GENERAL DUTIES OF EXECUTIVE AND OTHER BODIES WITH RESPECT TO PASSENGER TRANSPORT SERVICES FOR GREATER LONDON (Hansard, 19 May 1969)

§ Mr. Berry
I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 5, line 11, at end insert 'and costings'.
104 This is an important Amendment. I do not so describe it because my name is attached to it, but because those words were used by the Minister in Committee. Its purpose is to place an obligation on the executive of British Rail or the National Bus Company to co-operate with a view to co-ordinating their services. Again, I am paraphrasing what the Minister said earlier. It is necessary for these bodies to have access to each other's accounts and costings.
Those last two words are important. The Minister said that the costings are necessary for examination of the services and there is a legal obligation to provide the costings. I cannot see why he is so reluctant, so far as I know, to accept these words. I presume that he is reluctant because he has not put down an Amendment to insert these words.
Are the bodies concerned to accept the interpretation which the right hon Gentleman led us to believe in Committee they would accept? It is understandable that each of the three sides in the majority of circumstances would wish to keep their private matters confidential. If, for example, they were expected to subsidise another part of the transport industry, that would be even more natural, They would have doubts about probing into their affairs and about whether figures should be revealed to others.
We had a long discussion on this in Committee. Towards the end of it I began to wonder why we needed the words "as to their services". The more that the Minister argued the more it came to my mind that the purpose would be met by the words. and to afford to one another such information as to their services as may be reasonably required for those purposes". If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to put in "as to their services" he should put in the additional words "and costings".
One phrase which the right hon. Gentleman used in Committee caused me concern. I should like him to comment on it. He said: The information is to be made available as far as is reasonably required. The three bodies concerned will be able to decide what information is needed in any particular case. That destroyed the whole point of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. If they 105 can decide for themselves what information they will provide, and they decide not to provide certain information, they will not do so. It is vital to have these words in the Bill.
Later in the debate, the right hon. Gentleman said: We are both seeking to provide that, wherever costings are necessary as part of the information to be supplied, they shall be supplied."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 1st April, 1969; C. 81–5.] By his earlier phrase the Minister suggested that he doubts whether that will happen. The words "and costings" are vital to achieve the effect which hon. Members on both sides of the House want to achieve.

§ Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)
I wish to add one question to that raised by the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry). I think that the word "costings" is probably unnecessary and that "information" would include them. I accept the Minister's argument about that, having read the proceedings in Committee, and I think that hon. Members who served on the Committee got themselves into an unnecessary muddle.
However, the words quoted by the hon. Gentleman from c. 81 of the Committee proceedings raise a different question. What is to happen if the three bodies concerned with the information are not able to decide what is needed in any given case? Having read through the Clause and having read the debate in Committee, I do not see that any provision is made for that eventuality.
If, say, the Railways Board wishes to discontinue a service and the executive wishes to know to what extent it is unremunerative and whether it should seek a subsidy for operating an alternative, if then the Board refuses to divulge the information, the executive will have no power to compel it to do so.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. With respect, we are not discussing the Clause or the subsection. We are discussing whether we add the words "and costings" after "services".

§ Mr. Lubbock
If I may say so, the insertion of the words "and costings" is relevant to the argument. The costings might be the very information which one 106 of the bodies would refuse to divulge to another.
Although I am satisfied that the word "information" would include any figures relating to costs which might be reasonably required for those purposes", I hope that the Minister will clear up this point before we conclude the Report stage, in case we need to take further action in another place.

Mr. Gresham Cooke
I want to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) has said on this point. A comparison of costings between the various forms of transport in certain parts of the Greater London area might be very important. I concede that it is probably not necessary in the inner zone, where we want all the transport that we can get, whether it is underground or overground. In the fringe areas, however, there is frequently a choice between bus, Underground and railway, and costings enter into any such consideration more importantly.
In my constituency, we have the Richmond to Broad Street line. I should have thought that comparisons of costings between British Railways and London Transport might be important in deciding how it could be operated in other ways. Therefore, in the fringe areas, a comparison of costings between bus, Underground and rail might be very important in integrating London's transport.

§ Mr. Marsh
As the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said, with his customary clinical clarity, we have tended to get a little hooked up on this point. I agree with the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) about the importance of costings in certain cases.
The Bill says: … and to afford to one another such information as to their services as may be reasonably required for those purposes … The information required about these services may include costings. Where the costings are relevant to the information required, the three bodies have a statutory obligation to provide them.
What we do not want to do is add the word "costings" which, first, duplicates the point in that the information which is relevant can include costings wherever 107 they are relevant to the information and, second, places upon the bodies an obligation to produce costings where they are not relevant.
At the moment, they should provide any information which is necessary or useful about the services. If that includes costings, they are included. If it does not, we do not want to know and nor does anyone else. As drafted, the Clause makes provision for the presentation of information about costings where that information is relevant to this exercise.
The second argument is that, once we begin to define a part of the information required as to their services, we cast doubt on those other bits of information which are not so defined. The words … such information as to their services as may be reasonably required", mean any information. If we say "such information and costings", there is some obligation to define what are the other bits of information.
The hon. Member for Orpington asked what happens if the three bodies cannot reach agreement? Here, one has to take into account what the three bodies are. We are dealing with the London Transport Executive, the National Bus Company and the British Railways Board. They are quite used to dealing with this problem. If costings are required, they will make them available. They will not refuse to give information which they are required by the Statute to provide.
If one had a series of occasions when costings were required as part of the information and one of the nationalised industries refused them, this would raise a far bigger issue than how to make the information available. It would bring into question the composition of the board concerned. I do not think that the problem will arise.

§ Mr. Michael Heseltine (Tavistock)
I am sure the Minister agrees that we do not wish to make too much of this point. We have discussed it already at great length. However, the fact remains that if the words "and costings" are implied in the legislation it is difficult to understand why the Minister will not accept the words built into the legislation and remove any doubt about the need to provide detailed figures.
108 Our concern is that it might be possible for one of the organisations to produce a framework of costings and then refuse to produce details showing how that framework was built up. That has always been our concern.
Where one of the bodies wishes to see not just castings but details of the costings, it is reasonable for it to wish to probe into those figures, and it seems to us, purely for the sake of clarification, that the words should be added to the Clause.
I know that the Minister appreciates the real difficulties of trying to cost transport services where we shall be dealing with cross-subsidisation, the spread of overheads, et cetera, and I would have hoped that he would make it compulsory for the organisations concerned to discuss and examine the costings that they provide in the most detailed way. If provision for that is not included in the legislation, we fear that it will be possible for the organisation concerned to produce figures but refuse to discuss them or break them down.
This possibility would be avoided if the words suggested were added to the Clause.

§ Mr. Marsh
Perhaps I might be allowed to reply to the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) on this point, because I know that it is one which causes right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite some concern, even though they do not want to make too much of it.
Let me stress again that the Statute will be quite clear. It is not within the competence of any one of these bodies to refuse to supply such information as to their services as may be reasonably required. If that information is detailed costings, that information has to be supplied. There is no doubt about that.
The other leg of the hon. Gentleman's argument is to say, if that is so, why not put in the words "and costings" to avoid doubt? First, we think that there is no doubt. We believe that doubt will arise if, instead of saying that any information which is necessary has to be provided, we said "any information and costings". If we define one item, we cast doubt upon the rest. One would then have to have a reason why some 109 pieces of information were not specifically dealt with in the Statute and others were.
Because of the concern expressed, I have had the point checked, and I assure hon. Members that, in our view, the Clause is clear in its effect and that such information as to their services as may be reasonably required for those purposes means just what it says, and includes costings wherever appropriate.