HL Deb 03 July 1962 vol 241 cc1177-83

3.18 p.m.

Further considered on Report (according to Order).

Clause 3 [Duty and powers of Railways Board]:

LORD LINGREN moved, after subsection (2), to insert: ( ) The Railways Board shall co-operate with other Boards and other Nationalised Transport Undertakings for the purpose of ensuring that railway services provided by the Board are properly co-ordinated with services provided by the other Boards and undertakings to provide efficient services to the user.

The noble Lord said: I think most noble Lords will agree that during the discussions yesterday on various Amendments the Government must have felt very uneasy. At least, I thought the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in replying to one Amendment was far from happy. That uneasiness in this House and the concern of noble Lords arose from the fact Chat there was disquiet at the drastic withdrawals of services, and facilities which are likely to take place under the reorganisation which this Bill sets out to facilitate. In replying to an Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Mills, pointed out that the Minister had no executive powers, which is correct. And the noble Lord did not appear to like the word "co-ordination", but I would refer him to the Government's own White Paper (Cmnd 1248), where, under the heading "Co-ordination", paragraph 28 reads: The new organisation is intended to provide for direct contact between the Minister and the main component parts of the nationalised transport industry. It goes on to say, as the noble Lord suggested in his speech yesterday: Nevertheless the Government do not propose that the Minister's existing statutory powers and responsibilities in relation to the nationalised transport undertakings should be extended. We have to face the fact that there is to be a considerable reduction of services and it is our desire to help the Minister if we can. He does not have executive functions but a number of the Boards set up under the Bill have, and the intention of this Amendment is to place responsibility on the Railways Board, which is an executive authority, to secure co-ordination with other Boards in order that there should be an effective and efficient service of transport.

This is the more essential because there are bound to be considerable reorganisation of railway transport, both passenger and freight, and a considerable curtailment of facilities available to industries and the public. In many cases we do not question the necessity for some reorganisation, but in bringing about reorganisation the various Railway Boards are bound to go in for a policy of concentration, on both goods and passenger sides, in order to draw into the depôts passengers and freight from over a wide area. The Amendment provides that within the catchment area (if I can use a water phrase for transport) the Railway Boards will have direct responsibility under the Bill for all traffic likely to arrive at the concentration depôts and also for consulting with and securing the assistance of the other Boards set up under the Bill to provide services in conjunction with their own so that the public can have the highest standard of service possible.

One feature of this Bill is that it does away with the British Transport Commission. I am not going to argue whether that is right or wrong. I have my own opinions but this is not the place to argue them. But the fact is that, while the Commission exists, there is a considerable degree of co-ordination amongst its various sections. If I may say so, they have done that work very well indeed. Sometimes, when the various departments have had conflicting views on the standards of service, the Commission have been the arbitrator. Appreciating, as the Government do in their own White Paper, that coordination is essential, we ought to place the responsibility somewhere for securing that co-ordination. Yesterday we moved an Amendment, which was No. 1 on the Marshalled List, but it was rejected by the noble Lord, Lord Mils, because the Minister has not executive functions. We are trying to place responsibility on the Railways Board in order to secure to the public and to industry the highest standards not only within the railways but also within its complementary forms of transport which are affected by the Bill and over which the various Boards set up under the Bill will have control. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 31, at end insert— ("( ) The Railways Board shall co-operate with other Boards and other Nationalised Transport Undertakings for the purpose of ensuring that railway services provided by the Board are properly co-ordinated with services provided by the other Boards and undertakings to provide efficient services to the user.")—(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment that has just been moved by my noble friend. As he said, we endeavoured yesterday to have inserted in the Bill a provision laying a duty upon the Minister to see that an adequate public service was provided. That Amendment was defeated. Therefore, we have fallen back upon this Amendment, which seeks to provide that the Railways Board should co-operate with other nationalised undertakings in providing a service adequate for users. The word "co-ordination" arises in the Amendment. I know that the word is regarded as suspect by noble Lords opposite, but in fact the word arises at least twice in the Bill.

May I invite the attention of the House to Clause 3 (2), where it is laid down that the Railways Board are to co-operate with the London Board to ensure that there are better and adequate services in the London area? Obviously the Government realise that it is necessary that there should be a certain degree of cooperation and co-ordination of British Railways and the London Board for providing an adequate service to and from London—commuter service. I invite your Lordships' attention to Clause 54, which, if the Government Amendments are accepted, as no doubt they will be because the Government will have support from this side of the House, provides for a National Transport Advisory Council for the purpose of advising the Minister on questions relating to the co-ordination not only of the Railways Board but of other nationalised Boards. In fact, in this clause the Government envisage the necessity of having a good deal of coordination. What we are trying to achieve is that the Railways Board will themselves co-operate in providing coordination. There will be the question of having it referred to the Commission and by the nature of the operations they will see that it will be to the advantage of the undertakings that there is this degree of co-ordination. I hope that the Minister will see the wisdom and necessity of having this Amendment inserted into the Bill.

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE)

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, in moving this Amendment was kind enough to say that he thought I showed a certain uneasiness in replying to an Amendment yesterday. I hope that the noble Lord will not infer that any uneasiness which I may have displayed in my endeavours to act as a mediator between the Government and a large number of absent friends in Scotland is necessarily applicable to the rest of this Bill. I must confess that I do not feel any uneasiness, but only pleasure, coupled with regret, that I cannot agree with the noble Lord in replying to him on this Amendment. I do not think he has put forward any new considerations which were not advanced and considered by your Lordships when an identical Amendment to this was considered in Committee. I think there is already ample provision in the Bill for co-operation and co-ordination—these blessed words—between Boards.

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned two instances of the use of the word "co-ordination" in the Bill. One was in Clause 3, which he could hardly have failed to notice, because this Amendment follows immediately after it and repeats the exact words of the preceding subsection, and the other in Clause 25, to which I will refer in a moment. The noble Lord did not refer to Clause 7 (2) where he will see, if he is interested, that there is a reciprocal provision requiring that The London Board shall co-operate with the Railways Board for the purpose of ensuring that the services provided by the London Board are properly co-ordinated … and so on. We think there is already ample provision in the Bill for co-ordination. The first example I will give is that which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, gave (and I choose it because he quoted it), in Clause 54 of the Bill, which used to be Clause 55, and probably will be again when we have a new Clause 11. It there says: There shall be established in accordance with this section a Nationalised Transport Advisory Council for the purpose of advising the Minister on such questions relating to the co-ordination, or any other aspect, of the nationalised transport undertaking as the Minister may refer to the Council. Then, if the noble Lord would look at Clause 13—I am not sure if the word co-ordination actually occurs here or not, but it there says that … the Boards shall have power— (a) to enter into and carry out agreements with any person "— that is to say, not only with other Boards, but with any private transport operators— for the carrying on by that person, whether as agent for the Board or otherwise, of any of the activities which the Board may themselves carry on. We want them to do that; we want them to co-operate with private transport undertakings, as well as with other Boards. Then, under paragraph (b), the Boards have power: … to enter into agreements with the other Boards and with any subsidiary of any of the Boards or of the Holding Company, for the management, working and use by one party to the agreement of works, land or other property belonging to the other party, and with respect to the rendering of services and the pooling of receipts or expenses. The noble Lord's Amendment comes much earlier, after subsection (2) of Clause 3, and it exactly repeats the words of subsection (2), which particularly requires the Railways Board and the London Board to co-ordinate their activities. The reason for that is that

the London Board have a monopoly of transport, and it is therefore necessary that they should see that their services are properly co-ordinated with the services provided by the Railways Board, and vice versa. Clause 3 requires that the Railways Board shall co-operate with the London Board; and Clause 7 provides, conversely, that the London Board must co-operate with the Railways Board. In their case there is no question of their co-operating with anybody else, because they have a monopoly. In all other areas they have not a monopoly.

We have provided already in the Bill for all the necessary co-ordination, and if we add here that the Boards must cooperate and co-ordinate their services with each other, repeating exactly the language of subsection (2), it would certainly be taken to mean by owners of private haulage undertakings and all kinds of private transport that these public Boards were required by the Bill to co-ordinate their activities with each other, to the exclusion of private trans-port, which is not the intention of the Bill. This is the argument on which your Lordships negatived this Amendment in Committee. I do not think that anything further has been added on Report, and I would therefore ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment again.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 66.

CONTENTS
Alexander of Hillsborough, V. Latham, L. Shepherd, L. [Teller.]
Attlee, E. Lawson, L. Silkin, L.
Burton of Coventry, B. Lindgren, L. Sinha, L.
Chorley L. Longford, E. Stonham, L.
Douglas of Barloch, L. Lucan, E. [Teller.] Summerskill, B.
Francis-Williams, L. Morrison of Lambeth, L. Taylor, L.
Hall, V. Ogmore, L. Walston, L.
Harvey of Tasburgh, L. Rea, L. Williams, L.
Henderson, L. Rusholme, L. Williams of Barnburgh, L
Kenswood, L. St. Davids, V. Wise, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Ampthill, L. Brecon, L. Davidson, V.
Atholl, D. Broughshane, L. Denham, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Carrington, L. Derwent, L.
Bathurst, E. Chesham, L. Devonshire, D.
Bossom, L. Cholmondeley, M. Dudley, L.
Boston, L. Colyton, L. Dundee, E.
Brabazon of Tara, L, Conesford, L. Dynevor, L.
Ebbisham, L. Iddesleigh, E. Newton, L. [Teller.]
Forster of Harraby, L. Ironside, L. Northesk, E.
Fortescue, E. Jellicoe, E. Rathcavan, L.
Freyberg, L. Jessel, L. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Goschen, V. Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.) St. Oswald, L.
Grenfell, L. Long, V. Salisbury, M.
Hampton, L. Margesson, V. Salter, L.
Hastings, L. Marks of Broughton, L. Somers, L.
Hawke, L. Massereene and Ferrard, V. Soulbury, V.
Hayter, L. Merrivale, L. Swinton, E.
Hereford, V. Mersey, V. Teynham, L.
Home, E. Mills, L. Townshend, M.
Horsbrugh, B. Milverton, L. Tweedsmuir, L.
Howard of Glossop, L. Monsell, V. Waleran, L.
Howe, E. Newall, L. Willingdon, M.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.