave out from "loss" to end of line 3.

Mr. Speaker

Yes.

Mr. Hay

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

The Amendments delete from subsection (4) of Clause 28 the express provision that a direction given by Che Minister under the powers conferred by Clause 28 may require a board to abrogate a contract notwithstanding that the board concerned may as a consequence of so doing be liable to damages for breach of contract.

11.30 a.m.

The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) will remember that this point was discussed in Standing Committee. We included this express provision in the Clause because originally we thought that it would be necessary to remove any doubt there might be that a board would be obliged to comply with the direction given by the Minister under this subsection, notwithstanding that compliance might involve the board in breaking a contractual obligation which it had entered into.

I explained at the time that this was a technical and legal point and gave my advice accordingly to the Committee. The Amendment then under discussion was withdrawn with the request from the Opposition that the position should be given further consideration. We have given it that further consideration and we are now told by our legal advisers that a board would not be absolved from the obligation to comply with a direction given by the Minister under subsection (3) on the ground that to do so would mean that it could not comply with a contractual obligation and might be liable for damages for breach of contract.

The express provision as it stood was. therefore, purely declaratory as a matter of law. There are a number of other provisions in the Bill which are pertinent here. For example, under Clause 53, relating to coastal shipping, the same point could arise and a declaratory provision in subsection (4) of Clause 28 having the effect of throwing some doubt on the position in these provisions.

To avoid any difficulties of that kind, it seemed, on consideration, best to delete the provision in Clause 28. The short effect is that in a case where the Minister has power to give directions to a board, the board will be bound to comply with that direction notwithstanding the existence of any contract which relates to the subject matter of the transaction. The position as between the board and any third parties affected in that way would be a matter to be dealt with under the general law. The Amendment is purely drafting, paving the way for the substantive Amendments which follow.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 31.—(DISTRIBUTION OF COMMISSION'S ASSETS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 28, after "Executive" insert: (e) the British Transport Commission Police Force,".

Mr. Hay

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

It would I think be convenient, Mr. Speaker, if we also discussed with this Amendment, which is a paving Amendment to the proposed new Clause B dealing with the organisation of the transport police, the following Lords Amendments—in page 79, line 21, page 79, line 27, page 80, line 7, page 80, line 13, page 80, line 14, page 80, line 23, and page 99, line 11.

This may seem rather a lot, but I assure you that they all go together and form a simple consecutive story which I can briefly explain.

Mr. Speaker

That may be done if the House so pleases, but I should be obliged if I may be reminded of all these Amendments as we proceed further.

Mr. Strauss

If we can deal with them all, Mr. Speaker, it will be in the general interest.

Mr. Hay

I am obliged to you Mr. Speaker, and to the right hon. Gentleman. Under the Bill as passed by this House it was left entirely to the new boards to decide, as a matter of management, what organisation they should adopt for their police forces. This was in line with the present position of the British Transport Commission. Under its existing powers, the B.T.C. has chosen to establish a single unified police force, which is known as the British Transport Commission Police Force. This covers the whole of the Commission's undertakings. It has an establishment of about 3,000 policemen and is the third largest police force in the country. It has an excellent record of efficiency.

In another place, it was considered necessary to make some statutory provision to limit the discretion of the new boards as regards the exercise of their police powers, and in particular there were very strong representations that a single unified police force on the lines of the present force should continue. So we put down Amendments which were agreed to in another place. Amongst other things, they provide for the continuance of a unified force, unless it seems to the Minister that there are special reasons to the contrary.

We have it in mind that the British Railways Board will, after the Bill is enacted, prepare a scheme on the lines of the Amendments and of the new Clause which are all intended to enable this to be done. The general position will be that after the Bill becomes law a scheme will be prepared by the British Railways Board and presented to the Minister, and it will be for him. in consultation with the boards, to decide what actually should be done with the police.

I would not like to speculate on the outcome, but I assure the House, which, I am sure, is anxious to know about this, that we shall do our best to work in the closest contact with the representatives of the B.T.C. police. The last thing we want to do is to see damage done to that excellent force. We shall do all we can to ensure efficiency with a proper adjustment of the responsibilities of the boards in policing their undertakings.

Mr. Strauss

I understand that the Amendment goes some way towards preserving the unity of the B.T.C. police force. The advisability of this was urged strongly in Committee here and we had an argument about it. However, those who were putting forward the case got very little help from the Government and nothing could be done. As usual, all the technical difficulties were pointed out and we were told that we must wait and see and that the Minister would take into account everything that had been said, but that no alteration of the Bill was possible without causing very substantial technical difficulties which might lead to delays and trouble later on.

This is one of the occasions where the Lords have stepped in and have been successful where the Commons failed. Sometimes we get these instances where one is very pleased that the House of Lords exists and that their Lordships are able to stand up to the Government more effectively sometimes than the Opposition in this House. Indeed, there have been a number of cases recently where the opposition in the House of Lords has fell freer from political association and when a number of noble Lords have combined to force the Government to accept Amendments which were denied in the Commons.

Mr. Hay

Does that mean that the Opposition are now in favour of the continuance of another place in its present form?

Mr. Strauss

Oh, dear, no.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think we had better confine our debate to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Strauss

You were, as usual, wise to pull us up very early before the debate continues, Mr. Speaker, for if we got out of hand it would last a long time.

I am glad that the Amendment was moved in the Lords and that this House is now being asked to endorse it. As I understand it, what is to happen is that the whole of the British Transport Commission police force is going to the Railways Board and the chances of it being broken up later on, while not completely removed, are made less likely. The case for keeping this body as a unified whole is very strong. It has a proud tradition and it is well organised and has the great advantage of enabling its members to move from one section to the other, from the railways to the docks, or road haulage, and so on. Its members are most anxious on all grounds that the force should not be broken up but should be allowed to continue as a unified body doing a very good job and all the stronger in making representations to the Commission because it is one body instead of five small units.

I concede that the Parliamentary Secretary cannot commit himself completely today, but I should like a further assurance that the chances, in view of what both Houses have done, are that this body will remain as a single unit and not be broken up. In view of the expressions of opinion in both Houses, of which the Minister must take note, that now seems to be the probability. If the Parliamentary Secretary can say something more about that issue, I should be very grateful.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

These Amendments are very complicated when one has not served on the Standing Committee. When detailed Amendments are made in another place, one has to try to fit the new arrangements into the Bill and see what one has at the end. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his care in explaining the matter to us.

Is this the last this House will hear of this arrangement? I gather from what he said that one of the boards will prepare a scheme and submit it to the Minister and that when the Minister has approved the scheme, that will end the matter. In view of its importance, it would be advisable for the Minister to submit his decision to Parliament for ratification so that there could be a debate on the appropriate Order. I am not opposed to the Amendment, but all police powers are important and while it is a good thing for unity to 'be maintained, I hope that it will be possible for Parliament to have an opportunity of considering the final arrangement before it becomes operative.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Hay

By leave of the House, it was a pity, Mr. Speaker, that you felt obliged to intervene at a very important moment in the speech of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). I am sure that we are very grateful to another place for having revised this provision with great care, and we have benefited from its views.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the changes meant that the chances were that the force would remain unified. It is difficult to answer that question, because much will depend on what emerges from the scheme and, secondly, on whether any of the boards put forward special reasons why something different from a unified force should be created.

As I explained, the Railways Board is now put under a duty to prepare and submit to the Minister, within twelve months of vesting day, a scheme for the organisation of the police on a unitary basis, as a single force. The scheme provides for that single force unless the Minister is satisfied that there are special reasons why there should be a separate police force for more than one of the boards. At that stage, the onus will be on the individual boards to put to the Minister reasons which they consider to be special why there should be not a single force, but a force tailor-made to their requirements.

It is very difficult for me now to speculate on what the various special reasons might be which the boards might possibly put forward. I do not know. If I were compelled to say something on this issue, I would say that the chances of there being a single unified force were brighter now than they were when the Bill left this House. But I must make it clear that much will depend on any reasons which may be advanced by the individual boards for having their own individual forces. The requirements of London Transport and the docks, for example, demand entirely different police arrangements from those of the British Railways Board, and one cannot imagine that the British Waterways Board for example will require a police force of its own. Matters of that sort will all have to be considered by the Minster at the time.

The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked whether Par- liament would have an opportunity of considering the scheme again. The answer is "Yes". The right hon. Gentleman will see that subsection (7) of new Clause B provides that after a scheme has been approved, any board may apply for modification. Subsection (8) then says: The power conferred by this section on the Minister to make orders shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. The effect of that is that the scheme would be submitted to Parliament in the form of regulations and Parliament would then have the normal opportunity, by way of Prayer, of dealing with the matter in debate if it so wished.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 31, line 16, leave out "being securities" and insert "so far as".

Mr. Hay

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

This is really a drafting Amendment. In fact, the Commission does not own all of. the shares in the bodies listed in Parts I to IV of the Fourth Schedule. In particular, the British Electric Traction Group holds shares to an equal extent in the B.E.T. bus companies listed in List B of Part IV of the Fourth Schedule. So the words in lines 16 and 17 on page 31 which read: (being securities beneficially owned by the Commission) might seem to suggest that the Commission is the beneficial owner of all the bodies listed. The words "so far as" which the Amendment seeks to substitute for the words "being securities" are therefore more apt to the actual situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 34.—(TRANSFER OF STAFF.}

Lords Amendment: In page 35, line 24, leave out "any" and insert: the Board or company or the other".

Mr. Hay

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

This is a further drafting Amendment to remove a possible doubt in connection with the provision in subsection (8) dealing with disputes between a former employee of the Commission and one of the new bodies to which he has been transferred under the provisions of Clause 34.

Under that Clause it is a matter for discussion as to what service the new body may select for him as being reasonably comparable with those under his service agreement. Subsection (8) provides for such disputes to be reported to the Minister of Labour by any party to the agreement, and there was some doubt about whether the words were entirely apt to include the new employer in place of the Commission as being a party to a service agreement.

The intention of the Amendment is to make it clear that there is an express reference to the Board or company or the other party to the agreement, to put the matter beyond doubt.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40.—(RAILWAYS BOARD'S SUSPENDED DEBT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 41, line 8, at end insert: (3) For the purposes of the last foregoing subsection any securities which vest in the Railways Board under this Part of this Act shall be treated as if they were assets created by the Commission since the end of the year nineteen hundred and fifty-five.

Mr. Hay

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

This Amendment is intended to cure a defect in the criterion which we set out in Clause 40 for deciding the amount of the suspended debt of the Railways Board. The House will recollect that a substantial part of the existing debt of the British Transport Commission, which is to be transferred to the Railways Board, is to be placed in suspense.

Subsection (2) defines the way in which the suspended debt is to be calculated. It is to be that part of the commencing capital debt of the Railways Board which in the opinion of the Minister is not—and I emphasise the "not"— represented by the written-down book value of the assets which have been created by the Commission since the end of 1955 and which vest in the Railways Board. In other words, the debt which is represented by the assets created since the end of 1955, mainly the new money that has gone in for modernisation, will continue to be live. The debt represented by all the other assets created prior to that time will be a suspended debt. That is the effect.

The subsection was drafted in terms appropriate to physical assets. In fact, however, the assets passing to the Railways Board will include shareholdings in various companies. The most important of these will be the shareholdings in the hotel company which is to be set up under Clause 33, and it is clear that the present wording of the Bill is not appropriate in relation to those assets.

It is our intention that the debt represented by those assets should be live, and the Amendment provides that any securities which vest in the Railways Board shall be treated as if they were assets created by the Commission since the end of 1955. I hope that that explains the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 53.—(COASTAL SHIPPING.)

Mr. Speaker

Considerations of Privilege arise on the next four Amendments. Should the House be willing to express agreement with the Lords Amendments I shall cause the requisite entry to be made in the Journal.

Lords Amendment: In page 54, line 16, after first "to" insert "or from".

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples)

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be convenient if we could have your permission to discuss with this Amendment, the following Lords Amendments:

In line 17, after "be" insert "or have been".

In line 32, after "him" insert "(a)". In line 35, at end insert:

"and (b) that the goods in question cannot reasonably be carried by coastal shipping unless they are carried by rail to or from the harbour specified in the complaint.

(4) If it appears to the Minister that a body making a complaint under subsection (1) of this section has a reasonable case to make in support of the complaint, he shall refer the complaint for investigation to a person appearing to him to have suitable qualifications for that purpose, and the Minister shall consider the report of that person before giving a direction upon the complaint under this section:

Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a complaint if it appears to the Minister that he has no power to give a direction upon the complaint by reason of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) or paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of this section.

(5) If it appears to the Minister on a complaint by any such body as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section—

1. (a) that the Railways Board have refused to quote a charge for the carriage by rail to or from any harbour of goods which are to be or have been carried by coastal shipping, and
2. (b) that the goods in question cannot reasonably be carried by coastal shipping unless they are carried by rail to or from the harbour specified in the complaint,
• the Minister may give directions to the Board requiring them to quote a charge for the carriage in question.

(6) The procedure on any complaint under this section (including any reference of the complaint for investigation) shall be such as the Minister may determine.

(7) In this section, references to a charge made by the Railways Board for the carriage of any goods include references to a charge at which the Board hold themselves out as willing to carry any goods.

Mr. Speaker

Yes.

Mr. Marples

These four Amendments relate to charges for the carriage by rail of traffic which has been carried by coastal shipping to or from a port and for the carriage of which there is no reasonable alternative to rail for the onward and inland part of the overall journey.

The background to this is that the Commons on Report—and the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) will remember this—amended the Clause so that coastal shipping should have protection on the short haul, that is, where the haul is by rail from the pit to the port where the railways often have a monopoly. Coastal shippers were frightened that the railways would change too low a price and price them out of business.

The coastal shipping interests pointed out that it was not only from pit to port, but from the other port, when it arrived there, to the final destination, whenever that might be, that the railways might still have a similar monopoly. The fourth Amendment, in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (5), gives the Minister a power of direction, following a complaint by a representative body of shipowners about the Railways Board's charges for carriage by rail to or from a port for goods which are to be or have been carried by coastal shipping.

I want to make it clear that the Minister's power of direction should be available in these short haul cases only where the railways have a monopoly position, because the whole need for special protection for coastal shipping on "pit to port" and the corresponding section of the overall journey at its other end arises from the fear of the exercise by the Railways Board of monopoly power. Accordingly, it is proposed to make the next Amendment to the Clause. This will have the effect of providing that the Minister cannot give a direction to the Railways Board in respect of short haul traffic unless it appears to him that the goods cannot reasonably be carried by coastal shipping unless they are carried by rail to or from the port concerned. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree with these Amendments.

Mr. Strauss

I am sure that the House will want to agree with these Amendments. In a way it seems rather strange that coastal shipping interests, which are both the companies that own the boats and the seamen who earn their livelihood in them, should be so frightened that a publicly-owned body whose main purpose is to serve the public interest should try to strangle them out of existence. One would have thought that any publicly-owned corporation or organisation of any sort would have the general public interest in view, but the situation today is a bit different because we are to have a Railways Board whose primary job will be to make money to reduce its losses, using any means under its control to do so.

With this new attitude of the Government and the general direction which they have given to the Commission, I think that it is possible, or at least conceivable, that the Railways Board might try to take away the trade which coastal shipping has earned for itself and make a profit to the detriment of the coastal shipping industry. Under these conditions it seems reasonable that the coastal shipping industry should take steps to see that the Railways Board is not in a position to strangle it by charging improper rates for the transport of goods either from pit to port or from port to the final destination. 12 noon.

I should have thought that, even under the present régime, with Dr. Beeching as head of the Transport Commission or the Railways Board, such an unfair practice would not be permitted, and that it is stretching commercial freedom far too far to say that it would permit the Railways Board, because of its peculiar monopoly situation, to destroy, or even greatly damage, another important transport industry. Nevertheless, I think that the coastal shipping industry had good reason to seek every proper safeguard which it could get, and was fully justified in asking Parliament to insert in the Bill such protection as may be necessary to prevent the Railways Board acting in this extremely unpleasant way, which I myself do not think it would have done, but which it might well do under the new régime which exists in the railway services.

Therefore, I think the House will be very willing to accept this Amendment, which gives further protection to the shipping industry against predatory and unfair actions which the Railways Board might take in order to divert traffic to itself from that industry.

Mr. John Howard (Southampton, Test)

The Clause as it will stand after this Amendment has been incorporated in it will be very different from the Clause which emerged from the Committee stage, when it was still in the form of the original draft in the Bill.

My right hon. Friend has been extremely good in listening patiently to the case put to him by the coastal shipping interests, and he was undoubtedly ready to consider with care the case which was advocated so competently by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemp-town (Mr. David James) during the Committee stage in this House. This is one of those instances in which all the seafaring bodies, the National Union of Seamen and the officers' organisation, have joined with the shipowners in pressing upon my right hon. Friend the unfairness of the original proposals in that they did not adequately safeguard the position of coastal shipping. My right hon. Friend was good enough to see deputations from the Chamber of Shipping, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropnar), my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown and myself who took deputations to see him, as well as others of my hon. Friends, with the result that he was fully appraised of the dangers which coastal shipping interests feared from the legislation as originally contemplated.

On Report stage, my right hon. Friend introduced an Amendment which met many, but not all, of our objections to the Bill as it was then drawn. It did not meet certain points in Amendments which I and others of my hon. Friends sought to raise at that time, but they have now been remedied in full measure. In fact, the Lords Amendment goes even further than we asked my right hon. Friend to go on Report stage. In another place, Lord Teynham has been perhaps even more persuasive than we were able to be in securing further safeguards for the coastal shipping industry.

My right hon. Friend has been most generous in looking at the whole situation and in tieing up the coastal shipping problem completely. This important industry of coastal shipping is an industry for which the people of Britain have a great affection, for its war time exploits, as well as for the quietly efficient manner in which it carries out its duties and performs its services in peacetime. The industry will now be protected against the danger that it might be smothered by the nationalised railways, which at present enjoy a subsidy. My right hon. Friend has indicated that, on the long hauls, the danger has been that the Railways Board might cut the prices of its freight rates. On short hauls, both from the coal pits to the ports and from the ports to the ultimate destination to which the goods may be sent, the danger is that the railways may change unrealistically high rates to the detriment of coastal shipping in its competition with the Railways Board.

Now, in the Bill as it will stand after the Amendment is carried, if there should be cause for complaint on either score, there is further provision covering the position if the railways should refuse to quote rates for the short haul, and my right hon. Friend can appoint a person of suitable qualifications to report on the need for intervention, and on the possibility of my Tight hon. Friend giving directions to the Railways Board. On the Report stage, it was indicated that this person of high qualifications might well be an accountant. Since both my right hon. Friend and myself are accountants, I think we must agree that an accountant would be a very suitable person for the appointment.

With the protection which the Bill now provides, it is to be hoped that the coastal shipping industry will have confidence to increase its efficiency and arrest the decline in the number of ships and the tonnage operating round our coasts. I know that I am expressing the view of the coastal shipowners and the seafarers, as well as that of those of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite who take an active interest in this industry, in thanking my right hon. Friend for the attention which he has devoted to coastal shipping and for the very satisfactory result evident on the Order Paper today.

Mr. David James (Brighton, Kemptown)

I will not detain the House very long, but, as one who planted a thorn in the Minister's side during the Committee stage, I must give him my personal thanks for what has taken place. It was a very difficult task to reconcile the free commercial operations of the railways with adequate protection for the coastal shipping industry, but I believe that, as a result of what has transpired during the last eight months, this result has been achieved.

I have seen one or two Ministers at various moments, and I have been left with the impression that if we had had a portable tape-recorder in front of an empty chair, the time of both parties would have been saved. My right hon. Friend has such a flexible mind and such a sense of all the difficulties that it is always a pleasure to talk to him, and I think all those who went to see him felt that he would genuinely try to do everything he could to help. I should like to add to what my hon. Friend has said about the value of this industry to the country, and to say that if we were to enter the Common Market, this industry would become absolutely crucial.

I am delighted to know that the Bill has been further improved in another place, and can say that a number of shipowners—though I have no connection with the industry, personally—who know that I followed this matter in Committee, have said that they hoped that this expression of thanks to the Minister would be made.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East)

I wish to add a word of thanks to the Minister for the Amendment which has been made to the Bill in another place, which goes rather further than those which were accepted when the Bill first came before this House. At that time, my right hon. Friend was pressed by my hon. Friends who have already spoken,—the hon. Members for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard) and Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. D. James) and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner), who were anxious that this Amendment should be accepted because of the threatened decline in coastal shipping.

This was of particular interest and concern to my constituency in Northern Ireland and to other persons in Northern Ireland, We are very largely dependent on the success and prosperity of coastal shipping, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test has said, it would have been possible for higher rates to be quoted for the short journeys from pit to port and much lower rates per ton mile for the long journeys within Britain. This would not only have an adverse effect on coastal shipping; it would affect such areas as Northern Ireland, which is dependent on coastal shipping and which has also had to face continuous increases in the price of freight in the past year.

A great deal of alarm has been expressed in Northern Ireland as a result of these increases, not only in shipping circles but in the chamber of commerce and other places. Part of the confusion has been caused by the fact that in some cases both the shipping service and the railway service has been provided by the Board, and it has been impossible to discover how the costs have been apportioned between the shipping part of the journey and that part which has been done by rail. Northern Ireland is still not satisfied on this point, although I am pleased with the Amendments as they stand, especially in view of what has already been said by the Minister, and also when considering this Clause together with Clause 28 of the Bill as amended, which provides that the Minister has power to order the Board to alter charges which are out of proportion, in spite of any threat of breach of contract.

I hope that as a result of these Amendments the Minister will be able to give a further assurance that in the relationships between railways and coastal shipping every effort will be made to avoid wasteful duplication of services, so that the two forms of transport will work together for the good not only of coastal shippers but those people in that part of the country which I represent.

Mr. Grant-Ferris

I congratulate my hon. Friends on the great success that they have had with my right hon. Friend, and I congratulate him, too, upon resolving what was a very nasty situation in Committee, where there was great dissension and trouble. I am glad to see that concord has been reached.

Does my right hon. Friend visualise the possibility of any unfair competition, or any pressure being brought by the railways upon inland water transport, particularly with reference to independent carriers and carriers who exercise their trade in borderline cases, operating partly as coastal shippers and partly on inland waterways. Certain vessels go through estuarial waters and then up inland waterways. Will they have the protection of this Clause? If my right hon. Friend considers that undue influence is being brought to bear by the railways in future will he try to apply the principles which are set out so well here?

Mr. Marples

I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their thanks and compliments. Nowadays, and this week in particular, this, to a politician, is like manna from heaven.

In answer to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), I take the view that coastal shipping was apprehensive of the railways long before Dr. Beeching became Chairman of the Commission. It was more scared of the 1947 Act than of anything else that we have had. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's strictures that it has reason to be more afraid now than it was then.

I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard) that I, too, hope that this provision Will lead to more efficiency in the coastal shipping industry. He mentioned the question of an investigation by an independent person, and I want to explain a little further, for the convenience of the House, what the words contained in subsection (4) mean. That subsection places a duty upon the Minister to refer complaints to a suitably qualified person for investigation, and to consider the report of that person before deciding whether a direction should be given to the Board. During the Third Reading debate I said that: when complaints are made I proposed to appoint an accountant of very high standing to investigate impartially and then to report to me."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1962; Vol. 658, c. 586.] He will be the independent investigator.

It should be noticed that in this part of the Amendment the Minister is not obliged to refer all complaints to an independent investigator, but only those where,the representative body concerned has established what is, in the Minister's opinion, a reasonable case in support of its complaint. This is necessary because the Minister must be able to avoid unnecessary duplication of reference to an investigator, and so save expense and time-wasting investigations.

There is a precedent for the use of the concept of "reasonable", which appears here. The precedent is contained in paragraph 2 (1) of Part I of the Fourth Schedule to the Transport Act, 1953, under which the Transport Tribunal can take action in relation to coastal shipping if it considers that shipowners have made out a "reasonable case". The Clause refers to "a person appearing to" me "to have suitable qualifications." That has been put in because, in some circumstances, I may think that a solicitor or a man of business would be more suited to do the job than an accountant. This provision has been left fairly wide.

12.15 p.m.

Subsection (5) deals with the refusal of the Railways Board to quote a charge. This has been inserted to enable the Minister to deal with a situation in which the Board is deliberately refusing to quote a charge at all, in order to prevent goods being carried by coastal shipping. It is highly unlikely to occur in practice, but it might be possible in theory, at any rate, for the railways to exploit their monopoly position in short-haul cases by refusing to quote any charge. This would mean, in effect, that they ware unwilling to carry the goods. The Amendment meets this hypothetical situation by providing that, if on a complaint made by a body— which can complain in a case where charges are made—it appears to the Minister that the Railways Board has refused to quote for the carriage of goods by rail to or from a harbour in a case where the monopoly conditions exist, the Minister may give a direction.

If a monopoly situation does not exist there is no need for this provision to come into action. My hon. Friends have been very reasonable in this matter. I am grateful to them for calling my attention to the various aspects of the coastal shipping case. If I decide that the railways have refused to quote a charge I can give directions requiring this to be done. It would be possible for the Minister to deal with a complaint where no charge had been made in the monopoly type of case, but this does not mean that the Minister would issue a direction in every case where the Board has refused to carry goods which someone wants it to carry to or from a harbour, because it may have good reasons for refusing to do so. It may be that it is proposing to close down the provision of goods services from a port to the proposed destination of the goods, or that it has other bona fide reasons, such as a shortage of manpower or wagons, for refusing to carry the goods. In those oases the Minister would not propose to issue a direction.

The purpose of the new subsection is to enable the Minister to dead with a case, if ever one arose, where it appeared to him that the Railways Board was adopting the device of refusing to quote a charge merely for the purpose of exploiting its monopoly position. It would then be driving traffic away from coastal shipping so as to get it carried for the whole of its journey by rail. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friends for the help which they gave me in trying to hammer out a difficult position and to resolve the problem. It was not a question of any lack of will to do so, but the provision of a mechanism to ensure fair play has been difficult. I think that we have now been successful.

Subsection (6) provides that the procedure on any complaint under the Clause shall be such as the Minister may determine. The Amendment has been put forward to make it clear beyond doubt that the proceedings are informal and are not referable to the courts on procedural matters. It is important that in the investigation of these complaints there should be no disclosure to the body making the complaint of the charges which the Railways Board is making, since this is the sort of information which cannot be disclosed to its competitors without risk of its interests being damaged. In these circumstances it was felt desirable to make it clear that the Minister must have power to determine in what way complaints should be dealt with by him, and how the person to whom the complaint is referred for investigation should carry out that investigation.

This will have the advantage of enabling the complaint to be dealt with as speedily as possible. The shipowners attach great importance to these cases, as I do, and I shall do my utmost to see that they are decided quickly.

Subsection (7), in page 5, line 30, deals with the question of whether a charge has actually to be made before any complaint can be lodged with the Minister or with a complaint made about charges proposed to be made. It has always been my view that "charges made" covers charges which had been quoted by the Railways Board to a person who wants to get his goods carried by rail. But it was apparent from the discussions on the point that there was some uncertainty on the question of whether "charges made" covered charges which had to be quoted in advance of carrying the goods.

This Amendment puts the point beyond doubt by making it clear that reference to a charge made for the carriage of goods includes references to a charge at which the Board holds itself out as willing to carry any goods. I think that sensible. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Grant-Ferris

May I have an answer to the point which I raised with my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Marples

It covers estuarial waiters but not inland waterways.

Mr. McMaster

Will my right hon. Friend deal with the point concerning the position where the Board provides both the shipping and the rail services? Will it be possible to discover how the pricing is apportioned between the rail and the shipping parts of the carriage?

Mr. Marples

No, not under this Amendment.

Question put and agreed to. [Special entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [Special entries.]

Clause 54.—(ADVANCE INFORMATION ABOUT RAILWAY CLOSURES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 54, line 40, leave out from "of" to "shall" in line 41 and insert:

1. "(a) railway passenger or goods services provided by the Railways Board or the London Board, and
2. (b) shipping services provided by the Railways Board,
• the Railways Board or the London Board, as the case may be."

Mr. Marples

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

Clause 54 provides that the Railways Board, and the London Board, shall from time to time give advanced public notice of their plans to discontinue railway passenger or goods services so that users, both the public and trade and industry, can have as comprehensive information as may be available in good time for them to make the necessary arrangements to fit in with the changes in railway services. But as Clause 54 stood when it came out of the Commons, the provision for publication of advanced notice of such plans related purely to railway services and not to railway shipping services whether provided directly by the Railways Board or through subsidiary companies.

The shipping services referred to are, in fact, extensions of the railway system and it is just as necessary for those concerned to have advance notice of the discontinuance of railway shipping services as of railway services. This Amendment, therefore, provides accordingly by including the discontinuance of railway shipping services within the obligation imposed by Clause 54 on the Railways Board to give advance notice of its plans.

It will be seen that the Amendment is drawn to embrace two subsidiary companies, namely, the Caledonian Steam Packet Company Limited and the Caledonian Steam Packet (Irish Services) Limited. Amendments have also been made by the Lords to Clause 56 to include the services and facilities provided by these two companies within the ambit of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. McMaster

I should like, very briefly, to add that this Amendment is particularly welcome in Northern Ireland where it is of particular concern to the people living there.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 55.—(THE NATIONALISED TRANSPORT ADVISORY COUNCIL.)

Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 7, leave out "such".

Mr. Marples

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

This and the next Amendment will enable the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council to advise the Minister on any questions relating to the coordination, or any other aspect, of the nationalised transport undertakings. As the Bill came out of the Commons, the Council was limited to advise only on such questions as were referred to it by the Minister. The Amendments will therefore enable the Council to take the initiative in considering any question where this seems desirable to it. It should be noted that the Amendments do not in any way alter the advisory nature of the Council or give it any executive capacity but merely enlarge the orbit of subjects which it can discuss.

Mr. Strauss

During the Committee stage of the Bill upstairs, we sought to alter this Clause in many ways and to make the National Transport Advisory Council a much more important body and one much less limited in scope than was suggested in the Bill when it originally appealed before us. One of Che proposals which we put forward was that the Council should not be limited, as the Minister suggested, to dealing with questions which the Minister put before it. We wanted many other things, too. We wanted the body to be able to co-ordinate and do things other than just advise. We were beaten on that, but on this matter we are delighted that once again their Lordships have succeeded in doing what we failed to do. As a result of the Amendment, the Council will now be able to consider every sort of problem, as I understand it, dealing with the nationalised transport undertakings, and not just those put before it by the Minister. I therefore give a very warm welcome to these Amendments which will make some improvement, though a very small improvement—it does not go as far as we wanted it to go—in the scope of authority of this new Council.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 56, line 9, leave out "and" and insert: the activities of the Holding Company and the undertakings".

Mr. Marples

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

This Amendment will allow the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council to advise the Minister on questions relating to the Transport Holding Company. It is really a drafting Amendment because the definition, when it parted from this House, was defective in that it did not refer to the Holding Company itself. Therefore, the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council would have the affairs of the Holding Company excluded from its deliberations. I think everybody will agree that that would be a mistake, because the Holding Company holds the shares in an amazingly large number of bus companies and it is quite clear that their actitvies ought to be discussed in the Council if it thought fit.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 56.—(THE TRANSPORT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 57, line 2, leave out "function" and insert "duty".

Mr. Marples

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

The purpose of this Amendment is really to give a word which is more precise and to make it absolutely clear that it is the duty of the Committees to consider representations. The idea is to make absolutely certain that the Committees know what they have to do. It is a change of words which gives more precision to our meaning.

Question put and agreed to.

12.30 p.m.

Lords Amendment: In page 59, line 26, after "make" insert "general".

Mr. Marples

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

Subsection (14) of Clause 56 as it emerged from the Commons, provided that the Central Committee could from time to time make recommendations to the area transport users' consultative committees with respect to any matter affecting the procedure of those committees. The Central Committee includes the chairmen of the area committees in its membership, and the intention of this provision was to enable them to discuss matters in which uniformity among the area committees was desirable, and to make recommendations accordingly. However, it was subsequently advised that the word "procedure" may be too narrow in certain circumstances which I will outline.

One of the matters in which uniformity among the area committees is desirable is in the general lines of the reports which they will make to the Minister under subsections (9) to (11) of the Clause. Under the procedure set out in these and the two preceding subsections for dealing with passenger closures the area committees will be charged with the task of reporting to the Minister on the hardship likely to be involved in such closures and of making proposals for the alleviation of hardship. The area committees' reports will be seat direct to the Minister. Copies will be sent to the Central Committee as wall as to the board concerned, but the Central Committee will play no part in the consideration of individual closure proposals or their effects on users.

It is clearly desirable that the reports which the Minister receives from the various area committees should be on broadly similar lines and should adopt broadly similar criteria and standards for 'the assessment of hardship. It would be monstrous if in one part of the country there was one criterion for hardship and in another part of the country shore was another criterion. Due weight must, of course, be given to local circumstances, but the Minister will be greatly helped in his consideration of individual cases if area committees are in general working on the same lines in making these reports. It is therefore desirable that the powers of the Central Committee to make recommendations to the area committees under subsection (14) should be widely enough drawn to enable them to make recommendations on matters of this kind. For this reason the second Amendment provides for the insertion of the words "or functions" after the word "procedure".

On the other hand, there must be no doubt about the fact that these reports on closure cases go straight from the area committee to the Minister without the intervention of the Central Committee. To make this abundantly clear, and to avoid the possibility of the Central Committee's recommendations under subsection (14) referring to any individual closure case, the word "general" was added before "recommendations" by the first of the Amendments.

I should like to say that the present chairmen of the Central Committee and the area committees are in entire agreement with the purpose and intention of these Amendments.

Mr. Strauss

I do not think that anyone would disagree with the purpose and intention of the Amendment, but it does not seem that the words will achieve the purpose which is required. After the Amendment has been made, all that the Clause will say is: … the Central Committee may from time to time make general recommendations to the Area Committees with respect to any matter affecting the procedure or functions of those Committees. That is all right. But I understand that the Minister wants the Central Committee to make suggestions about standards of hardship and matters of that sort so that there may be some kind of uniformity. It is true that within the wording it would be possible for the Central Committee to do this. But there does not seem to me any such suggestion arising from the words as they will now stand that it shall be the function of the Central Committee to give directions on general points about standards of hardship which should be in the minds of members of the local committees when making recommendations to the Minister. While one does not object to the Amendment, it would appear that it does not achieve the purpose which the Minister has in mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 60, line 2, leave out from "effect" to end of line 6 and insert: for the purposes of this section".

Mr. Marples

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

With permission, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could discuss the Seventh Schedule with this Amendment.

Mr. Speaker

If the House so pleases.

Mr. Marples

The main effect of the Amendment which is really a drafting Amendment is to enable the Minister to deal with passenger closures which have taken place before the Bill becomes law, or are before him at the commencement of Clause 57, in a similar way as with those which will fall within the procedure laid down. In other words, it covers the (transitional period.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 60, line 6, at end insert: (18) For the purposes of subsection (4) of this section, any shipping service provided by the Caledonian Steam Packet Company Limited or the Caledonian Steam Packet Company (Irish Services) Limited shall, so long as the company providing the service is a subsidiary of the Railways Board, be deemed to be a service provided by that Board.

Mr. Marples

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

Clause 56 (4) provides that the transport users' consultative committees are to consider, and where it appears to them desirable, make recommendations, with respect to any matter affecting the services and facilities—I stress those words—provided by any of the boards. "Services and facilities" as regards the Railways Board include not only its railway services but other services, notably shipping services, operated by the Board. The words do not, however, include any shipping service provided by a subsidiary company of the Railways Board. In fact, two such companies will become wholly owned subsidiaries of the Railways Board under Clause 31 and Part I of the Fourth Schedule, namely, the Caledonian Steam Packet Company Limited and the Caledonian Steam Packet Company (Irish Services) Limited.

Therefore, there is no distinction between the nature of the services operated by these two companies and the shipping services operated directly by the railways. They are both extensions of the railway system and it is therefore considered that the services and facilities they provide should be open to the transport users' consultative committee procedure like any other railway shipping services to which they are akin. The Amendment provides accordingly and widens the scope of what may be considered by the transport users' consultative committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 59.—(SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS ON GRANT TO LONDON BOARD OF ROAD SERVICE LICENCES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 63, line 42, leave out "the next following subsection" and insert: subsection (5) of this section".

Mr. Hay

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

I think that it would be convenient if with this Amendment we also discuss the Amendment in page 64, line 12 leave out "(4) In the last foregoing subsection" and insert: (4) Any road service licence which is transferred on the vesting date to the London Board under Part II of this Act and which authorises the London Board to provide a road service on a restricted route shall have effect as if it contained a condition that the Board shall not both pick up and set down a passenger on the route, but any such condition may be varied subject to the provisions of this section. (5) In the two last foregoing subsections Both these Amendments provide that current road service licences which vest in the London Board on vesting date are to contain a notional condition to the same effect as any restriction imposed under the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933 if the licence related to a restricted route. I had better explain that.

The restricted route is defined in subsection (4) of the Clause as one over which the London Transport Executive had power to run its buses at any time in the 12 months before the publication of the Bill. But this is subject to a condition that the Board should not both pick up and set down passengers on the route. The first Amendment, in line 42, is consequential and a drafting Amendment relevant to the second Amendment. The Amendment is necessary since licences currently in force are not subject to the special procedures set out in subsection (1) of Clause 59. As these licences last for up to three years it seemed right to us that licences in force on vesting date should be deemed to be subject to the conditions about picking up and setting down passengers on restricted routes.

Although the Amendment refers to variation of conditions, in fact the Traffic Commissioners will not be able to dispense with such conditions under its powers under Section 134 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. So any attempt by the Board, if an attempt were made, to vary the conditions of restriction of existing licences would bring the routes outside the conditions of exemption. That would involve a variation in the conditions of a road service licence. Protection for other operators is provided for in subsection (2) of Clause 59 and this would apply automatically.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 64, line 10, leave out "not" and insert "the subsections shall apply".

Mr. Hay

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

This drafting Amendment dispenses with an awkward double negative.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 61.—(AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO INLAND WATERWAYS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 65, line 36, leave out "from a railway company".

Mr. Hay

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

Subsection (1) of Clause 61 as it emerged from this House provided that Section 17 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, should apply to the British Waterways Board as it formerly applied to the railway companies. That Section of that Act requires the British Transport Commission at present to maintain certain inland waterways in a navigable condition. Subsection (2) of Clause 61 provided that those obligations should relate only to inland waterways which formerly were covered by Section 17 of the Act of 1873, that is to say, which were transferred to the Commission from a railway company, and which have not since been statutorily closed to navigation.

It is important to understand the background. On nationalisation the railway companies were amalgamated into the British Transport Commission. They brought with them as part of their im-pedimenta a certain number of canals which they had acquired over the years. At the same time the Commission acquired virtually all the other canals in the country. The 1873 Act applied only to those canals which came to the Commission from the old railway companies and not to those which the Commission got by way of nationalisation in 1947.

The subsection restored the position which held good before nationalisation. The only provision in public legislation which required the maintenance of canals for navigation applied solely to the formerly railway-owned canals. This was quite apart from any obligations of that kind imposed by private legislation, and there was a great deal of that legislation. The original intention of Section 17 of the 1873 Act was to ensure that the railway companies which acquired canals from competitors, in those days, would not allow the canals to decay. As the British Waterways Board will not be a railway company, specific provision is necessary to impose this obligation on the Board.

The Amendment makes this provision and extends the provision of Section 17 to all canals owned by the Board, those which have never been owned by railway companies and which have not enjoyed the Section 17 protection before nationalisation. The B.T.C. canals are at present subject to this obligation. Upon consideration, in the (light of views expressed in another place, we came to the conclusion that the present position should continue.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Grant-Ferris

I thank my hon. Friend very much for what he has done to facilitate this position. The decision arrived at is, I am sure, the right one. When we were in Committee upstairs and under the pressure of the Guillotine it was impossible to discuss these matters thoroughly. They have now been discussed thoroughly and I am sure that as a result a very much better position will obtain for the inland waterways than before.

Mr. Strauss

The explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary was, as usual, admirably clear, but I must confess that I do not now know what difference it will make if this Amendment is accepted. I could not understand whether this was a tidying up procedure and if it was necessary purely for the legislative purpose of putting beyond doubt that all these canals, whether they were brought in by the railways or not, would as a result of this Amendment be treated in exactly the same way. I am sure that that is the legal position, but in practice what difference will this make? Will it make it easier or more difficult for the Board to close such canals as it thinks necessary? Will it make any difference in practice, or is it merely a bit of legislative tidying up?

Mr. Hay

With the leave of the House, I can answer the question put by the right hon. Member in the form in which he posed it. This is a legal tidying up. I cannot suggest that it will make any fundamental difference to the position of the British Waterways Board. Nevertheless, it is a further safeguard which I think appropriate to place on the Board to ensure that it does not dispose of canals or close them without proper form being gone through.

The general effect will be that all the canals which vest in the Waterways Board as successor to the Commission will be covered, if these Amendments are made, by the protection given by Section 17 of the 1873 Act. The position at present is a little different, but I think I can say that this is a tidying up.

Mr. Ede

Does it mean that any waterway taken over by the Board can be closed only by an Act of Parliament relieving the Board from obligations imposed by the Clause we are considering?

Mr. Hay

No, it does not. There are various ways in which canals can be closed. I had better not go into great detail on them now. All that this Section of the 1873 Act does is to require the owners of such canals to: keep and maintain such canal or part, … thoroughly repaired and dredged and in good working condition, and … preserve the supplies of water … so that the whole of such canal or part may be at all times kept open and navigable for the use of all persons desirous to use and navigate the same without any unnecessary hindrance, interruption, or delay. That is the statutory obligation which will be placed on the Waterways Board in respect of its canals if we accept the Lords Amendment.

Closure is an entirely separate matter. Although it would be normal for a private Act of Parliament to be required for closure of parts of the system, there are other ways in which that could be done. The effect of the Amendment is simply to place this general responsibility on the Board to keep its canals in a navigable condition, but if at any time it wishes to close them to navigation there is an entirely separate procedure.

Mr. Strauss

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the position a little more because now he has confused me? It seemed from his earlier speech that the effect of the Amendment would be to impose an obligation on the Waterways Board which it did not have before, to keep all its canals—however originally obtained—in a navigable condition, which I am sure is desirable. He suggested that this obligation operated only in regard to some canals and not others. Now, he tells us that it will operate in respect of all canals, which which case, I think, the matter becomes one of principle and not just a bit of tidying up. I am not objecting to it, but I want to know whether or not this Amendment in fact imposes a further considerable obligation on the British Waterways Board in respect of canals which were not acquired through possession originally by the railway companies. I do not object to the obligation, but I want to know where we are.

Mr. Hay

With respect, I think that the right hon. Gentleman's memory has failed him. He has, perhaps, forgotten that there is under Clause 64 what we called in Committee the moratorium. In effect, all the statutory obligations are suspended, subject to the conditions under that Clause, for five years until the end of 1967. Although, technically, the effect of this Lords Amendment is to place upon the British Waterways Board the obligation imposed by Section 17 of the 1873 Act, that obligation is suspended by the operation of Clause 64 as regards maintenance.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 63.—(ABSTRACTION OF WATER BY INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 66, line 45, at end insert: or under section thirty-five of the Lee Conservancy Act, 1900 (under which the abstraction of water may be regulated by byelaw)

Mr. Hay

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

This is a simple Amendment which has the effect of broadening the ambit of subsection (3) so as to exclude from the embrace of the Clause abstractions of water by frontagers on the River Lee and its tidal tributaries, which are covered by certain other byelaws made, I believe, under the River Lee Water Acts.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 67, line 8, at end insert: (5) The British Waterways Board shall publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the area in which the point of abstraction is situated a notice of any application made by them for the consent of the Minister, giving sufficient particulars of their proposals and of the terms of consent applied for.

Mr. Hay

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

Clause 63 provides that the British Waterways Board shall serve notice on a number of public water authorities and other public bodies if it applies to the Minister for consent to new or increased abstractions of water for sale. These public bodies then have 28 days in which to lodge objection with the Minister if they disagree with the proposal. The Minister has to take such objections into acoount when he oonsiders whether to give consent and, if so, in what terms.

The Amendment has the effect of placing an additional obligation on the Board, the obligation to publish a notice in one or more local newspapers if it applies to the Minister for consent. It was considered by noble Lords that it was desirable to publicise abstraction applications vary widely because such abstractions could well affect a range of interests rather wider than the public bodies which are given the specific right of objection by the present subsections (4), (5) and (6). In particular, it was thought that riparian owners, farmers and industry should be properly informed. This seemed to us an unexceptionable doctrine and accordingly we agreed with the proposed Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to

Clause 71.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF STAFF.)

Lords Amendment: In page 81, line 34, at end insert: (4) This section shall apply, with any necessary modifications, to the Holding Company as it applies to the Boards.

Mr. Hay

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

This Amendment is intended to apply to the Holding Company the obligations under Clause 71 to consult about the establishment and maintenance of negotiating and consultative machinery. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) will recall that in Standing Committee and on Report the Opposition pressed for this. The matter was again pressed in another place, and we agreed there to apply the obligation to the Holding Company itself but not to its subsidiaries which, like the subsidiaries of the four statutory boards, are organised as commercial companies under the Companies Act, 1948.

We felt that this was a desirable change to make in all the circumstances, and I think that the Opposition will agree since they pressed us so strongly about it.

Mr. Strauss

I am sure that my hon. Friends who pressed this matter in Standing Committee and on Report will be grateful to the Government for accepting the case which they put and incorporating it in the Bill by this Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 76.—(COMMISSION'S POWER TO DEVELOP LAND.)

Lords Amendment: In page 85, line 31, leave out from "power" to second "to" in line 34.

Mr. Hay

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

I think that it might be convenient, Mr. Speaker, if at the same time we included for discussion the following four further Lords Amendments

In line 37, leave out from "section" to end of line 41 and insert:

1. "(a) retain any part of their land which is not required for the purposes of their business and develop it for use by other persons, and
2. (b) where the use of their land for the purposes of their business can be combined with its use for other purposes, develop the land by constructing or adapting buildings thereon for use wholly or partly by other persons,
• with a view to selling or otherwise disposing of any right or interest in the land or, as the 859 case may be, the buildings or any part of the buildings, after the development is carried out".

In line 43, after "land" insert "for use"

In page 86, line 6, after "land" insert "for use"

In line 15, after "compulsorily" insert "for use".

Mr. Speaker

Yes.

Mr. Hay

These are really drafting Amendments to carry out the intention of Clause 76 enabling the Commission during the period up to vesting date to develop its surplus land for sale, rent or lease or for some use other than the purposes of its primary business.

The House will recall that, earlier this morning, it agreed to new Clause A to replace the old Clause 11 in the Bill. These Amendments make to Clause 76 the counterpart Amendments to those made by new Clause A in respect of the Commission for the remainder of its life, whereas new Clause A dealt with the powers to be vested after vesting date in the new boards.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 85.—(APPLICATION OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACTS.)

1.0 p.m.

Lords Amendment: In page 94, line 5, after "Act" insert: so far as that section relates to development of land for use otherwise than for the purposes of the business of the Board ".

Mr. Hay

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

This is a drafting Amendment to make clear that subsection (1) does not apply to a case where the Commission or one of the new boards is developing its property for operational purposes, that is to say a development for use for the purposes of its business under powers conferred upon it by Clauses 11 and 76.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "C".—(TEMPORARY PROVISION AS TO DEVELOPMENT OF LAND IN LONDON.)

Lords Amendment: In page 95, line 25, at end insert new Clause "C": C.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Commission and of the Boards to consult the London County Council as to the use of their land in the administrative county of London so far as that land is not required for the purposes of their business, and to submit for the approval of the Minister of Housing and Local Government proposals with regard to the use of that land in a manner which is consistent with proper planning and which, in particular, is consistent with the need for keeping a proper balance in the use of their land as between new office accommodation and other accommodation for trade, business and industry on the one hand, and new living accommodation (with the amenities required by a resident community) on the other hand; and in making those proposals account may be taken of living accommodation provided or to be provided on any land belonging to the Commission or the Boards which lies outside, but in the immediate vicinity of, the administrative county of London.

(2) The following provisions of this section shall have effect as regards any application made before the date certified by the Minister of Housing and Local Government as that on which he has approved proposals under the foregoing subsection, being an application for permission under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, for development of land in the administrative county of London which belongs to the Commission or a Board at the time when the application is made; and the said date shall be certified by the said Minister by order contained in a statutory instrument.

(3) If on any such application for permission for development consisting of the construction, reconstruction or alteration of a building—

1. (a) which is designed or intended for use as office premises, or
2. (b) part of which is designed or intended for use as office premises and is suited for separate occupation,
• permission is refused by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, either on appeal or on the reference of the application to him for determination, or is so granted subject to conditions, no compensation shall be payable in respect of the refusal or imposition of conditions under section twenty of the said Act of 1947 (which relates to development not involving an increase of more than 10 per cent. in cubic content) or paragraph 1 of the Fifth Schedule to that Act (which relates to statutory undertakers' operational land).

(4) Subsection (3) of this section shall not apply to an application for permission for development consisting of the reconstruction of a building destroyed or damaged by fire or accident.

(5) In this section references to the Minister refusing permission or granting permission subject to conditions include references to the Minister and the appropriate Minister refusing permission, or granting permission subject to conditions, under paragraph 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the said Act of 1947."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Marples

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

In Committee on the Bill in another place, on 28th and 29th May, there was a great deal of criticism in debate about the possible consequences of Clause 11, which sought to give the British Transport Commission and the new boards powers to develop their surplus land for purposes other than the purposes of their primary business. One of the defects of the 1947 Act was that the British Transport Commission could sell its land to a third-party speculator and he could develop flats or offices on it but the Commission was not allowed to do so. I always thought that this was a great restriction which was quite unjustifiable.

Clause 11 as it left the House gave the Commission power to develop its surplus land, but in another place the point of criticism concentrated upon the possible consequences in the development of office accommodation in London. It was contended that these new powers would enable the boards to develop considerable areas of their surplus land into office accommodation and so add to traffic congestion and the problems of getting people to and from their work on public transport and on the roads in London.

An Amendment was moved in another place and there were bitter complaints that there was not a balance between housing and offices in the land which the Commission had available. The Commission has more land available in Central London than any other body. It has between 1,000 and 1,500 acres. The Commission at that time was negotiating with London County Council and trying to do a deal. It was pursuing discussions very earnestly. The idea was to give so many acres to London County Council for housing and to have permission to develop so many acres for office accommodation.

The effect of the new Clause is twofold. It places a duty on the Commission and the new boards to do two things. The first is to consult London County Council about the use of their surplus land in the county of London. They were doing that anyhow and, as the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) knows, the British Transport Commission is a public body with a conscience. It was doing the right thing but we are now imposing it upon these bodies as a stautory duty. It was the wish of another place that this should be done.

Mr. Ede

I do not admire the other place as my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) does.

Mr. Marples

That is the kind of dichotomy that goes on in the party opposite.

The Commission and the boards have to submit to the Minister of Housing and Local Government for approval proposals for the use of that land. Such proposals must be consistent with proper planning and the proper balance as between new office and other accommodation for trade, industry and business on the one hand and new housing accommodation and related amenities on the other under subsection (1).

Until such proposals have been submitted and approved by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and he has certified by Order that he has so approved them, no compensation for refusal or conditional grant of planning permission will be payable to the Commission or the new boards in respect of any office development, whether for operational use or for sale or lease to other persons on land belonging to the Commission or the new boards in the County of London. This provision is intended as a sanction and an incentive to the Commission and the new boards to submit to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in consultation with London County Council, acceptable proposals for the use of their surplus land in London as soon as practicable. It will also deter them in the meantime from seeking planning permission for office development in London which would be likely to be inconsistent with such proposals and would in any case enable the planning authority to refuse permission for office development without being deterred by the heavy compensation which might have otherwise to be paid on such a refusal.

Once, however, the Commission and the new boards have secured the approval of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to these comprehensive proposals for the use of their surplus land and the Minister has certified accordingly, their disabilities under the new Clause are removed and they are entitled to compensation for refusal of planning permission in appropriate circumstances just like any other developer. The Clause is therefore a temporary measure designed to provide for the initial period, when the Commission and the new boards are vested with powers to develop their land, and some general control is necessary while overall proposals for the use of their surplus land are being settled with the Ministry.

It can be argued that the Commission and the new boards will have considerable areas of land in London, and that is true. As I have said, they are in a unique position in that respect. In support of the new Clause it can also be argued that the special problem of office development in London in relation to traffic congestion, both on the roads and the suburban railways, is unique and justifies this sort of provision. The Clause does not amend in any way the Town and Country Planning Acts or bring about any permanent change in the eligibility of the Commission in relation to compensation for refusal or conditional grant of planning permission under the planning Acts. The Clause was something that the other place thought desirable as a first move towards balancing housing and office building in London. Whilst it may be thought by some to be inappropriate in a Transport Bill, because this is a town planning matter and the Town and Country Planning Acts will apply to any of the boards just as to anybody else, the other place nevertheless inserted the new Clause.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Considerations of Privilege arise on the new Clause. If the House is willing to waive its Privilege I will see that the necessary entry is made in the Journal.

Mr. Strauss

The Minister has given a full and fair explanation on the new Clause and there is little for me to say, because my reaction to it is much the same as his. It was perfectly clear from the way he put the case that the right hon. Gentleman does not think much of the new Clause. It will not alter the law to any significant degree, if at all, because the Town and Country Planning Acts will apply as before and it is exceedingly doubtful whether it will provide any safeguard for anybody, but it will certainly do no harm.

Mr. David Webster (Weston-super-Mare)

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree with Gilbert that their Lordships in this case have done nothing and have done it very well?

Mr. Strauss

They have done nothing and have taken a long time doing it and they have produced a very involved Clause, but if they wanted to do something that is all right. That is my reaction to the Amendment. As it does not seem to be objectionable but is utterly harmless, I see no reason why the House should not agree to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 90.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 98, line 20, at end insert: ' officer', in relation to the Commission or any other body does not include a member of that body;

Mr. Hay

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

The Amendment removes the possibility of any ambiguity in the terms of Clause 80 (1). That provision is designed to provide for the payment of compensation to employees of the Commission "who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights or whose position is worsened in consequence of the reorganisation" which the Bill effects.

Employees of the Commission are defined in Clause 80 (1) as officers or servants of the Commission". We ware told that there is room for slight doubt whether the term "officers" could be held to embrace members of the Commission or of the London Transport Executive—that is to say, the bosses rather than the men lower down. The question arises from Section 1 (3) of the Transport Act, 1947, which states that Every member of the Commission shall hold and vacate his office in accordance with the terms of his appointment". In the same subsection, there is a reference to a member resigning his office. It is said that these words might conceivably be held to import the idea that a member of the Commission is also an officer of the Commission, and he might, therefore, come within the ambit of the compensation provisions of Clause 80.

As I have explained on numerous occasions, those compensation provisions are intended to apply only to the employees of the Commission and separate and special provision is made in Clause 78 for the Minister to be able to arrange for paying compensation, if it appears to him that there are special circumstances which make it right, to members of the Commission or of the London Transport Executive who relinquish their appointments before the time when they would normally expire, or whose appointments have come to an end before the date on which the appointment would expire because the Commission and the Executive are to be abolished.

We want to put beyond doubt that such compensation as the Minister judges should be payable to members of the Commission or of the Executive relinquishing their appointments before their due time should fall to be dealt with under Clause 78 and not under Clause 80. Therefore, the Amendment covers these purposes by inserting a new definition into the Interpretation Clause so as expressly to define what is meant by "officer".

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 91.—(APPLICATION TO NORTHERN IRELAND.)

Lords Amendment: In page 99, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 100, and insert: (1) The provisions of this Act set out in Part I of the Schedule (Application to Northern Ireland) to this Act shall extend to Northern Ireland subject to the modifications set out in Part II of that Schedule, and save as aforesaid this Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland. (2)".

Mr. Hay

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

I think that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the Lords Amendments in page 100, line 10, and the new Schedule "A" at page 140, line 24. All these Amendments provide for the detailed application of the Bill to Northern Ireland. They are basically technical Amendments. The first of them takes out of the Bill the procedure set out in Clause 91 for application of the Bill to Nothern Ireland by Order in Council and it paves the way for the new Schedule "A", which contains detailed provisions for application. The second of the three Amendments, in page 100, line 10, as a purely consequential drafting Amendment to the first one.

The main reason for these Amendments is that it seems to us on reflection batter and more in line with precedents for the Bill to provide for its own application in detail rather than for this to be left to subordinate legislation— for example, by Order in Council. The basic principle that we have followed is to apply the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland except when there is a reason to the contrary. A particular example is the case of Stamp Duty, which is a matter for Northern Ireland legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule.—(THE BOARDS, THE REGIONAL RAILWAY BOARDS AND THE HOLDING COMPANY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 105, line 7, at end insert: (3) The Minister shall, as soon as possible after the first appointment of any person as a member of a Regional Railway Board, lay before each House of Parliament a statement of the salary or fees and of the allowances that are or will be payable under this paragraph; and, if any subsequent determination by him under this paragraph involves a departure from the terms of that statement, or if a determination by him under this paragraph relates to the payment of, or of payment towards the provision of. a pension to or in respect of a member of a Regional Railway Board, the Minister shall, as soon as possible after the determination, lay a statement thereof before each House of Parliament.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Hay

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

This Amendment provides for the Minister to keep Parliament informed of the salaries and other emoluments of members of the regional railway boards which the Minister has to determine with the approval of the Treasury in respect of the members of those Boards. The Bill has always provided for the Minister to give Parliament this information concerning the members of the four statutory boards and the Holding Company, but it seems to us desirable that the Minister should be under the same obligation as regards the members of the regional railway boards.

Question put and agreed to.

Second Schedule.—(TRANSFER OF COMMISSION'S STATUTORY FUNCTIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 107, line 16, leave out "and".

Mr. Hay

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

This Amendment goes together with the following Lords Amendment in line 16 and the Lords Amendments in lines 29 and 31. They are all drafting Amendments to the provisions of the Second Schedule relating to the transfer of the Commission's statutory functions under the Coast Protection Act, 1949.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 108, line 47, at end insert:

"Section 157 … (Financial and statistical returns)

In subsection (3), for the reference to the Commission or an Executive there shall be substituted a reference to the Railways Board and the London Board."

Mr. Hay

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

This, again is a drafting Amendment. The Second Schedule provides for amending a number of Statutes which confer statutory functions upon the Commission so as to substitute for the Commission one or more of the new boards as may be appropriate. Further research has revealed that the Schedule should provide for allocation of the Commission's functions to the Railways Board and the London Board in the case of Section 157 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 109, line 8, at end insert:

"Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland

The Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland), 1953 1953 c. 14

Section 12 (3) … (Evidence in criminal proceedings regarding goods and mail in transit)

For the reference to the Commission or any Execu-tive there shall be substituted a reference to any of the Boards."

Mr. Hay

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

This, again, is a drafting Amendment consequential on the Government Amendment to Clause 91 and the proposed new Schedule applying and modifying the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Fourth Schedule.—(DISTRIBUTION OF COMMISSION'S SECURITIES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 113, to leave out line 17.

Mr. Hay

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

It would be convenient, I think, if we also took the Lords Amendment to page 115, line 7.

These Amendments allocate the Commission's shareholding in the Penarth Dock Engineering Company Limited to the Holding Company instead of to the Docks Board. I am told that this company has now changed its name and has largely gone out of the dock business in any event, and it seems now appropriate for the Bill to provide that the Commission's shareholding in this company be transferred to the Holding Company.

The second of the Amendments secures this by inserting the company's present name at the end of List B of Part IV of the Fourth Schedule.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 115, line 21, at beginning insert: Subject to the following provisions of this Act,".

Mr. Hay

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

I think that it would be convenient if we were also to discuss the Lords Amendment, in page 116, line 38; page 118, line 42; page 120, line 26; and page 121, line 22.

These are incidental Amendments which clarify the effect of the Bill on the distribution as between the Railways Board and the Holding Company of the existing rights and liabilities of the Commission under agreements with bus companies.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Fifth Schedule.—(MISCELLANEUOS ITEMS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE COMMISSION'S ASSETS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 116, line 35, leave out "and".

Mr. Hay

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

We could perhaps also consider the Lords Amendment in page 116, line 38.

These are both minor Amendments which relate to contingent liabilities which arise from road haulage disposals. I should perhaps briefly explain what they are as a matter of record. When the road haulage undertaking of the Commission was returned to private enterprise under the Transport Act, 1953, a substantial number of properties, including leasehold lands comprised in the road haulage organisation of the Commission, were sold off, but there are still a number of contingent liabilities left with the Commission in respect of some of these lands and properties. For example, when a leasehold property is disposed of there is under the law still an implied covenant on the person who assigns a leasehold property to pay the ground rent and perform the covenants in the lease should the person to whom he assigns it fail to do so, although he will have a remedy against the assignee to recover what he so pays.

These liabilities, at present falling on the Commission in respect of leasehold properties of their former road haulage undertakings which they have sold off, are, of course, no more than contingent liabilities, but under the Bill as it left this House they would have passed to the British Railways Board on vesting date as being included among the residual rights and liabilities of the Commission which are not expressly vested by some other provision of the Bill. However, they have nothing to do with the railways and it would be more appropriate if they were expressly transferred to the Transport Holding Company which As to take over the road haulage companies of the Commission and these two Amendments have been made accordingly. I cannot possibly put a money figure on the amount of the contingent liabilities, but I am advised that the chances of their amounting to any material or indeed actual liability are extremely remote.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Seventh Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 125, line 45, at end insert: for the alteration of all or any of their fares subject to the London fares orders (whether or not all or any of those specified in the application were the fares affected by the order). (2) Any application by the Commission in compliance with subsection (5) of the said section twenty-three (which requires the Comission to apply within a prescribed time for confirmation of an order under subsection (2) of that section) which is pending before the Transport Tribunal when section forty-four of this Act comes into force shall be deemed to have been made in compliance with the foregoing sub-paragraph, and the proceedings on that application shall be continued in such manner as the Tribunal may direct as if they were proceedings under section forty-six of this Act.

Mr. Hay

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

This Amendment was made to cure a defect in paragraph 6 of Part II of the Seventh Schedule which deals with the transitional arrangements for the control of passenger fares in London.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments made. [Special Entry].

Lords Amendment: In page 128, line 7, at end insert: (5) In the application of this paragraph to a pension scheme the benefits under which are or will be receivable as of right, persons who have obtained pension rights under the scheme without having contributed under the scheme shall be regarded as participants in the scheme; and references to being eligible to participate in a pension scheme shall be construed accordingly.

Mr. Hay

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

This is a drafting Amendment to provide that the provisions of paragraph 12 of the Seventh Schedule should apply to some 350 people who fall into certain distinct categories. First, they are people who belong to what is known as the Aire and Calder Navigation Superannuation Fund. The second group are former employees of the Lee Conservancy Board or the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board who are entitled to superannuation allowances under certain statutory provisions on the scale from time to time applicable to permanent civil servants. The third group are former employees of the Minister of Transport at Holyhead Harbour and on the Caledonian and Crinan Canals, who are similarly entitled under regulations made in 1952. I am sure that we would wish to make certain that all these people have their non-contributory pension rights preserved.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 129, line 35, leave out "may" and insert "shall".

Mr. Hay

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

It would, I think, be convenient if we were to discuss the following Amendments, page 129, line 45, page 130, line 3, and page 130, line 7.

These four Amendments all relate to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Seventh Schedule. These paragraphs deal with the arrangements following the reorganisation which concern the pensions payable by the Commission on an ex gratia basis. The need for these two paragraphs arises from the position at present, which we discussed in Standing Committee, where the Commission is paying as a matter of grace certain pensions and retirement allowances to some former employees. These include supplementary payments to some former employees whose pensions have diminished in value and since there is no legal obligation to make such payments, the Bill would not ensure that they would be continued by the new undertakings unless there were express provisions for it. Paragraph 15 accordingly provides for the preparation of a scheme for redistribution of the responsibility for these payments between the new undertakings. The Opposition, on Report, tabled Amendments which had the same effect as these four Amendments. I should tell hon. Members opposite that we were ready to accept Amendments put down on Report but the operation of the Time Table Motion prevented us from accepting them.

The first Amendment makes it mandatory on the Minister to approve the scheme to be prepared by the Commission under paragraph 15 of the Seventh Schedule, if he is satisfied that responsibility for the ex gratia pension payments, for which that scheme makes provision, is distributed between the new boards and the Holding Company in an appropriate manner and also that the scheme contains sufficient particulars to enable them to discharge their duties under the scheme.

1.30 p.m.

The second of these Lords Amendments makes the Minister's powers under paragraph 16 dependent upon representations to do so from or on behalf of interested persons. The third of this group of Amendments makes it obligatory on the Minister to direct the Commission by order under paragraph 16 to include in a scheme under paragraph 15 those ex gratia pension expectations which appear to him to be such as "ought to be receivable as of right". The fourth of these Amendments makes it clear that where pensions under ex gratia expectations are covered by a scheme under paragraph 15 they shall be made the responsibility of the new Board or Holding Company as if they were ex gratia payments already being made by a scheme in respect of people already retired before the vesting date.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Tenth Schedule.— (CONSTITUTION, POWERS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL.)

Lords Amendment: In page 136, line 43, at end insert: (3) A person shall not be appointed under the last foregoing sub-paragraph for a term extending beyond the end of the completed year of service in the course of which he attains the age of seventy years, except that, where the Lord Chancellor and the Minister concur in considering it to be desirable in the public interest that a person should be appointed for a term extending beyond that date, that person may, with the approval of the Treasury, be appointed for such term not extending beyond the date on which he attains the age of seventy-five years, as the Lord Chancellor and the Minister think fit.

Mr. Hay

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

It would be convenient to discuss at the same time the succeeding three Lords Amendments: In page 137, line 6, at end insert: (2) A person shall not be appointed to act under paragraph (a) of the last foregoing sub-paragraph after he attains the age of seventy-two years, or under paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph after he attains the age of seventy years, except where the Lord Chancellor or the Minister, as the case may be, think it desirable in the public interest, but no person shall be appointed to act after he attains the age of seventy-five years. In page 137, line 26, leave out "and" and insert: (3) A person shall not be appointed under this paragraph for a term extending beyond the end of the completed year of service in the course of which he attains the age of seventy years, except that where the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State or the Minister, as the case may be, consider it to be desirable in the public interest that a person should be appointed for a term extending beyond that date, that person may, with the approval of the Treasury, be appointed for such term not extending beyond the date on which he attains the age of seventy-five years, as the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State or the Minister, as the case may be, thinks fit. (4). In page 137, line 27, leave out "such a person" and insert "a person appointed under this paragraph ".

These four Lords Amendments relate to the age limit of members of the Transport Tribunal and substitutes for the President and members and members of the special panel. The Tenth Schedule as it emerged from this House contained the following provisions. Firstly, the President must vacate office at the end of the year in which he reached the age of 72, but the Lord Chancellor and the Minister with the approval of the Treasury might authorise his continuation in office up to the age of 75 if they thought that desirable in the public interest. Secondly, other members could hold office for the maximum period of seven years. Finally, members of the special panel are to hold office for a maximum period of three years.

It was intended that, where appropriate, the question of age limits for ordinary members of the Tribunal and members of the special panel would be laid down in the letters of appointment of the members concerned, but on reconsideration it seemed to us desirable that account ought to be taken of the modern practice by writing in provision for age limits into the Bill. This, incidentally, accords with the views of the Council on Tribunals. These Lords Amendments are intended to have this effect.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 139, line 8, leave out from "tribunal" to end of line 12.

Mr. Hay

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

The next Amendment could be conveniently taken with it, in page 139, line 24, leave out from "tribunal" to end of line 27.

These Amendments provide for the deletion of the provisions in the Tenth Schedule which in effect limit the discretion of the Tribunal in two directions, firstly, as regards the awarding of costs, and secondly, as regards the right of audience before the Tribunal. As previously drafted, sub-paragraphs (1, a and f) of paragraph 11 of the Tenth Schedule would have allowed the Tribunal, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport, to make general rules governing their procedure and practice, including the question of costs and the right of audience, but sub-paragraph (1, a) would have prevented the rules from giving the Tribunal power to award costs except where a person had initiated frivolous or vexatious proceedings. Sub-paragaph (1, f) similarly would have prevented the rules from debarring parties appearing in person or being represented by an employee, or counsel or solicitors.

We considered it undesirable, in the light of modern practice, in particular the development of supervision by the Council on Tribunals, that these limitations on the rules should be laid down expressly in the enabling Statute. We feel the better course is to specify what topics the rules may deal with, as in the other sub-paragraphs of paragraph 11, and then deal with such questions in the rules themselves. I would remind the House that these rules will, of course, be shown to the Council upon Tribunals in draft.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 139, line 30, leave out from "rules" to "under".

Mr. Hay

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

It would be convenient to discuss also the next Lords Amendment, in page 139, line 32, after "paragraph" insert: which are in operation immediately before this Schedule comes into force". These two Lords Amendments simply correct an error in the Tenth Schedule where it refers to the commencement of this Act". In fact, as the House will see from Clause 93 (2), the Act is to come into force by order of the Minister, and the Minister is enabled to appoint different days for the coming into force of different provisions. The reference, therefore, to the commencement of the Act is inapt, and these Amendments delete it and substitute a reference to the Schedule coming into force.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 139, line 35, leave out "and" and insert. "(2) The Minister".

Mr. Hay

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

It would be convenient to discuss also the next Lords Amendment, in page 139, line 36, leave out from "he" to "shall" in line 37 and insert: considers will be of assistance to the tribunal in connection with any matter before them, and ". The first of these Amendments is a drafting Amendment. It distinguishes more clearly between two separate duties already laid upon the Minister under paragraph 12. These duties are, firstly, a duty to help the Tribunal when it asks for help, and that includes the production of such information in his possesion as it may ask for; secondly, a duty upon the Minister spontaneously to give information to the Tribunal which he thinks relevant to the matter before the Tribunal.

The second of these two Lords Amendments slightly amends the form in which the Minister's spontaneous duty is expressed. Under the Bill as it was previously drafted, this duty related to any information which the Minister had and which might be relevant to the matter before the Tribunal. This is not quite appropriate. In the case of the future London Fares and Miscellaneous Charges Division of the Tribunal, there may well be a great deal of information in the Ministry relevant to a case but which will probably be adduced by the applicants or by other parties. It would not, therefore, have been appropriate to put a duty on the Minister to prepare a comprehensive statement of all the information he has which might be relevant, or for the Tribunal to be troubled with it. It might well largely be a duplication of information already put forward by the applicants, and needlessly lengthen the proceedings. The second Amendment uses the words: considers will be of assistance to the tribunal in connection with any matter before them. The House may consider this a purely drafting Amendment, but I think it goes a little beyond that, and that is why I have given this explanation.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Eleventh Schedule.—(REPEALS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 149, line 47, column 3, after "Schedule" insert: the words 'An Area Railway Authority constituted under the British Transport Commission (Organization) Scheme Order, 1954,'

Mr. Hay

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

This is a drafting Amendment which provides for the repeal of the references to the Area Railway Authorities in the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 155, line 12, column 3, at end insert: and the words 'or of the Rennet waterways ' ".

Mr. Hay

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

This is a drafting Amendment dealing with the repeal of those provisions of Section 20 of the British Transport Commission Act, 1956, which relate to the Kennel waterways.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 155, line 18, at end insert:

"5&6Eliz.2. c. x x x i i i (c. 33).

The British Trans-port Commission Act, 1957.

Section twenty-two."

Mr. Hay

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

Section 22 of the British Transport Commission Act, 1957, has to be repeated as being no longer necessary. The object of the Amendment is to provide accordingly.

Question put and agreed to.