HL Deb 12 December 1950 vol 169 cc865-82

3.25 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

LORD TEYNHAM

My Lords, I beg to move that at the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill. In doing so, I hope that His Majesty's Government will not resist the Motion, for reasons which I hope to make clear to your Lordships. During the Second Reading of the Bill, the noble Lord who replied for His Majesty's Government made a number of complaints about omissions from the Bill, and it is in order to remedy some of those omissions that: the Amendments on the Marshalled List have been set down. In the first place, the noble Lord complained that, as the Bill was drafted, the licensing authority would have the responsibility of deciding whether or not the British Transport Commission should be licensed to run both inside and outside the sixty miles' radius. This point we have now met by an Amendment which I hope later to be able to explain to your Lordships more fully. There was a further com-plaint by the noble Lord who replied on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and I quote his words. He said: Right the way through this Bill there is not one word about any statutory obligation being placed upon the independent haulier. We have met this point by setting down an Amendment which will provide that "A" and "B" licence holders, when given permits to go outside the sixty miles' limit, must conform to the charges scheme, if and when that is produced and comes into force.

The noble Lord further said during the Second Reading that the Commission had purchased a monopoly with the taxpayers' £70,000,000. I say, on the contrary, that neither singly nor collectively did the undertakings now acquired by the Trans-port Commission have a monopoly. Therefore, the Commission have not purchased one. On the other hand, I should like to make it quite clear again that we have no intention that this Bill should interfere in any way with the Transport Commission in their monopoly field of long-distance transport, but we do intend to make it possible for reasonable com-petition to exist between the nationalised industry and free enterprise. I think it was mentioned during the Second Reading of the Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, had said during a recent debate that one of the great difficulties in a nationalised industry was to obtain a yardstick to measure the efficiency. I say that unless we have this reasonable competition we shall not obtain that yardstick which, I suggest, is badly needed at the present time in the transport industry. I ask your Lordships, both on the grounds of justice to the independent haulier and the Transport Commission and in the national interest, to support my Motion hat this Bill should go into Committee.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Teynham.)

3.29 p.m.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON)

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for his second and third thoughts as indicated in the Amendments which he proposes to move, but I am afraid that it is evident to us, after giving the matter the most careful consideration, that if this Bill were placed on the Statute Book it would not be possible for the Transport Commission, with the Transport Act unrepealed and with the duties cast upon the Commission whilst it is on the Statute Book, to carry out their statutory duties. We, too, considered very care-fully whether it would be feasible to devise Amendments to the noble Lord's Bill which would make it possible for it to go on the Statute Book without rendering completely impossible the working of the Transport Act. I am afraid that, after I have received the best advice that I can obtain, my reply is quite definitely in the negative. We have, therefore, not put down any Amendments to the noble Lord's Bill, and I am glad he himself has thought of a few which, to some extent, may mitigate the absurdity of the present clauses. I am bound to put it that way. I welcome his further thoughts on the subject. Further, we shall certainly not desire to obstruct the noble Lord in his dealing with the Bill. I think one can say that with the inspiration of the noble Marquess opposite in the many difficult, long and contentious Bills we have had in the last six years in this House, we have set a good example of Parliamentary procedure. We shall certainly not break it on this occasion by doing anything which might smack of obstruction.

On the Motions that the different operative clauses (which really are the first three) shall stand part of the Bill, my noble friend, Lord Lucas, the Under-secretary of the Ministry of Transport, will briefly state the issues which emerge and which will, in fact, make it impossible for the Transport Commission to do their business. That will be done quite briefly and with no obstructive purpose whatever. I am bound to say, having thought this matter over very carefully and with the utmost good will, that, so far as I know from my some-what long Parliamentary experience, this is the first time that it has been sought to put upon the Statute Book an Act which makes the working of another Act still on the Statute Book quite impossible. That is the unique position with which we are confronted. Therefore, I must ask those who think the same as I do to vote with me against the Motion "That the House do now go into Committee," so that we shall not trouble your Lordships with further hostile Divisions but shall accept the situation as we know it to be. All I have to say in conclusion is that I hope this unfortunate example will not be copied in the future.

3.31 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for giving us his views. I am afraid we were all sorry to hear what he had to say as to the attitude of the Government to the Bill. Of course, we recognise that there are differences of view. The Government apparently regard the Bill as a deliberate attempt to sabotage the Act of 1947. I would assure them that is not the case. Our only object in bringing forward this Bill is to protect certain persons in the transport industry who were not intended to come within the provisions of that Act and whose position is now seriously impaired. On behalf of the Government, Lord Lucas frankly stated on the Second Reading that the Act of 1947 created a monopoly, and no doubt it does so with regard to long-range transport. But it was what I may call a limited monopoly; the Act did not create a monopoly with regard to shorter types of transport. It seems to us that there are people who come within that category who are at present being seriously injured by the results of the Act and who are entitled to the protection of Parliament. If the Government had any objection to the detailed provisions, I think they should have put down Amendments, and then we would certainly have been ready to consider them. I cannot believe it is true —though I am sure the noble Viscount said it in all good faith—that it is impossible to frame Amendments to a Bill of this kind.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

I did not say that. I said it was impossible to frame Amendments to the Bill which would make it and the Transport Act workable at the same time.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That is, in effect, the same thing. You cannot carry out the Transport Act without impairing the position of these unhappy people, and that is the one thing we will not accept. I wish even now the Government would agree to the course I suggest. Apparently, they cannot; but if they cannot, or if they will not, we have no option but to press the matter to a Division.

3.33 p.m.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, I should like to make a few observations to your Lordships on the question of procedure that arises as a result of the determination of the Government to divide upon this Motion. I do not recollect any cases, though there may have been some, of Bills which have passed the Second Reading in your Lordships' House but which have been denied a Committee stage. It seems to me rather surprising that, your Lordships having decided on a Second Reading that this Bill deserves your consideration, the Government should vote against the Bill proceeding to a Committee stage. I should have thought it followed almost as a matter of course that a Bill worth a Second Reading was entitled to be considered clause by clause, and that any Amendment that might be presented to the House should be considered. Therefore, for my own part, without expressing any view at this moment on the merits of the Bill, the Bill, not being merely a finance Bill and it having passed its Second Reading, I shall certainly support the Motion that it proceed to the Committee stage.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

My Lords, all I have to say is that that is the Motion before the House and the House is en-titled to express its views upon it. The course I propose is to serve the convenience of the House. We do not want to impose upon your Lordships a number of separate Divisions, and I think it will be much more convenient to the House to express our views on this one occasion rather than to have a series of Divisions upon different subjects later on.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, I submit that the right course for the noble Viscount to take if he wishes to avoid a series of Divisions, is to state the view of the Government on the first Amendment, divide upon it, if it is so wished, and say that in view of the decision of the House the Government will not proceed to further Divisions. On the question of procedure, there may be other precedents, but I think it would be unfortunate if a precedent were now to be set and if this present Parliament were to resolve that a Bill which has been passed on Second Reading might legitimately be denied a Committee stage,

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, may I say in a few words why, having voted against the Second Reading of the Bill, I shall most certainly vote for the Motion? It seems to me, if I may say so with respect to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, that those who want to oppose the Bill should vote against it on Third Reading and not on this Motion. I have always understood that the Committee stage does not strike at the roots of a Bill and is designed to improve it. Surely, if the opponents of the Bill think it could possibly be improved, or even if they do not think it could be improved, there could be no harm, from their point of view, in having a Committee stage. It is always possible that the Bill may be improved in Committee. There is still the Third Reading and the Motion "That the Bill do now pass" on which those who oppose it can vote.

VISCOUNT SIMON

My Lords, may I mention another consideration? There is, of course, one case in which after a Second Reading the Question put from the Chair "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill" is negatived, and that is when the Bill is of such a character that this House would never dream of altering its terms in Committee; therefore, to save time, we omit the Committee stage altogether and move straight on to the subsequent stages of the Bill and get it agreed by general consent. Speaking from a not very long experience of this House, I should have thought that when it was really the case that the contents of a Bill were controversial, it was unheard of here to say: "The House has passed the Second Reading but we are now going to block the Bill at the Committee stage." If any analogy is to be drawn from another place, those of us who remember what took place there (as the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House does) know that the Committee stage follows automatically and necessarily, once the Second Reading has been passed. Our procedure is not exactly the same, but the principle in both Houses of Parliament is that the general proposition involved in a Bill is considered on Second Reading, when it is decided whether it is the wish that the Bill shall go further; and a vote in favour of the Second Reading of a Bill necessarily implies that a Committee stage will follow unless something intervenes—there might be a Dissolution, or something of that kind. As the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack will remember, there are occasions when we deliberately omit a Committee stage, but I respectfully suggest that that is never done when we are dealing with something which it is still within the power of this House to regard, in Committee, as a matter of controversy.

Resolved in the affirmative: House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD HOLDEN in the Chair]

Clause 1 [Increase of road hauliers' radius of operation]:

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

VISCOUNT ADDISON

My Lords, I have nothing to add to what I have said. I agree that this is a very exceptional procedure, but I have taken this step deliberately because I have never known an example of this kind of legislation in the whole of my Parliamentary experience.

On Question, Whether the House shall now resolve itself into Committee?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS
Wellington, D. Aberconway, L. Hawke, L.
Altrincham, L. Hayter, L.
Cholmondeley, M. Balfour of Inchrye, L. Hindlip, L.
Reading, M. Belstead, L. Howard of Glossop, L.
Salisbury, M. Carrington, L. [Teller.] Kenilworth, L.
Cawley, L. Kinnaird, L.
Albemarle, E. Cherwell, L. Layton, L.
Brooke and Warwick, E. Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) Lloyd, L.
De La Warr, E. Lyle of Westbourne, L.
Fortescue, E. [Teller.] Courtauld-Thomson, L. Mancroft, L.
Halifax, E. Courthope, L. Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)
Howe, E. Cozens-Hardy, L. Merthyr, L.
Iveagh, E. Cranworth, L. Milverton, L.
Lindsay, E. De L'Isle and Dudley, L. Monkswell, L.
Munster, E. Denman, L. Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Onslow, E. Derwent, L. Moyne, L.
Perth, E. Digby, L. O'Hagan, L.
Rothes, E. Dorchester, L. Palmer, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Ellenborough, L. Rea, L.
Fairfax of Cameron, L. Rennell, L.
Allenby, V. Gage, L. (V. Gage.) Rochdale, L.
Bridgeman, V. Gifford, L. Roche, L.
Buckmaster, V. Grantley, L. Sandhurst. L.
FitzAlan of Derwent, V. Greville, L. Sandys. L.
Long, V. Hacking, L. Schuster. L.
Maugham. V. Hampton, L. Strathcona and Mount Royal. L.
Mersey, V. Harlech, L. Teviot, L.
Samuel, V. Harris, L. Teynham, L.
Simon, V. Hatherton, L. Tweedsmuir, L.
Wolverton, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.) Bingham. L. (E. Lucan) [Teller.] Marley, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.] Morrison, L.
Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal.) Chorley, L. Mountevans, L.
Greenhill, L. Pakenham, L.
Huntingdon, E. Haden-Guest, L. Pethick-Lawrence, L.
Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) Quibell, L.
Hall, V. Henderson, L. Rochester, L.
St. Davids, V. Holden, L. Shepherd, L.
Kershaw, L. Silkin, L.
Amwell, L. Lawson, L. Strabolgi. L.
Archibald, L. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRE-TARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH)

Before the Committee gives assent to Clause 1 standing part of the Bill, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, one or two questions, for the purpose of clarification and in order to ascertain his intentions in the Bill. The Transport Act, 1947, was based upon the principle that the British Transport Commission should have a monopoly of long-distance road haulage for hire or reward. The noble Lord slightly misquoted me. On Second Reading 1 said that the British Transport Commission were compelled by Statute to set up a monopoly, and had to pay for it. That is true, because to establish this monopoly the British Transport Commission had to purchase the goodwill and assets of those predominantly engaged in this business. The sum paid, or to be paid, is in the region of £70,000,000, which is guaranteed both in principal and interest by the taxpayer; and nothing in this Bill can reduce that liability. I should like to ask the noble Lord: Is it intended that new entry and continuance is to be allowed to upward of 51,000 operators without compensation being paid to the British Transport Commission for the breaking up of a monopoly which they were required by Statute to"set up, and to pay for? If it is intended to pay compensation, by whom will it be paid, and by what method?

The second question I should like to ask is this: Is it proposed at any stage in this Bill to relieve the British Transport Commission of their statutory obligation under the Transport Act to balance revenue and expenditure, and to create proper reserves? All the provisions of the Transport Act must be taken as a whole. The British Transport Commission, surely, cannot be obliged to pay their way if the means of doing so provided by the Act are diminished. That would be the effect of this Bill, because it would enable the independent haulier to take the cream of the traffic. If, how-ever, the Commission's obligation to pay their way is modified, as it would have to be if this Bill were passed, from what source is the deficiency to be made up? Is it the view of noble Lords opposite that a State subsidy should come to the rescue? If so, the beneficiaries would be the independent hauliers, who would cream the traffic, and the providers of the benefit would be the taxpayers.

The last question I should like to address to the noble Lord on this clause is this. The organisation of British Road Services has been built up out of the acquired undertakings, including staffs taken over. The British Transport Com-mission did not start an entirely new fleet in competition with the independent hauliers, but merely took over a section of the independent hauliers and reorganised them for a particular job. Provision was made in the Transport Act for compensation to be paid to all those who were in previous; employment and who could not be found a job upon acquisition, and this matter is being dealt with. There is no provision in this clause to pay compensation to those who will now become redundant, and who may lose their jobs by this fundamental change in the Act. Is it intended that such compensation shall be paid? If so, by whom is it to be paid, and by what method? There is no provision whatever in the Bill to deal with any of these matters, and I should like to know what is proposed.

LORD TEYNHAM

I am sure the Committee would not wish me to make a Second Reading speech in reply to the noble Lord. However, there is one point to which I should like to draw his particular attention—namely, the figure of £70,000,000. I understand that the figure is round about £25,003,000. As to the difference between the cost of voluntary acquisition and compulsory acquisition, we do not know. With regard to the other points raised by the noble Lord, surely they are points he could have dealt with by an Amendment to this Bill.

Clause 1 agreed to.

3.53 p.m.

Clause 2 [Transfer to the licensing authority of certain powers of the Com-mission with respect to permits]:

On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I have a few other questions to ask, to which 1 may be more fortunate in obtaining a reply. Having given every haulier a free run up to sixty miles from their operating centre in Clause 1, and thereby broken up that part of the statutory monopoly, Clause 2 proceeds to abolish the statutory monopoly of the Commission in respect of traffic beyond this limit. This clause would transfer from the Commission to the licensing authorities the power to issue permits. This is a departure from the fundamental principles of the Transport Act, and not a mere change of issuing authority. The Commission were intended to establish a monopoly of long-distance traffic for the ultimate purpose of integration. In accordance with this intention, it should—and, indeed, I think it will be agreed that it must—be in the absolute discretion of the Commission whether, and to what extent, they issue permits to other persons to carry traffic which they cannot or do not themselves wish to carry.

If, through the issue of permits by an outside authority, private hauliers are able to abstract an undefined part of long-distance road haulage, the possibility of integration will have gone, and the Com-mission can no longer have imposed upon them the obligation of securing it. There is nothing in this clause, or in the Bill, to relieve the Commission of that obligation. Is it proposed that such relief shall be given? Nothing is said in the Bill as to the circumstances which the licensing authorities should have in mind in dealing with such applications. The Bill gives no instructions as to whether applications for permits are to be advertised; whether opportunity is to be given to object, or whether there will be a hearing of the objections. In fact, the operation of this part of the Bill is left in the air. Nor is anything said upon the question of payment of expenses of the licensing authorities in dealing with permits. The licensing system, as the noble Lord will know, is covered by fees at the present time. Is the provision of permits to become a charge on the general body of licence holders or on the taxpayer, or who is to pay? Perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to give me an answer.

LORD TEYNHAM

My short answer to all those points is that we maintain that the Commission should not be judge in their own cause. Therefore, we suggest that the licensing authority shall have power to modify or revoke any of the permits which it may be required to issue. I shall have something more to say on that matter when I deal with the Amend-ment to a later clause.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

May I say one word, not on the substance of the Amendment, but on the attitude taken by the Government? When we have had before us various Bills dealing with nationalisation schemes introduced by the Government, the honest object of this House—and the Government have acknowledged this—has been to improve the Bill. We have done that by putting down Amendments to make it more work-able. We have not liked the nationalisation Bills, and we have never concealed our objection to them. But having allowed them to go through Second Read-ing, we have done our best to improve them. The attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is purely obstructive. He has asked a number of questions, and made no suggestions to improve the Bill. The Amendments put down by us were designed to meet objections raised by him. If he thinks that these Amendments are not adequate and do not cover the ground, it would be perfectly open to the noble Lord to put down a number of other Amendments. All he has done is to ask a number of questions designed to sabotage the Bill. That, I think, will not create a good impression, either upon your Lordships or outside.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

May I say a word on that? This point was most carefully considered. The particular clause with which we are now dealing enables the licensing authority to issue these permits. Under the Transport Act that is the business of the Transport Commission, who are entitled to a monopoly of this service. Now, with the best will in the world, it is not possible to reconcile those two duties: they are mutually destructive one of the other. I hope the noble Marquess will not take umbrage. We had a look at this Bill to see whether it was possible, without destroying the Bill, to amend it in order to make it workable in accordance with the Transport Act. Frankly, it is not possible to do it, and that is why we have adopted this procedure.

Clause 2 agreed to.

4.4 p.m.

LORD ROCHDALE moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause: —. If it shall appear to the Transport Tribunal that the provisions of a Charges Scheme confirmed under Part V of the principal Act and for the time being in force with respect to the road haulage services of the Commission should apply in whole or in part, either with or without alteration, to haulage services provided by the holders (other than the Com-mission) of A or B licences for goods vehicles under a permit granted by the Licensing Authority for a distance of more than 60 miles from the operating centre of such vehicles, the Transport Tribunal may make such order as they think, fit applying the Scheme in whole or in part and either with or without alteration to such services.

The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Luca, has already said a good deal this afternoon about the importance of integration. I have never disputed the need for some measure of integration between long-distance road haulage and the railways. That is, of course, essential for the very survival of the railways— and I said as much during the Second Reading of the Bill in your Lordships' House. But I have never conceded the point that for short-distance haulage any integration is either necessary or practical and that for long-distance haulage before an integrated charges scheme could be effective, joint ownership of road and rail was necessarily essential. That, to my mind, implies that in certain circumstances integration for long-distance work is possible, even though there are independent hauliers working alongside the Commission's vehicles. This new clause which I am moving seeks to alter one of the circumstances which would make integration possible.

The Bill, as it now stands, consider-ably enlarges the area within which the independent hauliers can operate. It. seems to us only right that outside that area, on long-distance haulage—where I think we have all agreed that the Com-mission have a right to a measure of monopoly—there should be no question of the independent haulier being allowed to undercut the Commission. This is a very important point, not only for the benefit of the Commission, and in particular, of course, for long-distance railway work, but also for the users. It could otherwise be argued that for fear that the rates charged by the Commission might be too seriously undercut, and their charges scheme—which I agree is a statutory obligation laid upon them by the principal Act—made non-effective, the issue of permits to the independent hauliers allowing them to operate out-side the sixty-mile limit ought on principle to be restricted even beyond the point that the requirement of the users justified. That would not only be unfair to the independent haulier asking for permits, but would also be a serious handicap to potential users. With this new clause there is no reason whatever why the issue or revocation of these permits should not be based solely on the merits of each individual case. That is why I move to insert this new clause in the Bill.

Briefly, the clause seeks to enable the Transport Tribunal to require that any independent haulier carrying traffic on permit beyond the sixty miles from his operating centre shall comply with any charges scheme which may at any time be in force in respect of the haulage services of the Commission. Your Lord-ships will remember that the procedure for bringing a charges scheme into force is clearly set out in Sections 76 to 81 of the Transport Act, and I do not propose to read any of them. I should just like to remind your Lordships that that procedure allows for alterations to be made in the scheme from lime to time, and there is also the safeguard that if any objections to a scheme, or to an alteration to a scheme, are raised, they can be heard at a public inquiry. I would emphasise that the clause itself is entirely permissive; and it is le:.i to the Transport Tribunal to decide whether the Commission's charges scheme should be made to apply either in whole or in part to independent hauliers.

I should also like to draw your Lord-ships' attention to the fact that the charges scheme can be applied "with or without alteration" to those independent hauliers. The importance of the words "with or without alterations"is this. We realise that otherwise it might be difficult, for technical reasons, to apply to independent hauliers, without modification, an existing scheme designed for the Commission. I believe that this clause should go some way to countering what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said on the Second Reading, and again, in effect, to-day—that those who have no stake in long-distance haulage can march in and grab it, free, gratis and for nothing. I do not agree with that suggestion. I should like to add just one point. If your Lordships agree to this new clause, independent hauliers, in order to retain their permits will have to conform to the charges scheme, while to retain their customers they will still have to offer that personal attention and efficiency which has been such an important feature in the development of their services.

Amendment moved —

After Clause 2, insert: he said new clause.— (Lord Rochdale.)

4.10 p.m.

LORD TEYNHAM

I should like to add my support to the Amendment which has been so clearly moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale. I do not think there is much I can say which he has not already put forward before your Lordships' House, but I should like to emphasise that this Amendment was set down because it was desired that the Bill should not be unfair in any way to the Transport Commission, and to meet the complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, of the difficulty of obtaining an integrated charges scheme for long-distance haulage by road and rail. I suggest that this clause entirely meets the noble Lord's point. I cannot believe there is any reason why His Majesty's Government should not accept this Amendment.

LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON

I also wish to support this Amendment. In rising to do so, I should like to say that I cannot really understand why some provision of the sort contained in this Amendment was not included in the original Transport Act. If the Government intended, as they have said on numerous occasions, that the Act should provide for the integration of charges between road and rail, it seems to me that the provisions contained in this Bill make such an integration as complete as it can be. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in his speech on Second Reading, stated that certain fears were present to his mind. He feared that this Bill would completely upset the relationship between the road and rail charges schemes as worked out in the nationalisation Act. He thought that more traffic would be attracted from the railways to the roads, and so the status quo before nationalisation would be restored. He also thought that if this particular Bill were passed into law, the private haulier would be in a position to undercut the Commission and take away the cream of the traffic. It seems to me that this particular Amendment completely meets his argument, because it removes any possibility of the long-distance private haulier being able to undercut the Commission. It places both the long-distance private haulier and the Commission on a completely equal basis, and gives no unfair advantage to the private haulier. Such competition obviously has considerable advantages because, if we cannot have such a cheap road service as we had before, at least we can have an efficient one, which I think many people would agree we have not now got.

There is one other aspect of the matter. To my mind, this clause gives a new lease of life to the small long-distance private haulier, the person who has one truck or two trucks, who performs a very special function which cannot be carried out by other people. He serves a few local customers and knows what their needs are. This new clause will enable such small long-distance hauliers to stay on the roads when, as things are, they look very much like being pushed off, and if they were pushed off a great service would be taken away from the community. I beg to support the Amendment.

4.15 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

While this Amendment admits the wide-spread damage which this Bill will do to the British Transport Commission, it really does nothing to remedy it, and I would say that it is completely unworkable. I wonder whether the noble Lord realises (I gather he does) that if any integrated charges scheme applying to road and rail is to mean anything, it must embrace the whole—or if not exactly the whole, at least the vast majority—of the road services of the British Transport Commission. The noble Lord's Amendment confines the application of any charges scheme to those hauliers operating outside sixty miles, whereas the integrated charges scheme will apply to the Commission's road haulage operating both outside and inside sixty miles: so there is at once a rate war there. Your Lord-ships will appreciate that one side are. if I may use the expression that I used on Second Reading, muzzled, while the other side are free.

Anyone who has been connected in any way with road haulage organisation knows what cut rates are. How are you to find out whether the private haulier is going to cut the rates? The beneficiary of the cut rates, the customer, is not going to complain. Do not forget that this must be taken into consideration: that any integrated charges scheme which the Transport Commission propose must balance the charges between what I might call the unremunerative traffics on the one hand, and on the other hand what is called "the cream." The independent haulier with no statutory obligation on him to provide services will, of course, always pick the cream. What is going to happen? This Amendment really does nothing because it leaves untouched the traffic within the sixty miles, and that represents approximately 80 Per cent. of the traffic of the country that is hauled by road. So 80 per cent. of the traffic that is hauled by road is outside the application of the charges scheme proposed by the noble Lord, and the application to the other 20 per cent. is obsolutely inoperative. That is why this proposal will not work. It is a myth. It looks very nice. It looks like a gesture of fair play, but it is just the reverse.

LORD ROCHDALE

The noble Lord who has just spoken has made two essential points. He asked how there is to be integration if there is no integration on the short distances. But we have never agreed that there should be integration within the short distances. We have agreed only that integration was correct on the long distances.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am sure the noble Lord will forgive my intervening. Is he aware that sixty miles cannot really be called a short distance, because anybody operating on a range of sixty miles from the town of Sheffield could cover almost the whole of the north-east of England? You need only about eleven circles of sixty miles' radius to cover the whole of the country. How can you say that sixty miles is a short distance? You may argue that twenty-five miles is a very short distance—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear!

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

— but I certainly argue that sixty miles is a very long distance in an Island of this size.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Do we understand that the noble Lord would like to suggest a compromise between the twenty-five miles and the sixty miles? He agrees that twenty-five miles is a very short distance and says that sixty miles is a very long distance. Would the Government like to suggest a compromise? If not, why not?

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

My Lords, may I at this stage intervene to ask whether it would be convenient that the House should resume, in order that I may repeat here the statement that the Prime Minister has made in another place?

House resumed.