HC Deb 16 October 1968 vol 770 cc398-421

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 1, line 20, at end insert: by reference to the needs of the person for whom the goods in question are to be carried and to the nature of the goods".

Read a Second time.

4.10 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh)

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 1, leave out 'by reference to' and insert: 'and in discharging their duty under subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, to have due regard to any indication of'. My hon. Friends and I will be moving a good many Motions during the course of the next few days, saying that this House "doth agree" with the Lords and, occasionally, that this House "doth disagree" with the Lords. Without keeping the House from the debate on Lords Amendment No. 1, I should like to say that, in these debates as a whole, there are nine substantial Amendments, put down since the Bill left the Commons, with which we will agree, that there are 30 of substance which we have put into the Bill in response to criticisms by the Opposition, either in the later stages in the Commons or in the Lords, and, finally, that there are 159 Amendments on the Notice Paper which are drafting or consequential Amendments. In this very large Bill, there are only 20 substantial points on which the Government propose to join issue in this House over Amendments made in another place.

This illustrates what my noble Friend, Lord Beswick, said in another place when he paid tribute to the way in which that House had given responsible attention, as always, to the task of improving the Bill. But he went on to say that not all the Amendments made elsewhere should be regarded as improvements. The present Amendment, Lords Amendment No. 1, is one of those by which we believe that the other place has not improved the Bill, though I believe that we can go some way to meet their wishes. To that end, I suggest the Amendment which I have just moved.

This part of the Bill, as agreed by the Commons, laid on the National Freight Corporation a duty to carry goods by rail wherever such carriage is efficient and economic. Their Lordships then inserted the words: by reference to the needs of the person for whom the goods in question are to be carried and to the nature of the goods". The purpose of the Lords Amendment is clear—that the Corporation should respect the needs of its customers if it is to keep its business. That is an objective with which I sympathise and I accept this, but, as it stands, the Amendment goes far further than could have been intended. It places a specific requirement in all cases, which leaves no room for the National Freight Corporation to take other considerations into account. It clearly is not acceptable to require the Corporation to meet demands for services which are quite uneconomic or inefficient in terms of its own operational costs and requirements.

In many cases, of course, the customer will not have any preference between road or rail, and in such cases it would be the Corporation's duty to use rail wherever it regarded this as efficient and economic. Probably, in this and many other cases, the needs of the customer just will not be known and it would be absurd—I do not think that it was, indeed, ever intended—to place on the Corporation the burden of having to try to find out the intentions of the customer—this is what the Amendment would mean—in circumstances in which he did not feel strongly enough about it to express a preference.

In short, what we are saying is that we agree with the Lords' objective, but think that their Amendment goes further than they probably intended. I have, therefore, moved this alternative Amendment, for which, I gather, there is a convoluted formula, to produce a situation in which, I think, the intentions of the Lords are safeguarded but the implications of the wording are made more practical.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro)

I do not think that the debate in another place fully explained the advantages of the Lords Amendment, nor am I confident that the Minister has fully appreciated the point which was intended. It is too often forgotten that transport is always a means to an end and not the end itself, that a person transports himself or his goods from one point to another for a purpose and that the choice of the mode of transport is decided by that purpose.

In some cases, the consignor wants to transport his goods by the cheapest and fastest method, but that is not necessarily the point of the transport. Speed and low cost are not always deciding factors and even the slightly wider words in the Clause—"efficient and economic"—do not really cover the large number of reasons why people wish a particular consignment to go by a particular form of transport.

It would often be a hardship on the consignor if the Freight Corporation so exercised its powers as to secure that goods were carried by rail whenever such carriage was efficient or economic, if the needs of the person for whom the goods in question are to be carried required the goods to be carried by some other means which had nothing to do with efficiency or economy. The debate in another place mentioned a number of instances in which the choice of transport was due to something other than speed or cheapness. It mentioned certainty of timing, avoidance of damage and the fact that less packing material was required by road than by rail. All those matters could be covered by the word "efficient", but there are other reasons which have even less to do with efficiency or economy.

Several times, in the House and on various Committees dealing with transport—I can say, I think, that I have been on every Standing Committee dealing with a transport Bill since 1950—I have drawn attention to a report published by the Traders' Road Transport Association in 1959, which was very interesting and gave a review of the reasons why the Association's members used "C" licence vehicles.

I have never thought that the House has paid enough attention to that Report, which gave some surprising and significant findings. For instance, the majority of "C" licence holders at that time were not really interested in the cost or the speed of the transport. The certainty of timing was one reason that they gave for using such transport, but many of the users wanted it for quite other reasons.

For instance, many of the consignors wanted their drivers to collect the cash from the consignee and wanted him to be their employee. A substantial number gave advertising on the side of the vehicle as the reason that they wished to use their own vehicle. It is true that from time to time public transport authorities arrange that advertising shall be permitted on the sides of public transport vehicles, but it was stated in that review that they preferred to have their own vehicles to use for such a purpose.

It seems to me that the Bill as printed would have been rather restrictive in that it would not have enabled the Corporation to take cognisance of such considerations and such methods which customers might prefer. There is nothing to prevent people from using a road for all sorts of purposes. The right of a British subject to use a road is the right to pass and repass. It is not stated what the purpose must be. He is perfectly entitled to wander up and down, as the Devil did, according to the first chapter of Job.

Similarly, if a person wants to use transport for purposes which are not confined to efficiency—the words in the Bill are "efficient and economic"—there is no reason why he should not do so. We should allow a little more latitude to the Corporation in meeting the wishes of their customers, and that, I take it, was the intention of the Lords' Amendment.

It does not seem to me that the alteration which the Minister has made is unduly restrictive. It slightly alters the sense of the Amendment and makes it rather more verbose, but provided that the Government interpret it in the sense that it will not be unduly restrictive on the wishes of the customer I do not see much objection to it.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

In introducing his Amendment to the Lords' Amendment, the Minister tried to give the impression that in some way he was being remarkably reasonable and helpful. Would he care to pause for reflection for a second and consider this Bill as he first brought it to us? There were then 169 Clauses. But 24 of those Clauses have since disappeared—sunk, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) would say, without trace.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I do not mind a few introductory remarks, but the hon. Member should recall that we are dealing with an Amendment.

Mr. Taylor

I was coming straight to the Amendment, but I felt that a reply had to be made to the Minister's comment.

I would like to point out that no fewer than 750 Amendments to the Bill had been accepted, which proves a point which we have always made—that the Bill was very badly drafted. The improvement in it is a tribute to the strong, effective and dynamic Opposition which we have provided throughout the discussions.

But, Mr. Speaker, as you said, we are discussing only an Amendment and an Amendment to an Amendment. The Minister failed entirely to explain why he wishes to change the Lords' Amendment in this way. The Clause which we are seeking to amend imposes a statutory duty on the National Freight Corporation to secure that goods shall be carried by rail whenever such carriage is, in their opinion, efficient and economic.

Reflecting on some of the Amendments, it is obviously good for the country and certainly good for the Bill that we have a second Chamber to bring some element of sense into what we are doing. In the Lords we tried to obtain some information about what precisely was meant by "efficient and economic". What does the Minister mean by that phrase? What would the Corporation take into account in deciding what was efficient and economic? Before the Amendment was introduced, the Corporation could make a unilateral decision without any reference to the customers' requirements. There was no requirement for the Corporation to consider the needs of the consignor, his special problems or the nature of the goods.

In normal circumstances, if one is faced with such a problem in any service, one can change the supplier and go somewhere else. One can try some other form of transport. But a very important factor in relation to the Amendment is that in certain instances the Corporation would always be in a monopoly position because, as is provided later in the Bill, there are certain routes which will be their full prerogative. In those circumstances, it is exceedingly important that we should get this right, and before we can even consider supporting the Minister's Amendment to the Lord's Amendment, we must ask him to answer several questions.

First, who will decide what is meant by efficiency and what is meant by economy? Is it simply the Corporation who will decide it? Secondly, he has introduced the words "any indication of". It appears to me, and it has appeared to those of my hon. Friends who follow these matters very closely, that the addition of those words would release the Corporation from the duty to consider the needs of the consumer and his special problems, unless some specific matter were brought to the Corporation's attention by the consignor.

The Minister must explain what he means by "any indication of". I suggest that we could easily leave out his Amendment and there would then be an obligation on the Corporation to have regard to the needs of the customer and to the special problems associated with the goods which are being carried.

Many problems of this kind arise. An example was mentioned in another place—that of a supplier of paper, a Scottish pulp mill, who found from experience that when their goods were carried by rail they tended to be damaged, through no fault of the railway but because of the special way in which they were carried. They would want these factors to be taken into account. Under the Lords Amendment, the Corporation would have to take such matters into account, but the inclusion of "any indication of" appears to leave the Corporation entirely at liberty to ignore the special needs of the customer in deciding whether goods should be sent by road or rail, unless the matter is specifically brought to their attention.

The Lords have carefully considered all these questions and they have presented Amendments which they believe to be helpful. I suggest that the Minister should not rush in and add words to their Amendments—words which might cause confusion and which might detract from the principle which the Lords are trying to introduce.

The Minister should, therefore, give a clear indication of what he means by the words which he proposes to add. Why did he add "any indication of"? Will the words mean, in practice, that the Corporation is at liberty to do what it likes unless some particular matter is brought to its attention? I feel that the Minister has certainly not improved the Lords Amendment, and I hope that he will explain to us why he has added those words.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter (The Hartlepools)

I am concerned about the wording of this part of the Bill. In Committee, I spent some time dealing with the special problems of the development areas and, in particular, with the present communications system which arises out of the general higgledy-piggledy historical growth from the latter part of the 19th century in such areas as The Hartlepools and Teesside. I gained from the Parliamentary Secretary on that occasion some general assurance about the need to consider the problems of such areas.

The hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has a point when he asks what is the definition of efficiency and economy. I should understand the situation much more clearly if it were possible to write into the Bill "more efficient than some alternative form of transport" or "more efficient than" something else. But if someone has to take a decision about what is efficient, by itself and without comparison, and if that person has a statutory obligation to enhance the reputation of the National Freight Corporation, obviously there may be areas in which the judgments taken could be prejudicial to the efficiency and economy of what is carried and also of the interests in the area in which it is carried.

A perfect example is the very unfortunate story in recent years of the line between Newcastle. Sunderland, Hartlepool and Darlington, which passes through the most heavily populated areas of the North-East but which has been treated in recent years more or less as a feeder line because, historically, the main communications lay between Darlington, Durham and Newcastle, a much more thinly populated area. People might, therefore, be forced to put their goods on trains in what have been regarded as feeder services, where even today it takes more than 1½ hours on occasion to travel 21 miles, when obviously alternative forms of carrying the goods could be found.

I agree with the Minister that there could well be a difficulty in making specific references to some of these points, but that argument in itself does not demand support for the Amendment. The objective must be to provide the best possible services. I am sure that the Minister agrees, and the House must agree, that the objective of the Bill is to provide what is best for the transport services. If precise words cannot be written into the Bill to meet all our worries—and they have been expressed on both sides of the House—perhaps in his comments the Minister will give some assurance that our worries will be met in the form of instructions, which we can clearly understand, which can be issued.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson

The hon. Member said something which I do not think he can possibly mean. He said that the purpose of the Bill was to provide the transport which was best for the transport services. That cannot be right. The objective must be to provide what is best for the customer.

Mr. Leadbitter

I did not know that we wanted to be pedantic about language. It must have been clear that when I spoke about the best possible transport services I was primarily concerned with the customer.

Mr. Peter Bessell (Bodmin)

We have had a valuable contribution to the debate from the hon. Member for The Harltepools (Mr. Leadbitter). I am not surprised about that, because we had many valuable contributions from him in Standing Committee. I agree with the first part of what he said, but he will understand that I do not agree so readily with the latter part of his speech.

I am not particularly happy about legislation being conducted by a non-elected body, but as it is part of the Parliamentary system that we accept changes which may be made in Bills in another place, it follows that it is logical that we should carefully consider the changes suggested by another place in this case. Their Lordships have produced a very important Amendment—one which I think goes to the whole nub of the argument which we had not only in Standing Committee but also on Report in the House. It is a matter to which the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) referred in his first speech on the Bill, on Second Reading.

In the last analysis it is the question whether we are agreed that the customer is best equipped to choose the form of transport to be used for his goods or whether we are prepared to say that that choice will be made by the National Freight Corporation or, indeed, by some other body which may be subservient to the Corporation.

The Minister's objection appears to be that the freedom of the customer should not be paramount in all cases and that the Freight Corporation cannot effectively operate unless it has the last word in this matter. I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman on this aspect because I do not believe that the customer's experience in matters of transporting his goods is likely to be less valuable than that of the officials of the Corporation or that the Corporation will be in a better position to judge what is economical and best for the customer, who must make his living by transporting his goods.

No person will transport his goods by a more expensive means if he is in competitive industry. The industries with which we are concerned are inevitably competitive. It is, therefore, right and in the interests of the national economy that the customer should, in the end, have the final choice. I am sure that that was the intention of their Lordships.

The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) was right when he made the point, which I have not heard made before, that transport is not an end in itself but is a means to an end. As hon. Members again address themselves to the Bill, we see that the problem which the two Opposition parties have had to confront throughout our debates on the Measure is the Government attitude that transport can be regarded as an end in itself. It cannot. This ideological difference between the two sides of the House presents itself again in our consideration of the Amendment.

Having said that, I admit that the Minister has shown considerable flexibility. He has gone a long way towards meeting the points made by their Lordships, although it is fair to stress that the point under discussion was made by hon. Members in Committee and on Report. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said that the Minister had not explained the position. I suggest that he explained it too well. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is convinced that it is better to place the final decision in the hands of the Freight Corporation than in the hands of the user. That cannot be right.

The hon. Member for The Hartlepools rightly said that in the development areas there are special problems. These have been recognised by the Government and they have received attention in other ways. It is important that nothing should be done to impede the progress of areas with high unemployment and special social problems. If industry is to be attracted to them, we must do everything in our power to make them attractive to industry. I have particularly in mind areas like Cornwall and my constituency. It is imperative that the freedom of choice which the producer demands for transporting his goods is preserved at all costs. Only the producer can best judge these matters.

The hon. Member for The Hartlepools mentioned transport problems which arise in some areas. I could enumerate similar problems in my constituency. Inadequate road communications and rail services, coupled with other features applying to certain goods, make the question of choice essential to the producer, who is the user, and he alone should be allowed to decide the best means of transport for his goods.

For example, how can the Freight Corporation decide whether it is more efficient and economical to convey wet fish from Cornwall by rail than by road? Decisions of this kind rest on common sense and it is obvious that such a commodity should be conveyed by road under refrigeration conditions. Similar considerations apply to horticultural produce.

While I am glad that the Minister has gone a considerable distance towards meeting the points made by their Lordships, I regret that the Amendment introduced in another place has not been accepted by the Government in toto. If it had been, the Bill would have gone an enormous way towards removing some genuine fears and anxieties which have been caused to industrialists and the users of freight transport by this part of the Bill.

Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)

Many hon. Members find their enthusiasm at the reassembly of Parliament considerably diminished by the fact that having to consider this Measure yet again is their first meal.

I am disappointed that the Minister cannot see his way to accepting the modest, reasonable and sound Amendment proposed by another place. It simply says that the customer's requirements shall be met. In throwing it out, the Minister is saying that he is not so much concerned with the customer as with the tremendous organisation which he is setting up. This organisation has only one merit, which is that it will further enhance the odium in which the present Administration are held throughout the country.

We are being seriously told by the right hon. Gentleman that under Socialism the customer always comes last, or at least comes off second best. I protest against the insertion at the behest of the Minister of what I regard as meaningless waffle. My hon. Friend spoke at length about the phrase "any indication of." I do not like the words "have due regard to." What will this mean if it is seriously contested in the courts by an interested party? How will anyone prove that the Corporation had not had due regard to the factors involved? The Corporation need only produce a rubbishy letter and that will be adequate evidence.

Mr. Webster

In other words, a third-rate answer sent by second-class post.

Mr. Peyton

I hope that my hon. Friend will not insist on making an already disagreeable occasion even worse by unnecessarily referring to the pains of the post.

The Government Amendment is a meaningless concession by which the Minister hopes to expedite the progress of his horrid Bill. I hope that before we pass from the Amendment hon. Members will insist on having from the Minister a precise explanation of what is meant by the words "have due regard to" and to what extent they could possibly embarrass or even in a slight way inconvenience the Corporation which, at least by present omens, is not likely to be the most sensitive of bodies to the needs of the customer.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

I could not appreciate the relevance of the remarks of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). Had he known more about the Bill he would have made a more intelligent contribution. He has well earned the title of chief waffler.

Mr. Peyton rose—

Mr. Manuel

Let me get started before you intervene, John.

Mr. Peyton

Really!

Mr. Manuel

Perhaps a vote of thanks is due to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson). The Front Bench opposite should express thanks to the hon. Gentleman for having raised this matter in the first place, although his efforts were followed by a contribution which can only be described as containing a lot of fresh air, very little deliberation and not much common sense from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). Then the hon. Member for Peyton—

Mr. Peyton

I would be obliged, remembering that the hon. Gentleman resorts to personal abuse on many occasions, if he would be courteous enough to allow that I represent not merely myself but my constituency of Yeovil, too.

Mr. Manuel

That was an excellent contribution and endorses what I said about the hon. Gentleman being our chief waffler. He made out that if the Government Amendment were argued in court it would be meaningless. Is he aware that the Amendment made in another pace was extremely similar to the Government Amendment?

We have here a sincere attempt by my right hon. Friend to appreciate the needs of the customer. I am astonished that that has not been welcomed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. If this is to be their reaction throughout our discussion at this stage, a great deal of time will be wasted. The Lords Amendment would insert the words: by reference to the needs of the person for whom the goods in question are to be carried and to the nature of the goods". My right hon. Friend has deleted the words "by reference to", so that his Amendment reads: and in discharging their duty under subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, to have due regard to any indication of". I do not know what more hon. Gentlemen opposite want—that is, unless they wish to stifle the Government's desire that the customer's genuine needs should be considered.

Mr. Bessell

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Amendment should make it clear that there is a statutory obligation on the Corporation to make that its paramount consideration? "Take into account" or "take into consideration" would have been another matter. Such a phrase would not have given the Corporation anything like the same degree of legal obligation.

Mr. Manuel

I am not a lawyer, but l cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. If he knew a little more about railway working, and how we approach these questions in attempting to satisfy customers, he would not speak as he has done. I know of a great area of good will in railway working in trying to satisfy customers. I am quite certain that in operation the Government's wording will present no difficulty at all. If customers want their goods to go another way they should be able to do so, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the basic purpose of using empty railway space where suitable in terms of speed, reliability and cost is a sane one having regard to our overcrowded roads.

Sir George Sinclair (Dorking)

The Lords Amendment represented a radical change of thinking. By a reference to the customer it transferred the onus of deciding what was efficient and economic from the National Freight Corporation. This was the main point. The words "by reference" make it absolutely clear that the decision as to what is efficient and what is economic must be made by reference to the needs of the person consigning the goods. That is a major change of thinking. If the Minister had accepted it, this would have met a wide range of representations I received in my constituency from haulage contractors and from the National Farmers' Union, which were argued skilfully by my hon. Friends in Committee.

I cannot understand why the Minister will not accept the Lords Amendment. From the point of view of a National Freight Corporation many things may be efficient and many things may be economic, but what about the point of view of the consignor? For instance, a farmer may have heard on the 9 o'clock news, or been given word over the telephone, of changes in the nearby market. He wants to ring up "Old Bill" who for years has been able to turn out before dawn to truck his beasts into a nearby market—

Mr. Manuel

If the road is not blocked by snow.

Sir G. Sinclair

If the channels of this debate are not blocked by interruption, I will go on.

This is of great importance to that person and to his business in raising livestock. It is important, too, that supplies should get to market, at the right time. This, in the end, is important also to the consumer. If the farmer has to put his reasons in writing to some minor official at some decentralised office—

Mr. Manuel rose—

Sir G. Sinclair

I will not give way again.

Mr. Manuel

On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that he is misleading the House in what he says. Livestock is excluded from the Bill, so the whole point of his illustration is quite wrong.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

That is not a point of order.

Sir G. Sinclair

There are many delicate operations in transport because of the need for care in handling. I have examples from my constituency of goods needing special handling getting broken in transit. It is of vital importance that these considerations should be weighed and it should be an obligation on the Freight Corporation to weigh them. That is what the words …by reference to the needs of the person… consigning the goods means, and that is why the Lords Amendment would very considerably improve a bad Government Bill.

I cannot understand why the Minister wishes to water down that Amendment and put it at third remove by inserting the words: and in discharging their duty under sub-paragraph (ii) of this paragraph, to have due regard to any indication of". This would be all very well if the whole of the Ministry's thinking in the Bill had not been to make the Ministry's idea of efficiency and economy the only criterion in the Bill, and then having reluctantly to deal with an Amendment which quite rightly indicates some concern for the consignor.

I do not think that the Minister has gone nearly far enough to meet the Lords Amendment, which seems to me to cover many of the objections made by transport concerns and consignors of goods.

Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) said that in his experience it had always been the objective of the railway industry to meet the needs of the customer. That may be so, but without the Lords Amendment one of the main objectives of the Clause is not to meet the needs of the customer but to secure that in many circumstances the load will be taken by rail rather than by some other form of transport. The hon. Member betrayed the thinking behind the original Clause when he spoke of putting traffic on the railways and taking it away from the overcrowded roads.

In our submission, the chief objective should be that transport of whatever kind ought to be the handmaiden of industry and trade. That objective is upset by this preoccupation with other objectives. I sincerely hope that the Minister will think somewhat differently from his hon. Friend, and will feel that the paramount need is that transport of whatever form should serve the needs of industry, and that this should be the uppermost consideration. With the Lords Amendment that would be the case, but with the Minister's Amendment superimposed on it. I am not at all sure that it would be the case.

Mr. Marsh

By leave of the House, I should like to reply to some of the points that have been made because I think there is a misunderstanding of the Government's admirable intentions in relation to this Amendment.

The debate started by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson)—who, I should have thought by common consent, is one of the best-informed Members on this subject—accepting the Amendment, as I understood it, and recognising that it was an improvement on the position as it existed before. Then we had a characteristically gusty speech from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), which is impressed on my mind all the more because I think that it is the first time I have ever heard him make a speech on any subject when he did not introduce the subject of Scottish coal prices. He got rather excited, and then started to set the tone for the rest of the debate.

I agree that the purpose of the National Freight Corporation is primarily to provide a more efficient service for the transport of goods around the country. This is the whole purpose. A number of hon. Members have said that the customer's interests should be paramount, but a lot of customers' interests conflict with each other. The interests of one customer are not necessarily those of other customers as a whole. Someone, therefore, has to decide how the network should run.

What is intended here, and what I think their Lordships very rightly wanted to inject into the Bill, is a specific obligation on the Corporation to take account of the interests of its customers, and their Lordships produced a particular form of wording to achieve this purpose. The point at which we part company with their Lordships, with great regret and sorrow, is not on taking account of the customer's interests but because their Amendment, I am sure unintentionally, would put on the Corporation an obligation and a burden which is just impracticable.

It places a legal obligation upon the Corporation to go to virtually every customer and make an inquiry. The customer may not have any preference. I accept that there will be cases where the customer has reasons which should be taken into account for preferring a particular mode of transport. However, the vast majority of people are concerned merely with transporting their goods; as long as they get a guarantee that the goods will be delivered whole, quickly, cheaply and in the required time, that is what they are concerned with. They do not care what mode of transport their goods go by.

5.0 p.m.

The Amendment as it emerged from the Lords would place upon the Corporation the obligation in law of finding out from every customer what his requirements were and of discovering in many cases that the customer, if I may put it bluntly, could not care less and had no preference.

Mr. David Webster (Weston-super-Mare)

Is it not the commercial technique of a sales organisation to find out the desires of a customer?

Mr. Marsh

The hon. Gentleman really cannot pursue this and mean it. It cannot be suggested that it is sensible to place upon a body the duty of going to its customers and saying, "Will you please tell us whether you have any preference?" One assumes that the customer makes his views known. What it is important to have in the Bill is a specific proviso which ensures that the Corporation will take those views into account.

If the House is good enough to support the Government Amendment, and if we have a majority for it—I do not know which way the House will vote on this—the Bill will read as follows: it shall be the duty of the Corporation— (a) so to exercise their powers under or by virtue of this Act as, in conjunction with the Railways Board—

  1. (i) to provide, or secure or promote the provision of, properly integrated services for the carriage of goods within Great Britain by road and rail; and
  2. (ii) to secure that, in the provision of those services, goods are carried by rail whenever such carriage is efficient and economic".
With the Amendment it would go on to say: and in discharging their duty under subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, to have due regard to any indication of the needs of the person for whom the goods in question are to be carried and to the nature of the goods". That seems to be a reasonable provision to apply. If it had not been that the House has reassembled after a long Recess, I believe that hon. Members would have been more charitable in their attitude to the Amendment.

Mr. Bessell

Does the Minister agree that, in spite of what he has said, the final arbiter is the Corporation?

Mr. Marsh

Of course, because, if I send goods by any private company at present, that company is the arbiter as to whether it will carry my goods in the way I want them carried or whether it will determine this for itself.

Mr. Gower

How can the Minister maintain that statement? He says that if he sends his goods by a private company the company will make the decision. If the Minister sends goods by an alternative company, the odds are that the company has only road haulage: it will not have a railway. How can he make a statement like that and expect the House to accept it?

Mr. Marsh

This is a very simple point. I am sure that hon. Members do not intend to miss the point deliberately but are missing it by accident and by misunderstanding the whole thing. I am saying that, in any relationship between customer and vendor, the vendor is the person who operates for the benefit of the customer and that he has to pay regard to what the customer wants, to maintain his business.

I have moved an Amendment which says specifically that there shall be a legal obligation upon the Corporation to have due regard to any indication of the needs of the person for whom the goods in question are to be carried and to the nature of the goods". I do not believe that, on reflection, hon. Members would want to oppose an Amendment which is in line with their wishes and so clearly sensible in the circumstances.

Mr. Webster

When he started about an hour ago, the Minister made himself seem very reasonable to his own satisfaction. A certain amount of obduracy is to be observed on the Notice Paper. In respect of practically every Amendment the Government are to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment". So this limpid prose continues for practically the whole of the Notice Paper. To make it palatable, the Minister wants us to believe that he is accepting the Lords Amendment, which, in my opinion, was an excellent one as it stood. The Minister has obviously diluted, the Lords Amendment so that it needs practically nothing. It is this dilution that we thoroughly object to.

The Minister made a very gracious reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Carthcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and said that my hon. Friend had omitted to mention Scottish coal prices. My hon. Friend has authorised me to say that, if the Lords Amendment is not accepted as it stands, Scottish coal prices will rise and for that reason he thoroughly disapproves of the Minister's activity.

We are at least glad that we have not had, for once, an outright objection, particularly in view of what has been said by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), who as usual made his speech from a sedentary position. I did not quite hear what he said, but it seemed to be an autobiographical remark.

Mr. Manuel

Does the hon. Gentleman believe what he has been told by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), namely, that there would be a reduction in coal prices if coal was carried by road? Is the hon. Gentleman so stupid as to believe that?

Mr. Webster

The hon. Gentleman talks about filibustering. Just because the hon. Gentleman filibusters, he should not attempt to get me off the point and make me filibuster. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will make my speech in my own way. Throughout the Committee stage there was constant reference by Government supporters to consultation and to due consideration being paid to the requirements of those employed in the industry. We agreed with this. We accepted it.

We think, equally, that these industries are not there simply to serve the employees. They are there to serve the customer. This is why we are so obdurate about the Lords Amendment as it stands. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter), who has more candour than would get him into the Diplomatic Service, again rather let the cat out of the bag when he said that it was the industry that should be looked after. It is not. It is the customer who needs to be looked after it is the user.

Mr. Leadbitter

In my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) I defined what I meant by an efficient service as the extent to which it satisfied the customer.

Mr. Webster

After a good deal of persuasion from this side, that was right. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that and keep it as his motto and will vote with us when we divide in support of the Lords Amendment.

In this industry, as in so many nationalised industries, the concentration is on the operational need rather than on the convenience of the user. It is to be seen at present in the Post Office. It is to be seen frequently in the railway industry. It is the besetting sin of nationalised industries. With the removal of the freight liner service from sales, there will be an even greater risk of this happening.

The nationalised industries must be reminded that they are often deficit industries. They are financed by the taxpayer. He is the person they are there to serve. We must not allow anything to dilute the principle that the interests of those that use the railways and the Corporation's facilities are paramount. So is the requirement of the goods, whether

they are perishable commodities, as has been mentioned by agricultural Members, or whether they are frangible commodities that can easily be destroyed. The interests of the users of these services must be considered and must be made paramount.

The Minister greatly worried me when he said that the Lords Amendment in its present form puts an excessive burden on the Corporation in the matter of finding out the intention of the user. Anyone in industry with an adequate sales representative service will find out the needs of the user. I speak as someone who was on the sales side of a monopoly organisation. We were very careful to find out the needs of the user.

This is a monopoly organisation. The man who must use it has no choice. His needs are paramount. We must stand by the Lords Amendment as it stands. It is a valuable Amendment. I congratulate their Lordships on what they have done. Anything which dilutes the principle that the nationalised industries are there for the service of British industry and the British consumer we shall resist, and for this reason we resist the Amendment to the Lords Amendment which the Minister has proposed.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 204.

Division No. 291.] AYES [5.10 p.m.
Abse, Leo Brown,Bob(N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Dewar, Donald
Albu, Austen Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Buchan, Norman Dickens, James
Alldritt, Walter Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Dobson, Ray
Anderson, Donald Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Doig, Peter
Archer, Peter Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Ashley, Jack Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Cant, R. B. Eadie, Alex
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Carmichael, Neil Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Coe, Denis Ellis, John
Barnes, Michael Coleman, Donald Ennals, David
Baxter, William Concannon, J. D. Ensor, David
Beaney, Alan Conlan, Bernard Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Bence, Cyril Corbet, Mrs. Freda Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Faulds, Andrew
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Crawshaw, Richard Fernyhough, E.
Bidwell, Sydney Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Finch, Harold
Bishop, E. S. Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Blackburn, F. Cullen, Mrs. Alice Ford, Ben
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Forrester, John
Booth, Albert Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Fowler, Gerry
Boston, Terence Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Fraser, John (Norwood)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Freeson, Reginald
Boyden, James Davies, Harold (Leek) Galpern, Sir Myer
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Davies, Ifor (Gower) Gardner, Tony
Bradley, Tom Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Garrett, W. E.
Bray, Dr. Jeremy de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Ginsburg, David
Brooks, Edwin Delargy, Hugh Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Dell, Edmund Gourlay, Harry
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Dempsey, James Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Gregory, Arnold McBride, Neil Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Grey, Charles (Durham) McCann, John Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) MacColl, James Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) MacDermot, Niall Robinson,Rt.Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. Macdonald, A. H. Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow,E.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) McGuire, Michael Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) McKay, Mrs. Margaret Roebuck, Roy
Harper, Joseph Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Mackie, John Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Mackintosh, John P. Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Hazell, Bert McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis McNamar, J. Kevin Sheldon, Robert
Heffer, Eric S. MacPherson, Malcolm Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Hilton, W. S. Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Short,Rt.Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Hooley, Frank Manuel, Archie Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Mapp, Charles Silverman, Julius
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Marks, Kenneth Slater, Joseph
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Marquand, David Small, William
Howie, W. Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard Spriggs, Leslie
Hoy, James Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Mayhew, Christopher Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Mendelson, J. J. Swain, Thomas
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Millan, Bruce Swingler, Stephen
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Symonds, J. B.
Hunter, Adam Moonman, Eric Taverne, Dick
Hynd, John Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Thornton, Ernest
Janner, Sir Barnett Morris, John (Aberavon) Tinn, James,
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Moyle, Roland Tomney, Frank
Jeger, George (Goole) Neal, Harold Urwin, T. W.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Newens, Stan Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Oakes, Gordon walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, w.) Ogden, Eric Watkins, David (Consett)
Jones, Dan (Burnley) O'Malley, Brian Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Oram, Albert E. Weitzman, David
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham, S.)
Orbach, Maurice Wellbeloved, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Orme, Stanley Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Oswald, Thomas Whitaker, Ben
Judd, Frank Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) White, Mrs. Eirene
Kelley, Richard Owen, Will (Morpeth) Wilkins, W. A.
Kenyon, Clifford Padley, Walter Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) Page, Derek (King's Lynn) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) Paget, R. T. Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Kerr, Russell (Feitham) Palmer, Arthur Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Lawson, George Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Leadbitter, Ted Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Pavitt, Laurence Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Lestor, Miss Joan Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Winnick, David
Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Pentland, Norman Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) Woof, Robert
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) Wyatt, Woodrow
Lipton, Marcus Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) Yates, Victor
Lomas, Kenneth Price, William (Rugby)
Loughlin, Charles Probert, Arthur TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Rankin, John Mr. Ioan L. Evans and
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Rees, Merlyn Mr. Ernest Armstrong.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barttston Ash) Brinton, Sir Tatton Dance, James
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Astor, John Bruce-Gardyne, J. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Awdry, Daniel Bryan, Paul Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Baker, Kenneth (Acton) Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M) Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Bullus, Sir Eric Doughty, Charles
Balniel, Lord Burden, F. A. Eden, Sir John
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Batsford, Brian Campbell Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Bell, Ronald Carlisle, Mark Errington, Sir Eric
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) Cary, Sir Robert Eyre, Reginald
Berry, Hn. Anthony Channon, H. P. G. Farr, John
Bessell, Peter Clegg, Walter Fisher, Nigel
Biffen, John Cooke, Robert Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Fortescue, Tim
Black, Sir Cyril Corfield, F. V. Foster, Sir John
Blaker, Peter Costain, A. P. Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Bossom, Sir Clive Crouch, David Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Crowder, F. P. Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Currie, G. B. H. Glyn, Sir Richard
Braine, Bernard Dalkeith, Earl of Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Goodhart, Philip Loveys, W. H. Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Goodhew, Victor Lubbock, Eric Robson Brown, Sir William
Gower, Raymond McAdden, Sir Stephen Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Grant, Anthony MacArttuir, Ian Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Grant-Ferris, R. Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty) Russell, Sir Ronald
Grieve, Percy Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain Scott, Nicholas
Gurden, Harold Maddan, Martin Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Hall, John (Wycombe) Maginnis, John E. Silvester, Frederick
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Sinclair, Sir George
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Marten, Neil Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Maude, Angus Stainton, Keith
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Mawby, Ray Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Harvie Anderson, Miss Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Summers, Sir Spencer
Hastings, Stephen Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Tapsell, Peter
Hawkins, Paul Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Hay, John Miscampbell, Norman Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Monro, Hector Teeling, Sir William
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Montgomery, Fergus Temple, John M.
Heseltine, Michael More, Jasper Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Higgins, Terence L. Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Tilney, John
Hill, J. E. B. Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Murton, Oscar van Straubenzee, W. R.
Holland, Philip Neave, Airey Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Hordern, Peter Nicholls, Sir Harmar Waddington, David
Hornby, Richard Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Howell, David (Guildford) Nott, John Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Hunt, John Onslow, Cranley Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Hutchison, Michael Clark Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Wall, Patrick
Orr-Ewing, sir Ian Walters, Dennis
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Ward, Dame Irene
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Page, Graham (Crosby) Webster, David
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Page, John (Harrow, W.) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Jopling, Michael Pearson, sir Frank (Clitheroe) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Kerby, Capt. Henry Percival, Ian Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Kershaw, Anthony Peyton, John Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Kimball, Marcus Pink, R. Bonner Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Kitson, Timothy Pounder, Rafton Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill Price, David (Eastleigh) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Lambton, Viscount prior, J. M. L. Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Pym, Francis Woodnutt, Mark
Quenneil, Miss J. M. Wylie, N. R.
Lane, David Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Younger, Hn. George
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Rees-Davies, W. R.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Mr. Humphrey Atkins and
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Mr. Bernard Weatherill.
Longden, Gilbert Ridsdale, Julian

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Back to
Forward to