HL Deb 29 July 1947 vol 151 cc717-27

Clause 58, page 74, line 4, at end insert: ("(c) This section shall not apply to any vehicle used for the carriage of any goods for distances not exceeding eighty miles or for the carriage for any distance of any of the goods specified in provisos (a) and (b of subsection (1) of Section fifty-two.")

The Commons disagreed to this Amendment and three others for the following Reason:

Because the said Amendments are inconsistent with the general scheme and intention of the Bill.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

My Lords, I beg formally to move that the House do not insist upon this Amendment.

Moved, That the House do not insist upon the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Viscount Swinton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

VISCOUNT SWINTON moved as an Amendment in lieu thereof—

Page 74, line 4, at end insert: ("(c) If on a complaint made by the holders of an A or B licence to the licensing authority that the Commission, in the exercise of their function of providing transport service for the carriage of goods by road, not being ordinary long-distance carriage, are competing unfairly against the aggrieved licence holders by seeking to provide more than a fair proportion of the facilities required, the licensing authority may, if it thinks fit, refer the matter with its report and recommendations to the Minister, who may make such order as in all the circumstances he may deem to be just, requiring if necessary the Commission to withdraw or alter such facilities.")

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I now beg leave to move the Amendment in lieu which your Lordships will see on the Paper. I would remind your Lordships of the principles which this House followed on the two sets of Amendment; with which the other place have disagreed. The first principle was that the law should be the same for the Government corporation and for the permitted operator; that the Government monopoly should be neither outside nor above the law; and that there should be in this country no droit administratif, which has always been a horror to us here.

The second principle was the one to which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has appealed, and which we readily accede to: that there should be a fair field for the Government corporation. But we always insisted that this meant a fair field and no undue favour. We understood that it meant that we should put the Commission and the operators who are permitted to operate under this Bill in the same position vis-à-vis the regional licensing authorities; and that we should retain to the licensing authorities their jurisdiction over passengers and goods, subject to any charges scheme approved by the Transport Tribunal or to any road passenger scheme promulgated by the Minister and duly approved by Parliament.

As your Lordships will see from the paper, the other place disagreed with these Amendments on the ground that the Amendments are inconsistent with the general scheme and intentions of the Bill. Frankly, I find that reasoning difficult to follow. I think there is an arguable case on passenger road transport, for this reason: that all passenger road transport, to start with, is left as it is; then the Commission have to make a scheme, and that scheme in due course comes before us here. Presumably any scheme that is made will provide for its area of operation, for the facilities to be provided, and for its expansion to meet the public need. But I am sure that there will have to be a devolution in the interests of the public, and I dare wager that when these schemes are produced that necessary devolution will be to the well-proved and well-tried. licensing authorities in the regions. That there is some case that passenger transport should be differently treated, I admit.

As to goods, and the hauliers who are not touched by any scheme of that kind, I cannot see that there is anything inconsistent in our proposal. After all, the Bill, as introduced, has as its general scheme and intention that the Commission and the short hauliers shall both function and both serve the public to the best of their ability, and that the public shall have this limited right of choice. But if you leave the Bill as it stands, what chance have these permitted hauliers to serve the public, or the public to be served by them? Under the Bill, the A and B licensees will have to go to the licensing authority for any additional lorries they want to put on the road. Moreover, they will have to go to these licensing authorities when in two or three years' time the A and B licences have expired. They will have to go for the renewal even of their existing licences, for their existing permitted number of vehicles. But, in the meantime, the Commission are to be free to put all the vehicles they like upon the road.

Something was said about taking the cream of the business, though why the poor, limited number of permitted hauliers, with their limited renewals, should be permitted to take the cream, when the Commission can come in and take what they please passes the wit of man to understand. The people who can take the cream and scoop the pool are the Commission, who can take all the extra facilities; they can do so because, in the first instance, there is no limit upon them under the Bill at all. They could put on so many extra lorries that, when the A and B licensees came to ask for the renewal of their licences, the licensing authorities would be bound to say: "The Commission have put so many vehicles on the road that we cannot even grant you the renewal of the licence to do what the Act allows you to do with your permitted number of vehicles." I ask in all humility, is that a square deal? I should have thought that common sense and common justice would put the Commission and the permitted hauliers on an equality. But we propose now something much more modest. I will not say that we are willing, because I do not think that would be fair, but in our attempt to get at any rate some measure of justice for the wretched trader and for the public, we propose to leave the Commission all their powers and all their privileges under this Bill, and they do not have to go to the authorities at all. We leave the hauliers, subject to the law as it stands to-day and will continue for them, having to go to the licensing authority for any extension, for a single extra lorry, for any renewal. But we propose this: we say—and these are the words of our Amendment: If on a complaint made by the holders of an A or B licence"— and let me repeat to you that the A or B licensee will be a man permitted under this Bill to operate— to the licensing authority that the Commission, in the exercise of their functions of providing transport service for the carriage of goods by road, not being ordinary long distance carriage"— that does not come in at all— are competing unfairly against the aggrieved licence holders by seeking to provide more than a fair proportion of the facilities required, the licensing authority may, if it thinks fit"— they have got to be satisfied that there is a good case— refer the matter with its report and recommendations"— the licensing authority will make its report— to the Minister, who may make such order as in all the circumstances he may deem to be just, requiring if necessary the Commission to withdraw or alter such facilities.

Observe how reasonable that is. It leaves the final decision with the Minister. There is a fair hearing on complaint, there is the report to the Minister, and the Minister is the final judge although he is also the owner of the Commission. Can anyone say that that plan is inconsistent with the general scheme and intention of the Bill? Can anyone say that less than that will fail to do justice either to the permitted operator or to the general public? I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 74, line 4, at end insert: ("(c) If on a complaint made by the holders of an A or B licence to the licensing authority that the Commission, in the exercise of their function of providing transport service for the carriage of goods by road, not being ordinary long-distance carriage, are competing unfairly against the aggrieved licence holders by seeking to provide more than a fair proportion of the facilities required, the licensing authority may, if it thinks fit, refer the matter with its report and recommendations to the Minister, who may make such order as in all the circumstances he may deem to be just, requiring if necessary the Commission to withdraw or alter such facilities.")—(Viscount Swinton.)

VISCOUNT ADDISON

When we were discussing the Bill before I thought that with the exercise of much ingenuity and, may I say, of infinite good will, I had gone as far to meet the noble Viscount's claims in respect of this class of haulier as even his utmost ingenuity could suggest. He has now, however, thought of something else. I want to point out what the scheme of the Bill is. There are these services provided by the Commission, or by the Executives with the Commission's authority, and, if you look at the governing conditions in Clause 3, Subsection (3), you will see that the Commission: shall so conduct that undertaking and levy such fares, rates, tolls, dues, and other charges, as to secure that the revenue is not less than sufficient for making provision for the meeting of charges properly chargeable to revenue, taking one year with another.— In other words, the Commission have got to pay their way.

This Amendment, so far as I can understand it, suggests that the Commission will be providing more than a fair proportion of the facilities required; that is to say, I suppose, that they will be providing more vehicles than are required for the traffic. That would be completely inconsistent with the governing condition of the Commission, that the scheme was to pay its way, because if they were providing an unnecessary number of vehicles clearly it would not be an economical proposition. I cannot imagine that any body of men in their senses would go out of their way to do anything of the kind. That is the first supposition. The next is this, that the noble Viscount wishes this matter to come before the licensing authority. We had this battle out before, both on Committee and Report, and the Government object to subjecting the Commission to the licensing authority, because there are specific provisions in the Statue for dealing with all the matters liable to arise, and which properly arise, in this connexion. It cannot be accepted—

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Would the noble Viscount permit me to interrupt, because I would like to know, where is the provision under which the permitted operator can go and complain if he says he is being unfairly treated?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I am coming to that. I am now on the point of subjecting the Commission to the licensing authority, which is something quite cut-side the scheme of the Bill. The Commission are responsible, and there is a special tribunal provided to deal with the rates, fares and charges and all the rest of it. Perhaps the noble Viscount will remember that I undertook—I think on the Report stage, after a promise given on the Committee stage—that we would try and provide an opportunity for anybody who felt himself aggrieved by the service, to have his case examined. In other words, his case would be examined by the proper body; not by the local licensing authority, but by the tribunal set up under the Bill. And, under Clauses 78, 79 and 80, there is in the Bill now a special provision that I myself, in concert with the noble Viscount, introduced in the Report stage, that arty body representative of any class of persons providing for hire or reward services or facilities similar to or comparable with the services or facilities to which the scheme relates, who desire to contend that the charges provided for in the draft scheme are unduly low may lodge an objection to that effect—

VISCOUNT SWINTON

With great respect the Leader of the House has not read the new Amendment.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

Oh yes, I have.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

All right; but what he is reading now deals with passengers, does it not?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

No.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Yes it does. It is a passenger road transport scheme.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

If the noble Viscount will look at it he will see that this deals with the charges which are provided under a scheme. There will be schemes of all kinds. Consider the case of a person who feels himself prejudiced in some way by one of these schemes. If he wishes, he can make his complaint through the consultative committee. As a matter of fact, the scheme bristles with opportunities for such people to make their grievances known and get them attended to. Quite honestly, I think it is an impossible suggestion to make that the Commission would deliberately put on the road an unnecessary number of vehicles, which is the supposition of the Amendment. I cannot imagine any body of men in their senses doing such a thing. Certainly if they did they would be infringing their governing instruction in the Bill, which is to make their services a self-supporting proposition. Really, the idea is quite unthinkable.

In any case we could not agree that an outside body, the licensing authority, should be brought in when there are abundant opportunities in the Statute itself for all legitimate complaints to be heard and dealt with. Therefore, I am sorry to say that we cannot possibly accept this Amendment, and I think the finding of the other place was right when it was said that the Amendments "are inconsistent with the general scheme and intention of the Bill." I think that they clearly are, and I am sorry that the noble Viscount has introduced an Amendment of this kind.

9.48 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords I am sorry to hear the speech made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I have no doubt that he has spoken in entirely good faith, as he always does. But he will not have convinced any of us. If I may say so, with great respect, he seems to have quite misunderstood the purpose of the Amendment. First of all he said that no sensible Commission would put too many vehicles on the road because they would not pay their way. But here you have to deal with a situation where a great corporation with infinite funds are opposed to a number of small men with very limited capital. That is the position with which you will be faced for every district, urban and rural, in England. Does the noble Viscount really say that it is impossible for a great corporation to drive these others out of business? I would like to mention the case of the Standard Oil Company—

VISCOUNT ADDISON

May I interject a question? As I have understood him, the noble Marquess has contended all through that private enterprise is so much more efficient than public enterprise that it can hold its own very well in these cases. Is that not so?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I agree—when there is fair competition. That has always been the contention of the Party to which I belong, and of the Liberal Party as well. Nobody defends the action of an immense aggregation of capital in driving small men out of business. No one has defended that. The case which I was going to quote was held up in the United States as a scandal. It was the case of the Standard Oil Company of the United States. The accusation against that body was that they bought up small company after small company, persistently undersold, in fact took every means they could to drive them out of business; and in a great number of cases succeeded. I do not think that anyone, however much he might be in favour of private enterprise, would defend proceedings of that kind. The noble Viscount may say that no State enterprise would do a thing of that kind, that they are ordinary decent people and not brigands or robbers. I am, of course, anticipating what he may say if he speaks again. In fact, the Party to which he belongs does not believe in private enterprise; I do not say in competition. They would think it perfectly all right to drive these people out of business.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

No.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Certainly there is this difference between us—

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I do not admit to the noble Marquess a better ability to interpret the opinions of my Party than I have. He is quite wrong.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Why drive all the long distance road hauliers out of business? That is one of the main purposes of this Bill. Certainly it is. It is gradually being driven home to the country that that is what is happening. We cannot accept the contention that these people are not being driven out of business. If we are wrong, there is not the slightest reason why the Government should not accept this Amendment. They might consider that. The noble Viscount said that in any case the private owner is perfectly protected; he has a Tribunal which deals with fares and rates. The Tribunal does not deal with road hauliers; it deals only with passenger traffic. I am open to correction.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

Our proposal leaves it open to everybody.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Not on the number of vehicles, only on rates.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It deals only with rates. I am not concerned with rates, but with the volume of traffic. What we are asking is that in the case of a private citizen without unbounded resources, who feels he is aggrieved and makes a good case he has the right of appeal to the Minister. That does not seem to me to be a very reactionary proposal. The Minister maintains absolute control of the position. All he does is sit in his office receiving appeals and considering them, but it does give to the private man some feeling of security that there is somebody to

whom he can appeal for the reversal of any decision about traffic and the amount of vehicles run by the Commission in his own area. It is not an extreme, but a very modest proposal. We have been at infinite pains to find something which would satisfy the Government and bring comfort to the road hauliers. We felt that if the Minister was the final arbiter, it would be acceptable to the Government. If it is not acceptable, we have failed in our endeavour to find a compromise. I ask them to believe this. We do feel passionately that we must try and protect these small people and their future. It is not a mere debating point for us. It is something very, very deep-seated. In the last Amendment we tried to make it unnecessary for a man to prove his innocence, at any rate not of a crime but of a potential crime. In this Amendment we try to give him some appeal against this immense machine which will, willy-nilly, whether it be the will of the Government or not, gradually grind him out of existence. It is something we feel strongly about and something the people of this country feel strongly about. We have sought by every means in our power to find a line where we can meet. I am bound to say that many hundreds of thousands of people in this country will be bitterly disappointed with the attitude the Government is taking on these Amendments.

On Question, Whether the said paragraph shall be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 13.

CONTENTS.
Aberdeen and Temair, M. Long, V. Rigby, L.
Chohnondeley, M. Portal, V. Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Reading, M. Ridley, V. Gifford, L.
Salisbury, M. Samuel, V. Gisborough, L.
Swinton, V. Grenfell, [Teller.]
Beatty, E. Hawke. L.
De La Warr, E. Addington, L. Hazlerigg, L.
Fortescue, E. [Teller.] Barnby, L. Hylton, L.
Howe, E. Bingley, L. Kinnaird, L.
Iddesleigh, E. Butler of Mount Juliet, L. (E. Carrick.) Llewellin, L.
Lindsay, E. Lloyd, L.
Munster, E. Cherwell, L. O'Hagan, L.
Portsmouth, E. Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) Remnant, L.
Radnor, E. Rennell, L.
Rothes, E. Courthope, L. Rochdale, L.
Selkirk, E. Craigrnyle, L. Sinha, L.
De L'Isle and Dudley, L. Teynham, L.
Bridgeman, V. Denham, L. Tweedsmuir, L.
Hailsham, V. Deramore, L. Wardington, L.
Wolverton, L.
Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.) Ammon, L. Marley, L.
Chorley, L. [Teller.] Morrison, L. [Teller.]
Addison, V. Kershaw, L. Quibell, L.
Hall, V. Lindsay of Birker, L. Walkden, L.
Stansgate, V. Lucas of Chilworth, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.