HL Deb 29 July 1947 vol 151 cc688-97

Clause 39, page 48, line 24, leave out ("forty") and insert ("eighty")

Clause 39, page 48, line 27, leave out ("twenty-five") and insert ("fifty").

Clause 39, page 48, line 36, leave out ("forty") and insert ("eighty").

The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason: Because the said Amendments would unduly hamper the commission in the adequate performance of their duties under the Bill.

LORD TEYNHAM had given Notice that he would move, That this House do not insist on the said Amendments but propose the following Amendments in lieu thereof:

Page 48, line 23, leave out from ("undertaking") to ("in") in line 24.

Page 48, Line 27, leave out ("twenty-five") and insert ("forty").

Page 48, line 36, leave out subsection (3).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if the next two Amendments are discussed at the same time. I intend to refer very briefly to the application of Clause 39 as it reached this House from the other place, and as it is now. It sets out in formula the basis on which road haulage undertakings would be absorbed by the Transport Commission and which is defined in this clause as ordinary long-distance carriage. During the debate in this House, both during the Second Reading and the Committee stage, the interpretation of this clause was widely discussed, and certainly on this side the clause was considered to be very ambiguous. The Government, in my opinion, gave no satisfactory answer or explanation as to the correct interpretation.

As the clause is now drawn there is a double qualification of radius and distance, upon which will be determined whether an undertaking will or will not he absorbed by the Commission. One qualification lays down that an undertaking will be considered ordinary long distance carriage if the vehicle is more than twenty-five miles from its operating centre. There is no difficulty in understanding that qualification, but it is when we come to the second qualification that doubt arises, not only as to its interpretation but, equally important, as to its application. This second qualification lays down that an undertaking will be considered as ordinary long-distance carriage and therefore absorbed by the Commission if goods are carried by one vehicle or a succession of vehicles for a distance of forty miles upwards inside the radius of twenty-five miles from the operating centre. We maintain there is no valid reason for this second qualification. In fact, it is open to doubt whether the interpretation I have given is the correct one. There may be quite a number of interpretations: if we take my interpretation as correct, how can the Government explain how the distance is to be determined in this question of forty miles?

During the debate on this clause on the Committee stage, it was pointed out that many thousands of journeys would have to be examined in order to find out and arrive at a decision which would determine whether an undertaking would be absorbed by the Commission. We maintain that this is an impossible and unnecessary task. The Amendments to line 23 and line 36 seek to strike out this quite unnecessary qualification of distance inside a limited radius. I propose to refer to the first qualification. The Amendment on line 27 seeks to increase the radius from twenty-five to forty miles inside which a vehicle may be excluded from the Commission. The Government have strongly opposed any attempt to increase the radius both in this House and in another place on this particular clause, largely on the grounds that any increase would substantially cut down the number of undertakings and vehicles which would be taken over by the Commission, arid that the reduced numbers would be insufficient to set up a good organization properly integrated.

Let us look at this claim a little closer and see what it means. In another place, and I think also in this House, the Government have stated that the number of vehicles which would be absorbed by the Commission based on the radius qualifications of twenty-five miles would be approximately 20,000 with an additional 10,000 railway vehicles. 71-1e whole matter is how these figures have been obtained. The industry is quite unable to determine these figures or any other figures on the basis of Clause 39 as now drafted, and it is equally impossible, I fear, for the Government to do it. I feel sure the figures given by he Government have been obtained from the Government Road Haulage Organization in operation during the war, when be qualification of ordinary long-distance carriage was a distance of sixty miles, and had nothing to do with radius. I wish to stress that this distance is roughly equivalent to the distance a vehicle could operate within forty miles and therefore any argument that this proposed increase of radius would reduce the number of vehicles taken over below the figure desired by the Government, falls completely to the ground. It will be seen if the approximate figures are worked out for a distance of sixty miles. that the radius would be 37½ miles. The Government figures are, therefore, really based on a radius of roughly forty miles and we are asking in our Amendment for this radius. In these circumstances I think we are justified in pressing the Government to accept this Amendment which stands in my name.

Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed and propose the following; Amendments in lieu thereof:

Page 48, line 23, leave out from ("under taking") to ("in") in line 24

Page 48, line 27, leave out ("twenty-five and insert ("forty")

Page 48, line 36, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Teynham.)

6.20 p.m.

LORD BEVERIDGE

My Lords, I have only a few words to say and I say them chiefly in order to separate completely the Amendments on Clause 39 from the subsequent Amendment on Clause 52. It is perhaps unnecessary to make that separation in this House, but I notice that the other place dealt with these Amendments on Clause 39 and Clause 52 together, which I think is a sign of the confusion which sometimes besets that Assembly, because they have absolutely distinct objectives. Clause 39 is concerned with what undertakings shall be taken over. Clause 52 is not concerned with what undertakings shall be taken over, but with what shall not be done by the undertakings which are not taken over. To lump those two things together, and treat each of them as things to reject—as they have done in the other place—on the ground that it would interfere unduly with the Commission, is, I venture to repeat, a sign of confusion.

I only want to make that point because, whatever happens to this Amendment on Clause 39, I feel that the case for the Amendment to follow, on Clause 52, is much stronger than that on this clause. Even so, I still think the case put up for this Amendment is very strong indeed. I use in defence of it words used by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack when we were discussing this clause before, when he said: Our proposition is to take over long-distance haulage, and the test of long-distance haulage is something over forty miles. Those are the actual words he used. The difference between long-distance haulage and other haulage is that long-distance haulage is over forty miles. This Amendment is simply designed to take those words out of the mouth of the Lord Chancellor and, if possible, to put them into the mouths of members of the other place.

Having spent some time in studying what was said in another place in rejecting all our Amendments, I want to speak in full warning against another argument which was used there: that is, that if the fifty-mile limit which was then proposed were adopted, the Commission would have so few vehicles that it could not manage its business. Actually, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said that on that basis they would have only 8,000 vehicles. That was obviously nonsensical, because in any case they would have the 10,000 vehicles of the railway companies. The real issue is between the 18,000 vehicles, which the Amendment would have given, and the 30,000, which is what the Bill as originally introduced would have given. It seems to me very unreasonable to suggest that an undertaking cannot make a success of 18,000 vehicles. There are a large number of private undertakings which could well do that. This is another of the confessions of the failure of Socialism. I suggest that the Government should abandon that line of argument.

As to the question of forty miles or less, I would like to refer—in case any noble Lord from Scotland does not refer to it—to the complete absurdity of forty miles in relation to Scotland. May I also, finally, suggest that the transport industry is, or was, a progressive industry. At one time a speed of twenty miles an hour was a very fast rate for a motor vehicle, and to go fifty miles was a long journey. But to suggest to-day that anything over twenty-five miles is a long journey is absurd. I hope the Government will be able to take the words of their Lord Chancellor and accept this Amendment.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

My Lords, I recognize the ingenuity of the noble Lord. He has suggested that the reduction of 30,000 vehicles—I think that was his figure—down to 18,000 does not matter much.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

24,000 to 18,000.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

That was the figure given by the noble Lord, and for the purposes of discussion I am assuming that it was correct. I should have thought it made a good deal of difference, supposing it were true. This matter has been the subject of prolonged discussion, and I do not propose to detain your Lordships very long in dealing with it. It is clear that this Amendment, which is limited to extending the radius from the operating centre and does not deal with the other part, means that there would be excluded from the operation of the Transport Commission a greatly augmented number of vehicles. That is the fact, and that is the intention of the Amendment. If the noble Lord says that he does not want the Commission at all, we cannot complain if he wants to whittle it down to the state where there would be substantially nothing left. That is understandable. It is not understandable, however, when he says that while the process is going on it does not matter.

As the Bill stood originally, a twenty-five mile radius gave the man with a vehicle an operating area of 2,000 square miles, which is a good big area to work in. Within the radius of twenty-five miles it would, in fact, be possible—and, of course, would be a daily occurrence—that along the roads within that radius you would go a good deal more than forty miles. That is not in question. But as soon as you say anything is not long-distance haulage, and you double the radius, you are making a substantial difference to the area of operation which you are excluding from the possibility of the Transport Commission. The area of operation under this Amendment would be 5,000 square miles, instead of 2,000 square miles, which would be excluded from the possibility of the operation of the Commission.

LORD TEYNHAM

If I may interrupt the noble Viscount, it is not a question of the Commission being excluded from operating in any area. The Commission can at any time, and anywhere, operate alongside private enterprise.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

It means that the number of firms they would be able to take over under the definition of long-distance haulage would be reduced. That is really the effect of the Amendment—that they would he excluded from taking them over, and that would pro tanto reduce the number of concerns and vehicles of which the Commission would be authorized to make us. And it would, in fact, increase the excluded area in a radius of 40 miles from 2,000 square miles to 5,000 square miles. My right honourable friends have considered this with the best will in the world, and in their considered opinion, and the considered opinion of their advisers, to accept an Amendment of this sort would undermine the whole scheme of the Bill. I am sorry, but we cannot accept this Amendment.

6.29 p.m.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

My Lords, I must say that I think your Lordships will agree that that was a very unconvincing answer. There are, it is quite true, two issues here, although we are taking them in one for the purpose of debate. There is, first of all, what is to be taken over; secondly, there is, as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, said, what is to be the area of operation of the permitted private undertakers who will still be allowed to continue. There was really no answer from the Leader of the House on the second point with regard to the facilities to be given to the people who are still to be allowed to operate, and I should very much like to know—and the House would welcome the noble Viscount addressing us again, I am sure—if any concession is going to be made to us cal the area of operations which the no ale Lord, Lord Beveridge, rightly distinguished from the area of take over

Now what are the arguments which he used, and were used in another place, to justify keeping either or both of those within the limitation of 25 miles? Oddly enough, I do not think the Leader of the House mentioned the blessed word "co-ordination" to-night. I missed it if he did. But the whole purpose of this Bill. as we were told by the Lord Chancellor, was that it was co-ordination and not ownership that mattered. Nobody can pretend that ownership is necessary for co-ordination. If their argument really would hold water, then the Government ought to take the lot and not just those which come within the 25-mile limit—a ad no doubt some of the more greedy of their supporters would be very glad to see that happen.

I am not going to waste time over that argument, because it all concentrated on the prejudice which this great Government undertaking would suffer; its inability to discharge its statutory duty to give a decent service unless it took over everything except the 25-mile or less radius, and unless everybody who was permitted to continue was to be confined to his 25-mile radius. Well, really, is that not great nonsense? I will make the noble Lord a present of his figures rather than take the figures of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, as to how many thousands of vehicles are to be affected. If we extend the 25 miles to 40 milts, and say that we do not take over those which are within the 40 mile radius, there is still going to be an enormous number—10,000 of the railway vehicles is it? And 8,000 or i8,000 of the others? At any rate, it is a great many thousand vehicles. It is a much bigger undertaking than that of any of the fellows w to are to-day conducting an admirable business. It may need co-ordination, but nobody pretends that they are rot giving the most excellent service, as every trader and farmer says they are. Why do the Milk Marketing Board want to keep the business as it is? Because they are getting such excellent service. Those people who are giving that service do not say: "We cannot give this service unless we have 20,000 vehicles or more." This is paranoia; this is megalomania. The noble Viscount ought not to suffer from these diseases; he ought to know much more about them.

The great danger to-day is for businesses to get too big, not for businesses to get too small, and in a business like road transport which serves individual needs, I think anybody who knows will admit that is a real danger. The noble Viscount has forgotten another thing. He talks as if 18,000 was to be a very small undertaking and they could not do the job without them. But he is not necessarily confined to that number. The can go and order as many new lorries as he pleases as soon as the Commission is established, and I have no doubt they will always get priority as against the other unfortunate permitted operator. He can go and place all the orders he likes if he thinks this 18,000 or 28,000—whatever the number of vehicles is which he is going to take over—is too small for his little business; he can go and order another 10,000 immediately. It really is fantastic. Is this the fair chance which the Lord Chancellor said that the Commission must have? What do we mean by fair chance? We may mean a fair field and no favour. Is this great Government undertaking not able to compete unless it has a cartel, a monopoly and all the dice weighted in its favour? I make this claim not only in fairness but in both justice and common sense. Goodness only knows, 25 miles is not the right test to take for long haul—a radius which would prevent a haulier going across Greater London, prevent his going between Liverpool and Manchester and prevent his going between Edinburgh and Glasgow. Can anybody, without the most frightful misuse of words, pretend that operation within those areas is really long distance? Of course it is not. Forty miles is a much fairer distance.

There is one person I was waiting to hear mentioned in all the defence which the Leader of the House put up, and indeed in everything which was said in another place, and that was the wretched consumer, the user of the road transport. I never heard him mentioned once. He has some rights. He has the right to be served. What is his interest? His interest is that there should be an efficient Commission and efficient hauliers, and that he should have a reasonable choice between the two to be able to send his goods by one or the other on what is a reasonably short haul. Not only would the haulier not have a fair chance if he is limited to his 25 miles, but the consumer, the farmer, the trader and the manufacturer would be unable to get that service out of the permitted haulier that he can give to-day, that he is only too anxious to give and that the Bill purports to provide should go on.

For all those reasons I say that this is right, in taking the test of what should be taken over. Although 40 miles must be a little arbitrary—during the war you made it 60 miles—if you please, the thing must be arbitrary to some extent; but as between 25 miles and 40 miles I do not believe any man of fairness and common sense would deny that 40 miles is a much fairer test. But when you come to the area in which he is to be permitted to operate, then I say if you refuse to give a radius of operation of 40 miles you are not only doing what is unfair to the haulier, but doing something which is much more serious: you are depriving the whole of the public of a chance of a fair service.

EARL GREY

My Lords, the noble Lord made great play of his calculation of 2,000 square miles as if it was a ridiculous area to give. A great many lorries are based upon the ports all round the country and your 2,000 square miles presumably would be half at sea and half on land. I do not think the noble Lord's calculations are really worth very much.

LORD GIFFORD

Speaking of calculations, I am sure the noble Viscount did not intend it, but he said it is upsetting the whole structure to double the radius. As far as I know 40 miles is not double 25 miles.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I did not say "doubling the radius." What I said was that the included area in a radius of 25 miles was 2,000 square miles.

EARL GREY

Even if you are based on the shore?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

Of course not.

EARL HOWE

I have attended many hours of discussion, and I have been hoping to hear an explanation from the Leader of the House or from some other Government spokesman as to how the figure of twenty-five miles came to be decided upon. What does it mean? If the noble Viscount can give any really good reason for the figure of twenty-five miles it will have a great deal of effect on many people like myself. But I have not heard any single reason for the figure. On the other hand, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has already pointed out that a twenty-five miles' radius will not enable you to cross the Greater London area. Twenty-five miles seems to have everything wrong with it from the point of view of the road haulier. Forty miles is a reasonable figure; it is the distance, for instance, between Edinburgh and

Resolved in the affirmative and Motion agreed to accordingly.

6.50 p.m.