§ 2.38 p.m.
§ Further considered on Report (according to Order).
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALIS BURY)My Lords, before we proceed to further consideration of this Bill, there is a brief statement which I have to make to the House. The Clerk of Parliaments has informed me that he very much regrets to report that there was an unfortunate omission of the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, from the second Division List last night. By some unfortunate accident, the noble Lord was neither counted by the Tellers nor recorded by the clerks in the Division Lobby. My noble friend, Lord Mancroft, who was a Teller 194 for the Not-Contents, has confirmed the noble Lord's claim to have passed through the Lobby. Sir Robert proposes, therefore, to correct the record of the Division by adding Lord Mathers' name to the Contents list, the figures for which, accordingly, will be 23, instead of 22, as at present recorded. An amended Division List will appear with the Minuses of Proceedings for to-day and will also be recorded in Hansard.*
§ LORD MATHERSMy Lords, may I thank the noble Marquess for the statement he has made, and for the comforting assurance that I was not entirely over looked? The accident may have been due to some extent to the fact that my name is not pronounced "Matthers"—that is, with a short "a"—but "Maythers"—with the "a" long. I certainly passed through the Lobby as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, well remembers, and I certainly pronounced my name quite distinctly when I approached the Tellers.
§ Clause 17:
§ Repeals and amendments relating to the Commission's functions with respect to road passenger transport
§ (3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section, it shall not be lawful for the Commission to run any public service vehicle as a contract carriage:
§ Provided that this subsection shall riot apply so as to pi event the use of any public service vehicle as a contract carriage to carry a pleasure party consisting of persons employed by the Commission, with or without their families or friends, or to carry any party on any journey which begins or ends within the city of Sheffield the counts borough of Halifax, the county borough of Huddersfield, or the borough of Todmorden.
§
(4) The following provisions (being an adaptation of provisions contained in section fifteen of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, which, until the coming into force of the Trans port Act, 1947, applied to the London Passenger Transport Board) shall apply to the Commission—
(c) the licensing authority for public service vehicles, in considering whether they will grant or back a road service licence to the Commission in respect of any route or part of a route which is outside the London special area, shall, in addition to the matters to which they are required to have regard by virtue of section seventy-two of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, have regard to the duty of the Commission to provide or secure the provision of an adequate and properly co-ordinated system of passenger transport for the London Passenger Transport Area,
* See Cols. 135-6 and 237-8
195
and for the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that subsection (2) of section twenty-six of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933 (which relates to charges and fares), has effect in the case of a public service vehicle operating wholly or in part outside the London special area, subject, as respects any part of the service outside that area, to the provisions of section seventy-two of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I beg to move this purely drafting Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 8, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD GIFFORD moved, in the proviso to subsection (3), after "employed" to insert "within the London Passenger Transport area." The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I say, first, that my name is pronounced "Jifford"! This small Amendment refers to a proviso in Clause 17 of the Bill which allows the Commission to run contract carriages: that is, to provide hire buses outside the London Passenger Transport area for the purposes of employees of the Commission and their friends. A somewhat similar Amendment was put down on the Committee stage, and it was stated on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that it was felt that this concession was clearly one that a good employer would make. I had the honour to point out that this clause as it is worded goes far beyond the employees who actually work in the vehicles, and I suggested then that it should be confined to employees of the London Transport Executive.
§ The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, pointed out that they might want to extend it to the office staffs and so forth in the London area—an argument in which I saw some force. I also pointed out that if this concession were allowed to all employees of the Commission it would mean its extension to employees of Commission-owned hotels in Scotland, bargemen from canals, and literally hundreds of thousands of men and women throughout the United Kingdom. This, I think, really goes far beyond what is intended. I may say that these seaside parties are catered for mainly by small 196 coach proprietors who are forbidden to operate in the London Passenger Transport area. They feel that their livelihood is being threatened by allowing this vast number of Commission employees to organise parties, probably at cheap rates with which they cannot possibly compete.
§ This new Amendment which I put forward (and from what the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said, I feel that he is sympathetic) really confines the clause to employees of the Commission within the London Passenger Transport area—that is, any employees of the Commission in that area, and their families and friends—but it keeps outside the concession, say, a party of railwaymen from Crewe and so forth who have really nothing what ever to do with London Transport and are not in the true sense of the word employees in those vehicles for which the concession is made. I feel that this restriction is not at all onerous and it is quite within the intention and spirit of what Her Majesty's Government are trying to do. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 29, after ("employed") insert ("within the London Passenger Transport area").—(Lord Gifford.)
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, may I first point out to the noble Lord that my noble friend's name, though spelt "De La Warr" is pronounced "Delaware." The noble Lord has raised the question of the position of contract carriages under the Commission. As the Bill is drafted at present, the Commission will be able to carry out contract carriage work, except for their employees and families, only in the London area and in certain other parts of the country, notably Sheffield, Huddersfield, Halifax and Todmorden. The Amendment says that those employees who are to be carried by contract carriage shall be confined to those employed within the London Passenger Transport area. The first point I must make now is that that is an arbitrary and an uncertain distinction. I have only to take as an example the staff of a train—and we must remember that the whole of our railway system comes under this contract carriage arrangement—where the guard may be based on Birmingham and goes daily to London. In that case it would be very hard to say whether or not, in point of fact, he was employed in London.
197 The second point is that although to a very large extent this is a matter concerning the London Transport Executive, there are buses in other parts of the country—notably places like Sheffield and those to which I have referred; there are not many, but there are some. Moreover, the Commission can at any time employ or let on contract carriage any of the buses which belong to the companies which they entirely control. So it really is not a major point in that sense. I suggest that the Amendment is rather arbitrary. After all, there is to be free competition. Anyone else can compete; he is quite free to do so. The only occasion on which it might be said that others would not be competing would be on what might be described as a staff outing, when the driver likes to give his services at perhaps no cost. With great respect, I say that in those cases it is perfectly proper. There are obviously proper cases of staff outings and I do not think the drivers would give their services unless it was an outing of their friends and comrades. That is the only case in which it could be said that perfectly free competition does not exist.
It would be unfair to the Commission to take away this obvious and clear-cut duty on a good employer to allow, for instance, the staff of the Gleneagles Hotel or the bargemen of the Crinan Canal Co. to be catered for. I feel that the Commission should be able to do this within reason. I ask the noble Lord to with draw the Amendment because I do not think it is, in effect, going to amount to very much. I do not really think it should be, I was going to say, "pushed" beyond the point which appears in the Bill. I suggest that we should be imposing a restriction which would be unreasonable.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, may I say that the noble Earl speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government has stated the views of the Opposition precisely?
LORD GIFFORDMy Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, cannot accept this Amendment because I felt that it was a reasonable compromise which would not, as I said before, in fringe the spirit of what was intended. 198 In the circumstances, I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment, but I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he could give me an undertaking that this provision will be used only for genuine staff parties. There is great uneasiness among the private contract coach operators that, for instance, a driver and a conductor of a bus might meet a number of friends in a pub, and the party might consist of just those two men from the London Transport Executive and thirty friend from the local darts club. Obviously, that would be an unfair situation. If the noble Earl can give me an undertaking that this will be confined to genuine staff parties—that is to say, the members of the staff and their families and friends, I should be happy to withdraw my Amendment.
§ LORD WINSTERMy Lords, I hope the noble Earl will not give any such assurance. This is a matter which falls within the competence of the Commission. They are given certain duties to perform. We have no reason to prejudge them or to think that they will neglect those duties. The matter of watching a duty like this is one which may safely be left wish the Commission, and I hope no such assurance will be given.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, may with the permission of the House, say that I really do not think contract parties arise from parties of friends in a public house? I think the noble Lord knows quite well that if this was going, to be misused it world be necessary to use a travel agency of some character—that is to say, to advertise that something, of the sort was to happen. If that is the case, the passengers will clearly not be friends. The word "friends" is perfectly clear and definite, and would not apply if this were operated through an agency or by means of an advertisement. I think that the Bill as drafted is fairly watertight, and that it would be thoroughly disreputable for the Commission to make any other use of the term which is included here.
LORD GIFFORDI still think that this might be done other than through a travel agency. However, I beg leave to with draw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
199§ 2.52 p.m.
§
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR) moved to add to the proviso to subsection (3):
or so as to prevent, up till the end of September, nineteen hundred and fifty-three, the use of any public service vehicle as a contract carriage for the purpose of performing any contract entered into by the Commission before the passing of this Act.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is a further slight relaxation of the general ban that is imposed on the running of contract vehicles by the Commission. It is put down in order to meet a useful point that was raised on Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We are indebted to him for raising the point by which, quite simply, he reminded us that the Commission may well have made—indeed, almost certainly have made—certain arrangements and contracts for this summer. This Amendment meets that point, and accordingly I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 33, at end insert the said words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, may I express my appreciation at the action of the noble Lord? As I said when I raised this point, it will mean that the London Transport Executive and their passengers will now benefit to the extent of a few thousand pounds. I am sure, that in these hard times in London, with the anxiety which London fares are causing, the travelling public will be very grateful to the noble Earl, as indeed I am.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (4) (c) after "area" to insert:
but within the London Passenger Transport Area.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Swinton, I beg to move this Amendment. This point was raised by my noble friends, Lord Teynham and, I think, Lord Rothes, in regard to the effect of the Statute. The anxiety aroused in regard to paragraph (c) was that the Commission would acquire preferential treatment when appearing before the licensing authority of an unlimited area surrounding London, and that preferential treatment would arise on the ground that the Commission have a monopoly in the special area where they do not require a licence and that they have a duty to provide transport.
200
This Amendment is intended to confine the consideration which the licensing authority will give to the duty imposed on the Commission within the area laid down in the Act of 1933—that is, the London Passenger Transport Area. It is in this area that consideration will be given by the licensing authority. Out side that area, private companies and the Commission will apply on an equal footing for permission to operate, with no statutory advantage either on one side or on the other. I suggest that this is a fair Amendment, and I hope that I have satisfied my noble friends. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 9, after ("area") insert ("but within the London Passenger Transport Area").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD TEYNHAMI am grateful to Her Majesty's Government for setting down this Amendment, which certainly goes a long way towards meeting the point which I raised on the Committee stage.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD TEYNHAM moved, after sub section (5) to insert:
(6) (i) For the avoidance of doubt and without prejudice to any other power them enabling it is hereby declared that the Commission shall have power from time to time to sell or otherwise dispose of all or any securities which they may hold in any body corporate mentioned in sub-sub-paragraph (ii) (a) hereof on such terms as the Commission may think fit.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has already appeared as part of an Amendment and was debated during the Committee stage when, with all due respect to the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, no reply was in fact given on this point. I have set the Amendment down again in order to clarify the powers of the Commission—as to whether they have, in fact, the power from time to time to sell all or any securities which they may own in those companies. There appears to be some doubt as to the interpretation of Section 2 (7) of the Transport Act, 1947, but at least it seems clear that the Commission could voluntarily sell shares owned by them in a passenger road transport undertaking, since even under the present Bill (Clause 24 (1)) the Commission have a duty in so far as it is considered expedient, to provide passenger road services.
201§ Another reason why this new subsection is advocated is to make quite clear what might reasonably be the attitude of mind of the Transport Commission in the future. Subsection (6) contemplates that the Minister might give directions as to the disposal of securities and it would not, I think, be unnatural if, in view of this, the Commission felt it desirable to await any such instructions—indeed, they might consider it wrong for them to anticipate a view which might be formed by the Minister. I would point out that even if the Commission already have powers of sale, this point would of course still remain. I think it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that, in relation to passenger road transport, the Commission should be in a somewhat similar position to that of the railways in 1947, when, of course, they could either run bus services themselves or take a financial stake in operating companies in partnership with others. I suggest that it is desirable to remove all doubt as to the ability of the Commission to take either action. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 39, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Teynham.)
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON)My Lords, the only reason I did not give a complete answer last time was that, not being a first-class lawyer, I did not wish to give a final legal opinion without taking the highest legal opinion open to me. I have now done so, and I am assured that this Amendment is quite unnecessary, because, by virtue of Section 2 (7) of the Transport Act, 1947, the Commission may dispose of any part of their under taking or any property which in their opinion is not required for the discharge of their duty. Where there is, in fact, no doubt at all as to the legal interpretation of a Statute, it is a bad plan to introduce unnecessary sections either to remove doubt or for the avoidance of doubt. The only result of doing that is that you are apt to cast doubt elsewhere where no doubt exists. I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERONMay I ask one further question, to get this absolutely clear? I suppose it is within the power of the Commission to 202 consider it their duty to run less road passenger transport than, say, they are running at the moment or immediately after the Bill is passed. I realise that the services are to a certain extent fixed by what the licensing authority consider should be run in the way of passenger transport in the various areas. Presumably it is within the power of the Commission to consider that it is their duty, in certain circumstances, to operate a smaller amount of road passenger transport than is operated at the moment.
LORD GIFFORDMy Lords, I should like to say just a few words with regard to Section 2 (7) of the Transport Act of 1947 which has given me cause for worry. It states in that subsection that:
The Commission may dispose, whether absolutely or for a term of years, of any part of their undertaking or any property which in their opinion is not required by them for the discharge of their duties under this Act…If the Commission had a certain road passenger transport undertaking which was very profitable, and supposing they should say that in their opinion it was a transport undertakingrequired by them for the discharge of their duties under this Act,then they would not, I assume, be free to dispose of it.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONThey must be the judges of what is required for the purpose of the Act. Certain duties are imposed upon them by the Act of 1947 and will be by this Bill when it becomes an Act. Those duties are statutory duties which they have to discharge. They will be smaller in future than they have been, but such duties as are imposed upon them the Commission must discharge; they world be guilty of a breach of an Act of Parliament if they did riot do so. But they must be the judges, subject to the broad direction of the Minister, of what their duties are and how they ought to cart' them out. They certainly would not be entitled to dispose of vehicles which are necessary to them for the discharge of those duties. But they are absolutely free, under the Act of 1947—which is not affected here—to dispose of any vehicles or any property which in their opinion is not required for the discharge of those statutory duties. I cannot make the matter any plainer. I know that Acts of Parliament are often difficult to understand—I myself have often found difficulty in understanding 203 them—but these passages in the Act and in the present Bill are passages which I find very easy to understand.
LORD TEYNHAMMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving this explanation. I think it is now quite clear that the Commission have that power which I merely wished to make certain was already there. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 3.4 p.m.
§
LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (6), after "then," to insert:
the Minister shall keep under continuous review the position of each of such first-mentioned bodies corporate.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage I set down an Amendment which provided that the Minister should from time to time review the position as to the directions that he might give the Commission to dispose of securities in a passenger vehicle undertaking. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, indicated that the Minister would not wish to review the position at any one time, but would want to keep the whole matter under continuous review. This Amendment has been set down to meet this point. I feel that if this Amendment is incorporated in the Bill it will ensure that the position will not be forgotten, and that it will be looked at from time to time in the normal course of Ministerial administration.
§ During the Committee stage debate, speaking on a somewhat similar Amendment, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, appeared to be saying, in effect, that "You must look at each company on its merits in order to see whether it is behaving as a bus company with the nor mal objectives which a bus company ought to have at heart or whether it is hag-ridden by undue railway influence." It would seem from the noble Viscount's statement that in order to allow the Minister to form a fair appreciation of the behaviour of each company, a long time might elapse—possibly two or three years. I am sure that it cannot be the intention of the Government that apparent "bus-mindedness" should be the only criterion, and I feel that it is always difficult in 204 these cases to prove a negative. It is not what these companies do or will do, so much as what they do not do or will not do. I feel that the remarks of the noble Viscount might leave the impression that only one set of circumstances could result in a directive being given by the Minister.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 6, after ("then") insert the said words.—(Lord Teynham.)
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, if every word I spoke in the course of a nine-days debate were to be enshrined in an Act of Parliament, the Statute Book would become very large, but I do not know that great advantage would accrue to the national interest. But I really think that the powers in the Bill in this respect do not require elaboration any more than they require any curtailment. I think I did say something on the lines mentioned by the noble Lord, but I did so rather to make a contrast with an Amendment he had before which looked as if there was to be a review that would be made once and for all—or at long intervals. What I intended to say was that the Minister ought to be able to look at any company at any time when the company wanted looking at—it might be of his own motion, or it might be because of some complaint that a locality was not getting adequate service. The Minister ought to be able to look at that and look at a particular company in particular circumstances. But it is not necessary to insert any words to achieve that. That was why I did not like the words which meant that the Minister had to make a comprehensive review from time to time. That is not the way the scheme works. He would be working continuously with the Commission: that is the way these things must work, if they are to work properly.
Supposing you put in that the Minister has to keep the matter under continuous review? You are putting upon him a statutory duty, not just the ordinary duty that all Ministers have of doing the job entrusted to them, but some special and rather exceptional function, quite apart from his general duty. And he has got to do something about it. He has got to set up machinery of continuous review. That means that somehow he has to be in continuous review relationship with every company in which the Transport 205 Commission are interested. Really this is overloading the Bill, if I may respect fully say so, with detailed instruction, and it will not help either the day-to-day activities or the general spirit in which business is run. I am sure that all that is necessary in the interests of the public is there in the general duty and power of the Minister, and I hope that we shall not try to particularise it. This sort of Amendment raises the same objection as I have to inserting a particular element of instruction where that is unnecessary. We not only might overload the whole Bill but might get things out of their proper perspective and proportion.
THE EARL OF ROTHESMy Lords, I should like to say a few words on this Amendment, as I spoke to the one which was moved on the Committee stage. I appreciate what the noble Viscount has just said, but I think the actual words in this Amendment happen to be the words of wisdom that fell from his lips in the Committee stage. I was slightly comforted by something which he said yesterday. His words were to the effect that if "may" appeared in the Bill he would not have it there unless it was the intention that something should be done about it. "May" does appear in the Bill, and if the noble Viscount can give us some assurance that the matter will not be forgotten, but will be considered with an open mind, then, speaking for myself, I shall be perfectly content.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, with the leave of the House, may I speak again just to say that of course I give that assurance? Here is a duty on the Minister which he has to exercise in any circumstances, if in any circumstances, and not in one particular set of circumstances, he thinks it desirable in the public interests so to do. Of course, whenever the occasion arises for him to consider a matter like this, it is the duty of the Minister to take whatever action he thinks right and proper.
LORD TEYNHAMMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the assurances he has given on this point. I do not wish to pursue the matter any further, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
206§ Clause 20 [Exclusion of certain enactments]:
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move this Amendment, which is purely procedural. In repealing Sections 37 and 38 of the 1933 Act it was overlooked that certain provisions of subsection (13) in fact applied to the procedure of the Transport Tribunal. This is necessary and accordingly we retain it by this Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 39, leave out ("sections thirty-seven and") and insert ("section thirty-seven (except subsection (13) thereof) and section").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to
§ Clause 22:
§ Special procedure for temporary authorisation of increased charges
§ 22.—(1) If it appears to the Commission that the following conditions are fulfilled, that is to say—
- (a) that there has been or will be an increase in their costs which will, unless met quickly by an increase in their charges, seriously affect their financial position; and
- (b) that the necessary increase of their revenue cannot reasonably be obtained without making charges greater than those authorised by the charges schemes for the time being in force.
- (i) they may apply to the Transport Tribunal under this subsection for temporary amendments of all or any of the schemes (being schemes devoted exclusively or principally to determining the charges to be made for the carriage of passengers) so as to increase all or any of the charges authorised by the schemes;
- (ii) they may, by notice published in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes and in such other manner as may appear to them best adapted for informing persons affected, declare that all or any of the maximum charges fixed by any of the charges schemes (not being such changes schemes as afore said) are to be treated, as from a date specified in the notice, as increased by such percentage as may be so specified, not being more than ten per cent.;
§
THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsecticn (1) (ii), to leave out "percentage as may be so specified, not being more than ten per cent." and to insert:
percentages as may be so specified in relation to those maximum charges respectively.
207
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Swinton, I beg to move this Amendment. If I may, I will take in also Amendment No. 55 and the un-numbered Amendment after it. This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, in the course of Committee stage. The noble Lord pointed out that here we are dealing with what is known as the "headroom"clause— that is, the clause which enables the Commission to raise their charges fairly quickly. The noble Lord pointed out that it would be possible at successive moments of time to increase charges by 10 per cent. on each occasion. If that were the case, theoretically, there could be a 10 per cent. increase every day for a whole month, and the possibility of such action would inevitably undermine the whole work of the Transport Tribunal. I replied to the noble Lord that though this was theoretically possible, it would be highly improbable; but we have tried to meet his point in this Amendment.
§ There are two procedures under this clause, one for passengers and one for freight. Passenger fare increases have a quick procedure before the Tribunal and freight rate increases can be made by notice in the Gazette. Under the Amendment it is still possible for the Commission to raise the fares on two or more occasions, but it is provided that the aggregate increase shall not exceed 10 per cent. until the full procedure laid down under subsection (5) of this clause, applying Section 79 of the Transport Act of 1947, has been concluded and the level of the maximum charges laid down again. I think this meets the point raised by the noble Lord. May I also mention that the provision dealing with freight does not yet apply because there is no charges scheme up to the present time.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 37, leave out lines 2 and 3 and insert ("percentages as may be so specified in relation to those maximum charges respectively."—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD GIFFORDMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his kind words about my Amendment. Although he was not able to accept it on Committee stage, he has carried out almost everything which I wished to do and, although in quite a different way, he has 208 prevented any increases under the headroom clause from being more than 10 per cent. in one year. I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his consideration.
§ On Question. Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment, which is consequential.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 37, line 6, at end insert—
("Provided that the increase made in any one maximum charge by a notice published under this subsection or, where more than one notice so published is in force at the same time, by all the notices so in force taken together, shall not exceed ten per cent.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords. I beg to move the next Amendment, which is also consequential.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 37, line 14, leave out from ("necessary") to the end of line 26, and insert—
("Provided that the Tribunal, on any such application—
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, this Amendment carries out my undertaking to the Realm of Scotland. Your Lordships will remember that we agreed to increase the Commission to a number not exceeding fifteen and in that enlarged number I promised there should be two who were thoroughly conversant with Scotland. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 23, at end insert ("of whom at least two shall be persons appointed after consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland as being persons likely to be conversant with the circumstances and special requirements of Scotland.")—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERONMy Lords, on behalf of my Scottish colleagues I should like to thank the noble Viscount for introducing this Amendment, which will ensure that the special interests of Scotland are fully considered by the Commission.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, I rise once more to call attention to the due claims, rights and what ought to be privileges of Wales. Your Lordships may remember that last night there was another Amendment on the Order Paper which recognised the due rights and privileges of Scotland. I made no objection to that. Now on this Amendment I am returning good for evil. Last night the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, did not support me but, on the contrary, made a strong speech against me on the curious ground that Scotland is larger than Wales and farther away from London. I could turn this argument the other way round, and say that I think the Government ought to look after small countries because the larger are well able to look after themselves. But I do not do that. I base my claim on the justice of the case. Everything that the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, said in his successful plea for Scotland could be said of Wales. It is a separate nation, with separate problems and it has difficulties of its own. This has been recognised by Her Majesty's Government because they have appointed a special Secretary of State for Welsh Affairs. I want to take Sir David Maxwell Fyfe out of the unemployed list and give him a job in transport. As I said last night, I feel sorry for him when he has to go round Wales, as he will have to do, and explain to the Welsh people why his opinion and advice have not been sought by the Government with regard to transport in Wales.
On the last occasion, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, suggested that he might approve of the Amendment then submitted on the curious ground that it came within the formula put forward in Lord Goschen's speech with regard to England and Scotland. It seems curious, but that is what the noble Viscount said. He quoted the Goschen formula in his speech, although incorrectly. I mention that because it shows once more that the Government have not really gone into this case as carefully as they might have done. If 210 they had, the noble Viscount would not have quoted incorrectly the formula which Lord Goschen elaborated and which is set out in the report of the Arts Council.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, the formula has nothing to do with the Arts Council. I have not the vaguest idea of who the Arts Council are. But I have suffered under the Goschen formula all the time I have been a Minister and those who can go back farther than I are well acquainted with it.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, I under stand that the Arts Council in Scotland received grants under the Goschen formula. The noble Viscount adduced the Goschen formula and incorrectly de scribed it to the House. I merely mentioned that in passing because I do not think we ought to allow anything incorrect to remain in our proceedings. It does not really matter from my point of view, because, Goschen formula or not, I suggest to your Lordships that once representation has been given to Scotland, representation should be given to Wales and there should be equally representation from England. Once the thing has been put on a nationalistic basis there is no reason at all why both England and Wales should not be equally represented and people appointed to the Commission because they are Englishmen and because they are Welshmen. I should never have made this point, because I do not think it is so important to have people of various nationalities on the Commission, but Lord Bilsland put down the Amendment and the Government have accepted it, and once the Government have accepted a proposal of this kind on a nationalistic basis I think they should carry their nationalism to the full extent and recognise the due claims, not only of Wales, but of England.
§ LORD MATHERSMy Lords, I should like to raise another Scottish voice from this side of the House to say that a great deal is contained in the four lines of the Amendment. I venture to express fears and apprehensions about this Bill as a whole, but it seems to me that in these four tines there is provided at least some protection from the damage and disabilities and disturbances that Scotland may suffer under the Bill. To that extent I am grateful for the Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, I must claim my right of reply. I am glad to find myself on this occasion in the same Lobby, so to speak, as Lord Mathers, but I hope we shall not have to go into the Lobbies over this matter. The Goschen formula, which was alluded to by myself, slightly by way of persiflage on the last occasion, was described with perfect accuracy. I did not refer to the Arts Council, whatever that body is—and I am sure it is an admirable one. No doubt it gets a grant. If there is an Arts Council in Scotland which is entitled to get a grant, then I have no doubt it gets the grant on the Goschen formula. When I described the Goschen formula as eleven-eightieths, that is exactly what the Goschen formula is.
§ LORD MATHERSWill the noble Viscount allow me to say this? The Goschen formula is not eleven-eightieths. That does not describe it correctly. The Goschen formula is eleven-ninety-oneths; it is eleven as to eighty; that is, not eleven parts of eighty, but eleven parts of ninety-one.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONI bow and apologise. It is then eleven-ninetyone—
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oneths!
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONI never could do arithmetic. I accept that as I often in another place used to accept instruction from Lord Mathers. Be that as it may, there really is complete justification, I think, for giving these two special seats to Scotland or to persons who are particularly conversant with the circumstances and requirements of Scotland.
Let me tell the House in a sentence or two why I think Scotland is distinguishable from Wales. It is not that we want to back Scottish nationalism as against Welsh nationalism. It is not because of the comparative size of the two countries. But, for all these purposes of transport, Scotland will be an entity in a way in which Wales, I imagine, will not. I do not attempt to forecast with accuracy the shape of things to come, but I should imagine—indeed, I think the Bill lays it down—that Scotland, on decentralisation, is to be a region or an area, or whatever it is called. Therefore that is recognised in advance; but when it comes to 212 making the areas under any decentralisation scheme, I should think it extremely improbable that Wales would figure as an area. In nearly everything, certainly in all questions of transport, South Wales and North Wales really fall into different areas. Anybody who has travelled there knows that. The one thing that you certainly cannot do by any known means of transport, except perhaps a helicopter, is get from South Wales to North Wales, or North Wales to South Wales. If you are going to use the railway you have to go right round, almost to Holyhead, to get across.
I imagine that when it comes to Wales —which shall have full consideration; I will not go through what I said again but I recited last time the provisions regarding the special consultative council and so on, for Wales under this Bill—and when it comes to splitting up under any decentralisation scheme, it will be almost certain that South Wales, Cardiff, and that area, will fall into the south-western area, linking up with Bristol and so on, and North Wales will be much more likely to link up with Cheshire and Lancashire. Though I appreciate that as a good Welshman Lord Ogmore had to enter the lists on behalf of Wales, I really think there is a good case for putting Scotland in this special position.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to add to the clause:
(4) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the matters to which licensing authorities for public service vehicles and licensing authorities for goods vehicles are to have regard in exercising their discretion to grant or refuse applications for licences do not include the duty imposed upon the Commission by paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section three of the Transport Act, 1947, as amended by subsection (1) of this section.
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is one of the exceptional cases where I am advised, and therefore think, that it is desirable to avoid doubt. The question was raised whether the words in the Bill as it stands could or might conceivably lead a licensing authority to consider that where an application is made for a licence the Commission have some special position of privilege or preference. I declined to accept an Amendment earlier because I wanted to be sure that I was 213 not unnecessarily putting in some interpretation clause when it would have been wrong. I have now consulted the legal authorities, and I am advised that there might be such a doubt and that therefore this is one of the cases where it is wise to put in a clause of this kind. Therefore, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 39, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Swinton.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOWMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for moving this Amendment which does in fact meet an Amendment which was introduced during the Committee stage in my name and the names of noble friends. We had drawn attention to the statutory duty imposed upon the Commission to run a passenger service on the roads, and we had rather hoped to leave it that the Commission should have the power to run the buses bat should not be under a duty to do so. We were nervous because we thought that where the duty was imposed upon them by the Act they would have an advantage when they applied to licensing authorities for licences. We feel that this important point has been covered, and on behalf of my noble friends and myself who raised the point originally I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Viscount.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 26:
§ Provisions as to pension rights
§ 26.—(1) The Minister shall make regulations for providing or securing the provision of pensions to or in respect of persons who, having been in the employment of the Commission and, in connection with that employment, having had pension rights under pension schemes (hereafter in this section referred to as "existing pension schemes"), cease to be in the employment of the Commission in consequence of the duties imposed on the Commission by this Act as to the disposal of the property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking, of the powers and duties conferred on the Commission and the Minister by this Act in connection with the re-organisation of that part of the Commission's undertaking which consists in the operation of the railways, or of the modifications of the functions of the Commission effected by this Act and for enabling persons in the employment of the Commission who, being participants in a pension scheme, suffer any diminution of their emoluments in consequence of the said duties, powers and duties or modifications to avoid, on such 214 terms, as may be provided for by the regulations, any corresponding diminution in any pension to or for which they may become entitled or eligible and any such regulations may for the purposes aforesaid, amend any existing pension scheme and any statutory provision relating thereto or any trust deed, rules or other instrument made for the purposes thereof.
§ 3.30 p.m.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHhad given notice of three Amendments to subsection (1), the first being after "emoluments" to insert:
or change in the nature or terms of their employment.The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60 together. Noble Lords will remember that on the Committee stage I raised a point as to whether a Government Amendment moved to this clause did what it purported to do. It purported to make crystal clear the position of an employee who was in a pensionable job inside the British Transport Commission, whether or not he lost his compensatory rights if removed from that pensionable job to a non-pensionable job. There was no question of his rights being affected if he had left the employment of the Commission, but only if he remained in the employment of the Commission. The noble Earl. Lord Selkirk, and I had quite a discussion about this matter. I preferred what was in the Bill the noble Earl preferred what he was moving into the Bill. I have taken legal opinion, as high as is open to me, and that legal opinion, with great can dour, said that we were both wrong and that this was the only way to put it right. Therefore, I have put down these three Amendments to make it quite clear that an employee who is in pensionable employment within the Commission, who through reorganisation envisaged under this Bill goes to a non-pensionable job within the Commission, does not lose his compensatory rights. Noble Lords can see the Amendments, and I do not think I need explain how the clause will read. For the purpose of any discussion that may be necessary, I beg to move Amendment No. 58.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 35,after ("emoluments") insert ("or change in the nature or terms of their employment".—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth).
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I think I am right in saying that this was the only occasion during the whole of the Committee stage on which discussions were asked for.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI know of no other. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell me of any other occasions.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHYes, six of them.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI am referring to occasions when discussions were asked for, and held. What I say is that, so far as I know, this was the only occasion when discussions were asked for, and they were certainly held in this case. The noble Lord has drawn attention to the point of a possible change in the Commission from pensionable to non-pensionable employment. I said on the Committee stage that I thought it unlikely that there would be a case of that character at all; I have no ground for changing my mind in that respect. How ever, if there should be one case of that character, it is right that provision should be made, and accordingly we are happy to accept these Amendments.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 38, after ("in") insert ("or consequential loss of").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, in moving this Amendment I should like to say that I am grateful to the noble Earl for accepting these Amendments. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 38, after ("may") insert ("or might have").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 30 [Amendments as to Trans port Tribunal]:
§
THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
(3) It is hereby declared that the repeal by the Railway and Canal Commission (Abolition) Act, 1949, of section seventeen of the
216
Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888 (which contained provisions as to appeals from the Railway and Canal Commission), and of all enactments applying that section, did not affect the said section seventeen as applied to the Transport Tribunal by section twenty-six of the Railways Act, 1921, and by that section as extended by subsection (13) of section thirty-seven of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and paragraph 5 of the Tenth Schedule to the Transport Act, 1947.
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Swinton, I beg to move this Amendment. Your Lordships will remember that on the Committee stage, we had an Amendment much in the same terms, which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor withdrew owing to a certain decision in the courts. This Amendment has been drafted in a more appropriate form, and is now submitted to your Lordships. The position is this. The 1921 and 1947 Acts transferred from the Railway and Canal Commission to the Railway Rates Tribunal (now the Transport Tribunal) certain jurisdiction, and applied the same procedure for appeal. In the Act of 1949 the Railway and Canal Commission was abolished, and with it the right of appeal. Doubt did arise as to whether the Act also abolished the right of appeal from the Transport Tribunal. Now that right has been upheld in England, but there is still the possibility that it may not be upheld in Scotland. Accordingly, to avoid doubt, this Amendment has been put down. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 13, at end insert the said sub-section.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ First Schedule:
§ 1. If the Commission, before the expiration of six months from the passing of this Act, apply for the grant of an A licence or a C licence authorising the use of any motor vehicles which at the passing of this Act belonged to the Commission and no other motor vehicles—
- (a) the application shall not be refused; and
- (b) the licence shall be granted for so much of the five year period (as hereinafter defined) as remains unexpired on the date when the licence is expressed to take effect, and subsections (1) to (4) of section three of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, shall not apply to the licence; and
- (c) no fee shall be charged in respect of the grant of the licence:
§ Provided that no application for an A licence shall be made under this paragraph in 217 respect of any motor vehicles which at the passing of this Act were being used by the Hotels Executive, the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive or the London Transport Executive, exclusively for purposes other than hire or reward.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKhad given notice of several Amendments to Paragraph (1), the first being after "vehicles" (where that word occurs a second time) to insert:
then, subject to the provisions of this paragraph.The noble Earl said: My Lords, on be half of my noble friend Lord Swinton, I beg to move this Amendment. It relates to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Teynham in Committee, which my noble friend Lord De La Warr undertook to look at. It is this. It is known that at the present time the Commission have a considerable number of vehicles in store. It is at least theoretically possible, as the Bill reads at present, that for each vehicle they possess in the road haulage undertaking they are entitled to an automatic "A" licence. Some of these vehicles are obsolete vehicles of little value, but they could be replaced by brand new vehicles. If this were done, it would have a depressing effect on sales under this Bill. Accordingly, we think it desirable that the position should remain as it is.This Amendment, together with the next three, has this effect. The Commission may license eleven-twelfths of the vehicles which they held in the road haulage undertaking in December, 1952, and they will, of course, be entitled to an automatic licence for all these vehicles. They are also entitled to similar licences for other vehicles, except those used exclusively for purposes other than hire and reward at the passing of the Act. This refers, to a great extent, to the 14,000 vehicles used for collection and delivery by the railways, and probably to a few held by the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive. With regard to the remainder of the vehicles, they may obtain "C" licences if they so desire. We suggest that this is fair and just to all parties, and leaves the Commission with sufficient margin to meet obligations which may arise in the event of trade or seasonal fluctuations. If I may refer to the proviso in Amendment No. 65, the effect there is this: that as the numbers 218 of vehicles held by the Commission are reduced by sales, the number of "A" licences to which they will be entitled will be correspondingly reduced. And the Commission, under subsection (4), are obliged to furnish to the licensing authority a certificate that the grant of an "A" licence will not contravene this Schedule. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 22, after ("vehicles") insert the said words.— (The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD TEYNHAMMy Lords, we are very grateful to the Government for setting down this Amendment, which well covers the point we raised On the Committee stage.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 30, leave out ("Provided that") and insert ("(2)").— (The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 32, leave out from ("used") to the end of line 33.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 53, line 34, at end insert—
("(3) The total number of motor vehicles the use of which is authorised by A licences granted under this paragraph shall not at any time exceed the sum of the two following numbers, that is to say—
§ Provided that where any motor vehicles are sold as or as part of transport units, the total number of vehicles the use of which is allowed by this sub-paragraph to be authorised as aforesaid shall be reduced by the number of motor vehicles so sold.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
219§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after the Second Schedule to insert following new Schedule: