§
Lords amendment: No. 79, in page 47, line 19, after scheme "insert
or any other pension scheme established by the Board or the Corporation".
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. ClarkeAll the amendments discharge the undertakings that were given in Committee. Some schemes have no power to distribute a surplus by way of pension increases. At present, they have to get powers by means of a Private Bill. That is clearly anomalous. The amendments confer the necessary powers on the trustees to change the rules.
§ Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
§ Lords amendments Nos. 80 to 85 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]
§ Mr. Kenneth Clarkerose—
§ Mr. John Prescott (Kingston-upon-Hull, East)The amendment is concerned with issues arising out of the transference of the National Freight Corporation to the private sector. The Lords amendment takes it further than the existing provisions in clause 37 and schedule 6, which concern the rights, obligations and liabilities of assets of the National Freight Corporation. Lords amendment No. 122 allows the additional technical transition provision. We are concerned with the statutory restrictions on bodies affected by this transfer. In the brief time available to us on Monday, when we received the amendments, we tried to assess their meaning. We then tabled our amendment. On reflection, we wish to make further comments, even about the Opposition amendment.
Unfortunately we have had to draft several amendments in haste. It is a pity that the Government did not see 919 sense at the beginning. In Committee we tried to obtain the very assurances that they now seek to give us. No doubt the thought that £20 million may be lost if the Bill is not completed by the end of the week has concentrated their minds wonderfully. If we had had more time we might not have tabled the amendment.
At first sight the Lords amendment seemed to state that if a company was involved with the State-owned National Freight Corporation it would be denied the chance to cease trading with that corporation on denationalisation. Any statutory protections would not apply. However, we could not rely on the draft-man's skill to tell us what an amendment means. We had to discover which bodies were involved. We are advised that the British Transport advertising subsidiary of British Rail creates an anomaly.
I have since talked to the advertising subsidiary and to the National Freight Corporation. It is interesting to note, as the Minister has made a number of comments about having financially to rescue nationalised industries—there is no desire to open up the argument—that both Labour and Conservative Governments have contributed to the financial difficulties of nationalised industries. It is interesting for the House to note that the British Transport advertising company is a very successful company, which makes a lot of money for its size, competes with the private sector very well, and has made a considerable contribution to the finances of British Rail.
Advertising is a highly competitive area. It is pleasing to note that this State-owned asset is doing well. No doubt I risk the possibility that the Minister will want to sell another profitable State asset. I cannot help bearing in mind something that occurred on Thursday of last week and that shows the effect of advertising, particularly on the consumer. I had occasion to join one of the 125s to Leeds on Thursday. It was absolutely packed. There was standing room only in both first class and second class. No one could sit down. There, sneaking into the guard's van, was Jimmy Savile, the man who has encouraged so many people in this country, in the year of the train, to join trains. Perhaps we both enjoyed a pleasant con 920 versation in the guard's van about the effects of his advertising on people travelling on British Rail.
It is nice to know that British Rail has problems in not being able to provide seats for all those who wish to travel by train. That is a problem of success rather than one of failure.
In one financial year this company has contributed over £2 million to British Rail's finance. It is pleasing to note, particularly from my very biased, ideological point of view, that it is a State-owned asset.
Nevertheless, looking back on the history of this company, one must say that certain restrictions were imposed on it by legislation immediately after the war, on the establishment of the British Transport Commission. The belief was that the public sector should not be allowed to stray over into the private sector and take profits from the legitimate area of the private sector. The Labour Government who introduced that legislation no doubt put that kind of sop in to satisfy the private interests, which were concerned about the extension of the public sector.
In 1975 this company was given further freedom to expand in certain public sector areas and has done rather well from that expansion. Therefore, the simple point that is to be taken from this research is that, quite contrary to what we feared—that this company would be restricted in some way by the amendment—it in fact is being given more freedom. Therefore, we greatly welcome the amendment, which will allow the British Transport advertising company to deal with what I believe are long-term contracts on sites belonging to the National Freight Corporation. It will enable those contracts to continue and not be hindered by restrictions that cover the operations of the British Transport advertising company. Therefore, we support the Lords amendment, and later in the proceedings I shall ask leave to withdraw our amendment to it.
Our amendment was designed to deal with limitations that we had wrongly interpreted. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us why he stops here. If he and the Government believe that all these industries or companies should compete with each other and he is prepared to make it easier for another public 921 sector company to compete with the private sector, why does he not lift the further restrictions that are placed on the public sector side—particularly the British Transport advertising—and that give rise to certain anomalies? For example, British Transport advertising is able to sell advertising space on buses, but only those buses of the National Bus Company, which is within the remit of its operating powers in the public sector. It is not able to sell similar advertising space on buses in, for example, town areas. This is an anomaly that will not be changed when this Bill is enacted.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, in this full thrust of competition and in the desire that the public sector should stand up to competition, will erase the anomaly that allows private firms to compete with public sector firms in the public sector area of contracts but prohibits a public sector company from going out into the private sector and competing with private sector companies.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will direct his Department to ask what are the difficulties for these public sector industries. Can they earn more money for British Rail? Can they reduce the debts of British Rail? Can they reduce the debts and claims on the Government by this action? It may be useful for the Parliamentary Secretary to address his mind to those points.
However, we welcome the Lords amendment. In view of further considerations on it, the Opposition's amendment will be withdrawn at the appropriate time.
§ Mr. PrescottI am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker—it is not moved.
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeIf the hon. Member moves the amendment, it can be withdrawn in due course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Mr. PrescottI am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, in line 6, at the end to add. 922
'unless the statutory restriction was imposed by legislation passed subsequently to this Act and prior to the date of the transfer '.I intend to withdraw the amendment at the appropriate time.
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeFirst, I was delighted to hear that British Rail was doing extremely good business on the journey on which the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) met Jimmy Savile. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will follow up that experience with a claim for more investment by British Rail on that service in due course to accommodate the passenger demand.
Secondly, I shall not be drawn into arguments about the late tabling of these amendments and the circumstances in which we made concessions. I am sure that this amendment was not one that was tabled on Third Reading in the House of Lords last Thursday. There are a substantial number of amendments, but their tabling goes back all the way, from the Report stage in the House of Commons. It is indeed the case, however, that the purpose of the amendment is not apparent when one looks at its terms. One has to have an explanation before one can see what on earth was thought to be behind it. Therefore, I understand why a precautionary Opposition amendment was put down about it when it was realised that it affected the position of British Transport Advertising Limited. But the Lords amendment, which I commend to the House, relieves British Transport Advertising Limited from what would otherwise be a restrictive effect of the Bill.
The amendment has a very narrow purpose. It is to safeguard a particular contract between British Transport Advertising Limited and the National Freight Corporation. Under that contract, British Transport Advertising enters into contracts with third parties for the display of advertisements of those third parties on NFC property.
Under the Bill as originally drafted, the British advertising company would have lost the powers to perform this contract because, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is limited by section 14 of the Transport Act 1962 to dealing with other transport boards. As the purpose of the part of the Bill to which we have now directed our attention is to denationalise the National Freight Corporation, it 923 would go outside that section of the Transport Act 1962, and unless we agree to the amendment British Transport Advertising could no longer legally carry out its contractual obligations to the NFC. That was never intended. The amendment therefore overrides that general limitation upon it.
The Opposition amendment seeks to make sure that somehow we do not do anything else between now and the appointed day when the NFC becomes a limited company, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing else lies behind the Lords amendment. It related only to that one contract. We had no intention of doing anything else in this field between now and the appointed day.
I must emphasise that the effects of the amendments are of a transitory nature only, as it applies only to obligations, and so on, transferred under the Bill on the appointed day. There is no permanent widening of the powers of British Transport Advertising or any other body in a similar case. Indeed, so far as we are aware, no other body is known to be affected in such a way.
The hon. Gentleman invited me to trail my coat about this long-standing limitation on British Transport Advertising—a highly successful business that has operated under statutory constraint for the last 18 years. The obligations probably go back further than that. This Bill has never been regarded as the vehicle for doing that. I do not think that this debate would be a very suitable vehicle for me to make detailed comments. Anything that I now say is an off-the-cuff statement. It is certainly not a considered statement of policy.
I acknowledge that British Transport Advertising is a highly successful company. We welcome its ability to prosper commercially and in competition, potentially, with others. Of course, if we were to examine it closely to see how successful it was competitively, it might lead us to question why it needs to remain a public sector company, as it is a highly successful advertising undertaking. As I say, however, we have not looked at that as a considered item of policy, and we are dealing with a much narrower purpose tonight. I therefore commend the Lord[...] amendment to the House.
§ Mr. PrescottIn view of the Minister's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.