§ Mr. MurrayI beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 7, line 38, leave out from ' account ' to ' the ' in line 39.
In Committee the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) argued that the N.P.A. should be free to decide its own policies for training and education, something which had been mentioned in paragraph 681 of the First Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries for 1967–68.
It followed from that that the requirement that the N.P.A. should act on lines settled from time to time with the approval of the Minister in the discharge of its functions as to training and education was included in the Bill so as to put the authority in the same relationship with the Minister as the existing nationalised transport undertakings, including the British Transport Docks Board, under the 1962 and 1968 Transport Acts.
The Select Committee had pointed out:
If the existence of the Minister's power to approve the main lines of research or development or training and education programmes is in any way an obstacle to proper informal agreement and understanding then the Committee believe that the need for these powers should be reconsidered.We do not believe that the existence of the statutory provisions has been an obstacle, but in view of the points made in Committee we have decided that this specific statutory requirement on the N.P.A. should be dropped, and we hope that the House will accept the Amendment.
Mr. Edward M. TaylorOnce again we are grateful to the Minister for the tribute he has paid to the constructive part played by the Opposition on the Bill. If nothing else, this Amendment marks the only occasion in the Committee when the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and I found ourselves in agreement.
§ Amendment agreed to
§ Mr. MurrayI beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 8, line 15, at end insert:
Provided that the Minister shall not give any such directions unless he is satisfied that the carrying on by the subsidiary of the activities or the retention by it of the part of the undertaking or the assets or the continuance of the loan or guarantee, as the case may be, is unnecessary for the proper discharge by the Authority of their duties.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ This Amendment is concerned with a point raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) on Clause 5(4). He pointed out that the proviso in subsection (3) was not repeated in subsection (4). This suggested that it might allow a future Minister to direct the N.P.A. to require a subsidiary to discontinue activities and dispose of assets without a proper safeguard. We think that very unlikely to happen, but the possibility would be there.
§ The Amendment removes any chance of this happening by making it essential for the Minister to be satisfied that the continuance of the activities or retention of the assets is unnecessary for the proper discharge of the N.P.A.'s duties before it gives any direction. The provisions of subsections (3) and (4) about activities are standard. There are similar ones in the 1947 Act and the 1962 Transport Act. The Committee was always seized of precedents and these are two precedents.
Mr. Edward M. TaylorAs the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, the words in this Amendment are the same as those used in subsection (3). He appears to have put forward a very penetrating argument, but there is a question which causes us some little concern. Obviously the financial obligation on the N.P.A. is to make ends meet comparing one year with another. What worries us is that this Amendment might prevent the Minister 1166 from giving a direction or using his powers of capital allocation to prevent the N.P.A. continuing a subsidiary which was making a substantial loss year after year.
If the N.P.A. had a subsidiary company which was running at a loss year after year that would not be inconsistent with the general obligation on the N.P.A. because that obligation is that the overall financial results should break even. By putting in this Amendment I wonder if the Minister is restricting his powers and that he would not be able to advise the N.P.A. to discontinue activities which are loss making. I appreciate that the same point arises under subsection (3) but it is of some importance.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary can give some guidance on this. Does it restrict the Minister in endeavouring to restrain the N.P.A. from continuing a subsidiary which is losing a lot of money over a long period? I am sorry that I have not been able to give him notice of this question. If he is not able to give an answer tonight I hope that he will think about it before the later stages of the Bill.
§ Mr. MurrayI am grateful to the hon. Member for putting that point becaus this is a complicated matter. I [...] certainly lot him have an answer.
§ Amendment agreed to