TRANSPORT BILL: CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE'S VIEWS (Hansard, 4 March 1953)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON)
My Lords, I will, if I may, answer the Question asked by Lord Lucas and also the Question standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burden. I am advised that the Central Transport Consultative Committee have had under consideration the submission of a report on the Transport Bill to my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport. Attached to the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee was a draft of what a majority of the members proposed to say. In my right honourable friend's view, a report on the provisions of the Bill is outside the competence of the Consultative Committee as defined in Section 6 of the Transport Act, 1947. My right honourable friend has informed the Committee of his views, which are shared by some members of the Committee itself, and he has no doubt that the point will be considered by the Committee at their 939 next meeting. In the meantime, my right honourable friend cannot take cognisance of a document which has not been formally submitted to him as a report.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that the report to which the noble Viscount has referred was sent to his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport at the express invitation of the Minister himself? That is the first question I should like to ask him. Secondly, is he aware that in this report these words appear: We are of opinion that there is a grave risk of disruption of the present road haulage services at the point at which the transport assets are sold to private hauliers. In our view it is important that the services now available should not be impaired. Thirdly, I would ask: is the noble Viscount aware also that these words are precisely the words that my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt used in the debate on the Second Reading of the Transport Bill, when the noble Viscount himself paraphrased something which was quite in contradistinction to that? Finally, regarding the noble Viscount's reply, is he aware that the dissent expressed in the report applied only to the question whether or not the report should be sent? Does not the noble Viscount agree that it would be as well, on this non-Party issue, if noble Lords in your Lordships' House—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS
Speech!

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I am asking a question of the noble Lord: does not the noble Viscount think that it would be as well to inform noble Lords in this House of all the facts, so that before the Committee stage of the Transport Bill they should be as well informed as possible?

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
My Lords, the noble Lord has contributed a good deal of information to the House, in answer to his Question. So far as his allusion to myself goes, I am in a position to answer. I thought that I was answering a statement, or suggestion, that a number of commercial bodies—the National Farmers' Union, the Federation of British Industries, and I think some others who were mentioned—had expressed their views on this matter, without saying 940 whether this was a good Bill or a bad one. I said that the Chambers of Commerce thought it was a very good one (we had that in the debate) but that they hoped that, during the period of transition, there would not be any interruption of the services. That, I think, was what I said, and it seems to me to be a common-sense thing that anybody, on either side of the House, or in any body, might say.
So far as quoting this so-called report is concerned, I certainly was not in a position to do that, because when I was speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, I was unaware of the fact that there was a so-called report at all. I still have not read it, and, indeed, I have no intention of reading it. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, the Minister has taken the view, and has been advised to take the view, that it is not within the competence of this statutory body, in the exercise of its statutory functions, to present a report of this general character. No doubt it is within the competence of anybody to express an individual opinion on any subject under the sun. But I am quite certain that the noble Lord is wrong in saying that the Minister of Transport asked this body to present any such report. Indeed, he received the report only in a roundabout way. What, I gather, happens is that the minutes of this body come into the Ministry of Transport, and the minutes have attached to them the kind of report which the Committee would like to send if they did send a report. Therefore, the draft of the report was attached to the minutes, when the minutes came along; and so this draft document came along also. It has never been produced in any other way.
So far from asking for the report, the Minister, in a letter addressed to the Chairman of the Central Committee, said this: Many thanks for your letter of the 30th January. It was not my intention to ask the Committee to send me a report on the provisions of the Transport Bill. I do not think that I have any power under the Transport Act to remit such a question to them for consideration or that legislative proposals by the Government of the day fall within the Committee's scope under Section 6 of the Transport Act. I would, of course, have been very ready to take into consideration any suggestions which the Committee might make as to provisions in the Bill specifically affecting their 941 own functions or any individual view which any member of the Committee wished to put to me in his personal capacity, but it seems to me clear that the constitution of the Committee and the statutory purposes for which it was set up are such that it would he inappropriate for them to put forward views on the merits or effects of proposals (other than as above) which are before Parliament. (Signed) Alan Lennox-Boyd. How that can be construed as an invitation to the Committee to send a report I really do not know. As For the suggestion that I should publish this document to the House before we go into Committee on the Transport Bill, it seems to me that it would be a most improper action on my part to encourage a statutory body to do something contrary to and inconsistent with their statutory functions, as laid down in the Bill.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, and I think perhaps he was under a misapprehension when he replied to my noble and learned friend's question in the debate on Second Reading to which I have referred. My noble and learned friend clearly asked the question, what were the views of the Central Transport Consultative Committee. The noble Viscount then said this (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 180, col. 778): I think I can answer that point at once. He then went on to say the words which appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I think that perhaps he was suffering under some misapprehension.
As regards the other point, may I ask the noble Viscount to refer to the minutes of the Central Consultative Committee of October 14—which is before the date of the letter which the noble Viscount has read out—where it is expressly stated that the Minister, when visiting that body on that date, said he would be pleased to receive any opinions which they had on the new Bill. That invitation is recorded in the minutes and, as the Statute demands, those minutes were sent to the Minister. It was not until three months afterwards that the Minister sent his letter. I say that only to have the facts correctly on record.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
My Lords, as regards my own intervention, I have explained the matter and said exactly what I thought I was answering. As regards 942 the minutes, it seems to me odd that they obtained such a wide circulation. There seem to have been many other people besides the Minister of Transport who got these minutes. I do not know whether it is appropriate that members of the Opposition should receive copies of the minutes in advance Of the Minister.
With regard to what happened when the Minister paid a courtesy visit six months ago, I do not know whether that is in any way relevant to our discussion. It does not seem to me to have anything to do with the functions of this body. If the noble Lord will place a Question on the Order Paper, I will obtain such facts as it would be accurate or appropriate to give to the House.