§ 2.50 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(LordMilis.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
§ Clause 8:
§ London Board's road services outside London
§ 8.—(1) The London Board shall have power to carry passengers outside the London Passenger Transport Area by stage or express carriage—
- (a) on roads within a radius of ten miles, or in the county of Kent five miles, from any point on the boundary of the London Passenger Transport Area, and
- (b) on the London Transport Executive's routes (so far as they extend beyond the limits specified in paragraph (a) of this subsection), and
- (c) with the consent of the Minister, by any service beyond the limits specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection.
§ (2) The London Board shall have power to carry passengers outside the London Passenger Transport Area by contract carriage—
- (b) where the passengers consist of a pleasure party of persons employed by the Board, with or without their families or friends, on roads not more than one hundred miles from Charing Cross.
§ (3) Nothing in this section shall be taken as exempting the London Board from any of the requirements of Part III of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, or of those requirements as extended by Part IV of this Act.
§ (5) In this section the expression "the London Transport Executive's routes" means such routes as the Minister may by order contained in a statutory instrument certify to be the routes on which the London Transport Executive had, at any time in the period of twelve months ending on the second day of November, nineteen hundred and sixty-one, power to carry passengers by stage or express carriage.
§ Debate resumed on the Amendment moved on Thursday last by Lord Stonham; namely, in subsection (1) to leave 10 out all words after the end of paragraph (c).
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESBefore we continue discussion on this Amendment, may I point out to the Committee that this Amendment and the next following one, No. 43, overlap, and it would therefore not be possible for both of them to be agreed to to-day.
§ LORD SHEPHERDI rise to continue our debate on this important Amendment. Last Thursday we had the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, to the speech which was made by my noble friend Lord Stonham. I fully appreciate the difficulty of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, at that stage. The time for the Royal Commission was fast approaching, and perhaps for that reason we can excuse him for what really was an inadequate reply. Last Thursday became an interesting day, because on that occasion we had the first series of Amendments from noble Lords opposite. The burden of their speeches was to restrict the operations of the national Boards and to provide protection for the private operators. I would submit to the Committee that we should not be considering to-day whether we should restrict a nationalised operator, or whether we should give protection to a private operator; what we should be considering to-day is the public interest, and particularly the interest of the travelling public.
My noble friend moved an Amendment to delete what, in our opinion, are the very restrictive words in Clause 8—namely:
The Minister shall not give his consent under paragraph (c) of this subsection unless he is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances which make it desirable.…Paragraph (c) says that the London Board have power to carry passengers by road with the consent of the Minister. Therefore, it must be quite clear that the London Board could not, in any circumstances, carry passengers outside their area without the consent of the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, read to us a lecture on what duties the Boards should be performing; that they should perform their duties as laid down.The area that I am mainly concerned with could be broadly described as the Home Counties. I certainly would not 11 advocate that the London Board should be able to carry passengers to all quarters of this country, but I think the Committee will appreciate that there are considerable fringe areas around the area of the London Passenger Transport Board which, in the next two or three years, may well be seriously affected by rail closures. What I wish to ascertain from the Government is whether they would agree that "exceptional circumstances" would take into account all the fringe areas in the Home Counties where there has been a rail closure, and that in order conveniently to provide a public service to the community the Railways Board—who in that case, I presume, would be the carrier of the passenger, the commuter to London—could go to the London Passenger Transport Board and ask them to provide a bus service.
I am sure the Committee will appreciate the trend of population in London today. More and more people are working in the centre of London, and more and more are having to go out well beyond the central part of London to find accommodation. Many housing estates are being built alongside railway lines, in particular these branch lines. We know that this commuter traffic is proving unprofitable to British Railways; certainly the branch lines are. We must also assume from statements which have been made that many of these branch lines will be closed. I do not think we should encourage, or even make it a necessity for, these people who are living where branch lines will be discontinued to find their means of transportation to London by motor car. With the congestion in London to-day we ought to encourage them to use public transport. But if the branch lines are closed and these people have no adequate public service available, I think we shall have to consider how they are to be provided with public transport. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, expressed on his first Amendment his own concern, and I think it was shared in all quarters of the House.
It is perfectly true that in Clause 4 the Railways Board, where they close a line, are empowered to carry passengers by road services. It may well be that in these fringe areas in the Home Counties the Railways Board will find it more 12 efficient, certainly more economical, if they can say to the London Board, who have very substantial bus stations and garage facilities on the edge of these fringe areas, "You have already got bus services out there. It would be far more efficient if you were able to provide the bus services to replace the rail lines which are being closed. That is far more efficient and more economical than if we, as the Railways Board, provide them". Therefore, I think there is a serious case for saying that the London Board and the Railways Board should be able to co-operate to provide these alternative services where there are rail closures in the fringe areas of the Home Counties.
It is obvious that in this Bill, as it is now drafted with this restrictive clause, and taking into account the definition of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, gave of what is "exceptional", the London Board would be precluded from co-operating with the Railways Board to provide that service. I am sure that the Committee would wish that there should be an efficient and an economical service; and I would stress to the Committee that the people involved are very numerous, and in the course of business will become more numerous. The bus service will have to provide mainly for peak hour traffic. It may well be that private operators will wish to be in this business. I personally should have no objection to that. But I strongly suspect that no private operator would be willing to undertake the provision of what would be peak hour commuter traffic from these outlying districts to the main railway junctions. This public service must be provided, and I feel that if we could exclude the restrictive words of Clause 8, certainly in paragraph (c), that service could be provided.
My noble friend Lord Stonham does not envisage that the London Board should be able to send its buses the length and breadth of the country and he would accept the proposition that the Board should be restricted to the Home Counties. Then we could have some coordination for London commuters, who are having a difficult time to-day. I think that this service could be provided if the restrictive words were withdrawn 13 or amended so that there could be cooperation between the London Board and the Railways Board in providing alternative services in the Home Counties.
LORD HAWKEIn effect, the noble Lord proposes that the "long-stop" in the Home Counties, which we were talking about at the last sitting, should be the London Board. I should have thought that that was unnecessary, because in the Home Counties we have an area of dense bus operation, and it is almost certain that in any local locality where a railway service is closed there will be an existing bus service, which is wholly State-owned, half State-owned or possibly run by an independent company, that can be induced to carry the traffic by working agreement. And if nobody will touch it, for the ultimate "long-stop" the Minister ought to have power to request the Holding Company, or one of its subsidiaries, to act on indemnity. For this reason, I think that the noble Lord's Amendment is quite unnecessary and has the effect of merely extending the area of the London Passenger Transport Board, which we on this side of the House do not want.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE)I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his kindness in letting me know this morning the line of argument which he intended to put forward in continuing the discussion of this Amendment, which we had not quite finished when we adjourned last Thursday. This is part of the continuing discussion of a series of Amendments, largely on the same issue: whether the London Board shall be allowed, under this Bill, more freely to extend their activities to some distance beyond the confines of the London area, or whether they shall be hedged in by a special restriction which obliges them to confine their main attention to their main job, which is to provide for the transport of the London area.
I would remind your Lordships of what the London Board can do. Under Clause 7, they can provide bus services and railway services within their own area. Under Clause 8, which we are discussing now, they are to have 14
… power to carry passengers outside the London Passenger Transport Area by stage or express carriage—And, with the consent of the Minister, they may do so beyond that again, but the Minister must be satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances. When we adjourned on Thursday, my ear caught a concluding sentence of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in which he referred to Westerham. As our discussion on the Bill goes on I may have to apologise to your Lordships many times about my ignorance of the geography of England, which has always been lamentable. I did not know that Westerham was in the London Transport Area. When I was asked by my noble friend to continue dealing with this Amendment, one of the first things I did was to find out, and I am informed that the question of Westerham does not arise because the Board already have power to provide bus services to it.
- (a) on roads within a radius of ten miles, or in the county of Kent five miles, from any point on the boundary of the London Passenger Transport Area, and
- (b) on the London Transport Executive's routes (so far as they extend beyond the limits specified in paragraph (a) …"
The noble Lord now suggests that in areas other than Westerham, at some distance away in the Home Counties, a railway may be closed down and there may be difficulty in supplying the public's requirements of transport between the places from which and to which the railway that has been closed down used to run. I do not want to talk hypothetically. I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Hawke have just said. I should like to explain briefly what would happen in these circumstances. First, under Clause 56 of the Bill, the Railways Board would have to bring their proposal to close down the railway service—let us suppose it is on the fringe of the London area; I know that the noble Lord does not want to provide the services in Cornwall and Wales—to the appropriate transport users' consultative committee, who will report to the Minister upon the degree of hardship which might be involved by the closure together with any proposals which the committee may have for mitigating it.
Before giving his consent, under Clause 56, to the Railways Board the 15 Minister, if he saw fit, could attach a condition requiring the Board either to provide themselves, or to secure the provision of, a substitute bus service. Then it would be the duty of the Railways Board to make arrangements either to provide themselves or to get somebody else to provide such an alternative bus service, probably, as my noble friend Lord Hawke said, by entering into an arrangement with an appropriate bus company, which may either be a private company or a bus company of the Holding Company, and any loss entailed in running the service would have to be met by the Railways Board. Suppose the Railways Board found that it was impracticable, or estimated that it would be impracticable, to make arrangements with another bus operator—I am not going to argue whether it is likely or not; I should have thought that it was unlikely—and they did not want to provide a bus service directly themselves, they could suggest to the Minister that, if the London Board were willing to provide the service (though it must not be taken for granted that the London Board would be keen to do so) they should be empowered to do so under Clause 8 (1) (c); and then the London Board could operate such a service, if the Minister gave his consent under the additional paragraph as being satisfied that the circumstances were exceptional.
I should have thought that if nobody else would do it then the circumstances would be sufficiently exceptional. I do not think we can find language which is applicable to every possible permutation and combination of circumstances which might occur all over the Home Counties. I think we must find the best language we can and leave its interpretation to common sense. It seems to me that if we were to leave out the provision about "exceptional circumstances", then, as my noble friend behind me has just said, we should be enabling the London Board to transform its purpose of providing passenger traffic from London into a much wider service, which it is not intended to fulfil, over the whole country. I feel that common sense would suggest that the Minister's powers under this clause are well suited to find the best and most convenient solutions to any problems which may arise from the closing down of railways lines.
§ 3.12 p.m.
§ LORD SILKINBefore my noble friend Lord Stonham intervenes, may I ask the noble Earl whether there is any provision in this Bill (I take it from what he said that there is not) for a public inquiry to be held at which, not the Consultative Committee, but the users, would have the opportunity of making representations? If I am right in thinking that there is no provision for a public inquiry, would the Government be prepared to introduce, or to consider sympathetically, an Amendment which would provide for such a public inquiry? I agree that the Consultative Committee is an important body, but surely the people who are going to be directly affected by the closing of a line ought to have the opportunity of making personal representations at such a public inquiry.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI have been looking quickly at Clause 56 so that I may give the best immediate answer I can to the noble Lord. Clause 56 (1) says that there shall be not only the Central Transport Consultative Committee but also, in paragraph (b),
Area Transport Users Consultative Committees (hereinafter referred to as 'Area Committees')" …I should have thought that these Users Committees would be supposed to be representative of the people who use public transport. If the noble Lord wishes any more detailed information, I shall be glad to try to furnish him with it; but it seems to me quite plain that it is the users in this case who will be consulted.
§ LORD SILKINThrough a body where the ordinary user has no particular contact.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEBut you cannot run round the whole country consulting every user. Surely you must have some organisation.
§ LORD SILKINWhat you can do, and what is done quite frequently, is to have a public inquiry at which those people who feel that they are aggrieved can make their personal representations. The answer to my question is that the Bill does not provide for a public inquiry. Now I would ask the noble Earl whether he would be prepared to consider sympathetically an Amendment 17 directed to providing for a public inquiry.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI was going to suggest that if the noble Lord wishes to pursue this interesting question, it would be better to put down a separate Amendment, which I hope he will do. He asks me whether, if he puts down an Amendment, I will consider it sympathetically. I will certainly consider it with great interest, but as for sympathy, I must wait and see.
§ LORD STONHAMI am afraid that the careful speech to which we have just listened from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has served only to convince me that this Amendment is really a quite vital one. The noble Earl took us carefully and I think accurately, through the procedure which would arise if there was a proposed railway closure. He said that they would have to refer the matter to the Minister of Transport; that evidence of hardship would have to be given; that the Minister could direct the railway to provide a bus service, or get someone else to do it, and that, should neither of those alternatives be possible, he could suggest that the London Transport should provide it. To sum that up in a sentence, what the noble Earl means is that if nobody else wants the service, then London Transport can have it. That seems to me to be a fair summary of the situation that would arise. It would be a complicated procedure, at the best, and extremely time-consuming; and, meanwhile, there might be a quite sizeable area of the country which would not have a system of public transport.
LORD HAWKEMay I interrupt the noble Lord? Surely it is laid down in the Bill that the Minister has to satisfy himself that a service is provided before he allows the railway to close the station. I certainly hope that that is so.
§ LORD STONHAMI agree. But I am sure the noble Lord is aware that in many areas of the country, what some of us fear has already occurred, even without this Bill. In Somerset, for example, the railways have closed stations which are not covered by an adequate bus service. I personally have had many complaints in recent months from my friends in that area.
In a speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, before the last adjournment 18 of the Committee stage he said that the power of the London Transport Board ought not to be "left at large:" in other words, that they should not have the right to decide these things. Well, the power is not left at large. Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) starts with the words,
with the consent of the Minister.…You just cannot call that leaving the power at large. London Transport will have to make out their case. There would have to be need, and the kind of circumstances which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, mentioned would have to arise before London Transport could even begin to provide a service. In the same speech by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, he said——
§ LORD CHESHAMI am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but before he goes on to another point I should like to say this. He has criticised, quite legitimately as he sees it, what I said; but he must be accurate in his criticism. He divorced the words "power… at large" from the context in which I said them, and then proceeded to say that the Board's power would be controlled by the necessity to secure the consent of the Minister though he is now supporting an Amendment to leave out a requirement on this point. My argument was that it was wrong that the London Board should have power at large to run road passenger transport, without the consent of the Minister, anywhere in the country. I hope it is clear to the Committee that that is what the noble Lord is commenting on.
§ LORD STONHAMThe noble Lord, Lord Chesham, is well aware that I would not intentionally misquote him nor attempt to mislead from a quotation, and I will quote the whole extract. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 240 (No. 84) col. 1122]:
I do not think, if the power is to be left with the Minister to allow the London Board to operate beyond its area proper and the capacity belt, described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 8 (1), that that power ought to be left at large. It is a very wide power, and it certainly should be subject to some such qualification.That is exactly what I tried to convey, and when we come to paragraph (c) there is a qualification. These extensions in paragraph (c)—meaning those 19 which are not covered by paragraphs (a) and (b)—are "with the consent of the Minister." Therefore I am arguing that they are not left at large. I should have thought that that was perfectly fair.The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, also went on to deal with the "exceptional circumstances", which is a phrase used in the words which I seek to delete by my Amendment. Again, if you study Hansard it appears that the exceptional circumstances which the Government envisage are similar to those suggested in Amendment No. 45 and which were mentioned earlier in these proceedings by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. In any case, it is perfectly clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said, that the exceptional circumstances envisaged would be of a temporary, indeed almost an emergency, nature, and are nothing like those which we seek to cover and which were made so clear by my noble friend Lord Shepherd.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said how difficult it was, or how complicated it would be—I am speaking from memory; I have not read it again—to find suitable language to define these exceptional circumstances. But I submit that the language is already there—"with the consent of the Minister". Surely that would be sufficient to govern the circumstances we envisage. I disagree when the noble Lord says that common sense would suggest that these words should be left in the Bill. Common sense would suggest that the Bill should provide a fairly simple procedure for the provision of new alternative services when an existing service is no longer available. I should have thought that that was common sense. But the Bill says: You can have an extension of the London Transport service by what is provided under paragraph (a), (b) or (c). If you want it under paragraph (a) in order to fill a gap, you can have it only in very exceptional circumstances, which the Government have not been able to define except by making it clear that they would be temporary, emergency services.
§ I think that is wholly unsatisfactory. I feel that in any case this is a matter to which we must return, but meanwhile I am afraid we cannot withdraw this Amendment.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI certainly do not want to pursue the argument on a matter which the noble Lord considers to be vital to the Bill. There is just one additional point I want to make. I quoted, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 56. May I also draw the noble Lord's attention to subsection (13) of the same clause on page 59, which says:
Where for the purposes of subsection (9) of this section a committee decide to hear an objector orally, or to hear oral representations made on behalf of a Board, they shall hear the objector and the representations in public.I mention that in case it may help the noble Lord in deciding whether or not he would like to have a fresh Amendment on this subject. I think the main question of the Amendment has been fully discussed.I only remind the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, when he says that "exceptional circumstances" in our view plainly mean emergency and temporary circumstances, that the other day I had the painful duty of rejecting an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Hawke and his noble friends which wanted to substitute precisely those words. I thought I had made it plain that we did not intend "exceptional" to mean "emergency and temporary", and for that reason we were obliged to ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment of my noble friend behind me, which your Lordships did, or at least the Amendment was withdrawn. We do not regard the word "exceptional" as having that connotation. We merely think it is reasonable to give the Minister some general guidance as to the manner in which he shall or shall not give his consent.
§ On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 52.
21| CONTENTS | ||
| Alexander of Hillsborough, V. | Geddes of Epsom, L. | Nathan, L. |
| Amwell, L. | Henderson, L. | St. Davids, V. |
| Champion, L. | Kenswood, L. | Shackleton, L. |
| Chorley, L. | Latham, L. | Shepherd, L. [Teller.] |
| Crook, L. | Lawson, L. | Silkin, L. |
| Stonham, L. [Teller.] | Williams, L. | Wise, L. |
| Summerskill, B. | Williams of Barnburgh, L. | Wootton of Abinger, B. |
| NOT-CONTENTS | ||
| Ailwyn, L. | Forster of Harraby, L. | Merrivale, L. |
| Airedale, L. | Furness, V. | Mills, L. |
| Albemarle, E. | Goschen, V. | Milverton, L. |
| Amulree, L. | Grenfell, L. | Molson, L. |
| Atholl, D. | Guest, L. | Monsell, V. |
| Bathurst, E. | Hailsham, V. (L. President.) | Newall, L. |
| Boston, L. | Hampton, L. | Newton, L. [Teller.] |
| Bridgeman, V. | Hastings, L. | Northesk, E. |
| Buckinghamshire, E. | Hawke, L. | St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, L. Bp. |
| Chesham, L. | Howard of Glossop, L. | |
| Cholmondeley, M. | Howe, E. | St. Oswald, L. [Teller.] |
| Colwyn, L. | Jellicoe, E. | Sinha, L. |
| Conesford, L. | Jessel, L. | Somers, L. |
| Cottesloe, L. | Kilbracken, L. | Soulbury, V. |
| Denham, L. | Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.) | Strang, L. |
| Dudley, L. | Lambert, V. | Teynham, L. |
| Dundee, E. | Long, V. | Twining, L. |
| Effingham, E. | Margesson, V. |
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
§ 3.37 p.m.
§
LORD SOMERS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "satisfied that" and to insert instead:
by reason of any temporary interruption or diversion of traffic by air or any temporary interruption of any railway service or other unforeseen emergency it is desirable in the public interest that the Board should whilst such emergency continues provide the service for which his consent is sought.
The Minister may consent to the whole or part only of the service for which his consent is sought, and may at any time revoke or modify any consent or the conditions subject to which any consent has been given.
§ The noble Lord said: I shall not be long in moving this Amendment, since your Lordships will remember that it was discussed pretty fully in conjunction with Amendment No. 41 last Thursday, and, of course, a great deal of what we have heard with regard to the last Amendment applies also to it. Nevertheless, I feel that the Amendment is a necessary one, and I shall try to give the reasons for it.
§ I am glad to say that I was able to find one thing at least in what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd said this afternoon with which I am in absolute agreement; that is, that the interest of the public is the first consideration. I agree wholeheartedly. But I think that, if your Lordships look at it carefully, you will agree this Amendment is for that purpose. As things stand, the Minister has to be satisfied, in order to give his consent, that there are "exceptional circumstances". Certainly, with the present right honourable Minister one could have perfect 22 trust in his judgment on whether or not a service was necessary. But one does not know whether the present Minister will be the Minister for a long time, a short time, or for how long. Therefore, I feel that it is a good thing to have it written into the Bill that the Minister, whoever he may be, shall give his consent only in certain circumstances.
§
You will see that in the first paragraph of the Amendment provision is made that he shall give his consent if he is satisfied that
… it is desirable in the public interest that the Board should whilst such emergency continues provide the service…
There you have the public interest. The second paragraph, of course, is merely for the purpose of ensuring that the consent shall not remain permanent if there is no necessity for it. I think that is about all I can say about this Amendment, since we have discussed it so fully. What we on this side all feel is that, as London Transport has a complete monopoly within its own area, which is a very large area, and the extension of ten miles beyond its border (or five miles, in the case of Kent), gives it an extra 2,000 square miles, it is an undesirable thing that its monopoly of transport should extend any farther than that. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 33, leave out from ("that") to the end of line 35 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Somers.)
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI think I dealt with this point very fully last Thursday. The two Amendments, Nos. 41 and 43, were discussed together, and 23 although, owing to the necessities of procedure, only No. 41 could be withdrawn because No. 42 came next, nearly the whole of the discussion was on this Amendment, No. 43. I have listened with interest and care to what my noble friend said but I think that the answer I gave on Thursday, which is in the OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 1113 to 1116, fully covers what he has said. I cannot, I feel, usefully expand that answer, though, and I alluded to it just now in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ LORD CHESHAMThis is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8. line 44, leave out ("not more than") and insert ("within a radius of").—(Lord Chesham.)
§
LORD MERRIVALE moved to add to subsection (3):
or restrict or otherwise affect any power or discretion exercisable by the traffic commissioners under section one hundred and thirty-five of the Road Traffic Act, 1960".
§ The noble Lord said: The purport of this Amendment is to make it clear that the traffic commissioners' discretion to grant or refuse the London Board's application for a licence and their discretion to attach conditions shall in no way be fettered; also, that the traffic commissioners shall not be bound automatically to grant an application merely because the Minister has consented to the operation of the service; and, further, that they shall not be bound to grant this licence because the route is a London Transport Executive route which the Board will automatically or expressly be empowered to operate.
§ I appreciate that under subsection (3) of this clause it is provided that the London Board are not to be exempt from the licensing jurisdiction of the traffic commissioners under Part III of the 1960. Act. But under paragraph (c) of subsection (1)—and this matter has already been discussed at length—the Minister is empowered to consent to the operation by the London Board of a service beyond the 10-mile radius, or 5 miles in Kent. I would accept that, of 24 course, such a consent by the Minister would be given only in exceptional circumstances, as has already been mentioned many times this afternoon and on Thursday. But I think it could very well be assumed that such a consent by the Minister would be considered by the traffic commissioners, who, as your Lordships are aware, are responsible for the issue of the appropriate road service licence, as a directive. I think the traffic commissioners would feel all the more that it might be a directive in view of the fact that the Minister would give his consent in only exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the traffic commissioners might feel that they would have no say in the matter at all.
§ I feel that some other operator—in other words, an objector to such a consent by the Minister—might be better suited to provide the requested service. I would agree, however, that the Minister would be better aware of all the facets of the problem tending to create those exceptional circumstances. On the other hand, I feel that the traffic commissioners would have a greater knowledge as to the manner in which the passenger service should be made available. They may feel that some private operator would be better suited to operate a more efficient service and provide a better service for the general public. For those reasons I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 4, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Merrivale.)
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI entirely agree with the motive from which my noble friend has moved this Amendment, but it is really entirely unnecessary. What the Amendment proposes is that:
Nothing in this section shall … restrict or otherwise affect any power or discretion exercisable by the traffic commissioners under section one hundred and thirty-five of the Road Traffic Act, 1960.The main clause provides that:Nothing in this section shall be taken as exempting the London Board from any of the requirements of Part III of the Road Traffic Act, 1960.But Section 135 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, is contained in Part III of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, so that this Amendment would simply repeat the same thing twice over in the same sentence.
§ LORD MERRIVALEI thank the noble Earl for his reply, and in view of his assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD HAWKE moved, in subsection (5), after "carry" to insert "and had carried". The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the following one, No. 48, are to some extent interconnected. Although the second one, or something very similar, was moved in another place, the discussions that went on had some reference to this first type of Amendment, although, so far as I can see, they did not actually discuss it in particular. Clause 8 (5) is trying to define the routes over which the London Transport Board will have power to run, after the passing of this Bill. It attempts to make the definition by describing the routes in question as those which the London Transport Executive had power to operate during the year ending November 2, 1961—note, not on the date November 2, 1961, but in the whole year ending November 2, 1961. Unfortunately, this particular form of definition makes the confusion worse, because it is no definition at all. Nobody really knows for certain what those routes are over which the London Executive has power to operate.
§ The confusion apparently arose in the past because on December 5, 1947, there was an overall scheme of delegation from the Transport Commission which purported to give London Transport power to run on any route anywhere provided that such activities were carried on in connection with or were ancillary to the activities of the London Transport undertaking. This of course could be held to allow London Transport to operate anywhere in the country. In practice, however, there is much evidence to show that this delegation has never been interpreted in that way; there are plenty of detailed schemes on record for operation, and it would obviously have been unnecessary to provide a detailed scheme to operate if the legality had been covered by this wide case. But for so long as there is any doubt, the London Board might suddenly come along and claim complete validity of these much-questioned powers under the 1947 scheme of delegation, and tremendous legal battles would result.
26§ For instance, they might claim the power to run Green Line buses to the Midlands. This would be far beyond the spirit of anything that was intended at the time. But now that we are legislating afresh, there is an opportunity of trying to define the scope of their operating powers in a more precise way, to avoid any difficulties or disputes, and we want to find a proper method of resolving those difficulties. The Amendment that I and my noble friends have put down suggests that the best way of doing it would be to define the routes over which they had powers as the routes over which they had actually operated during the year in question. That seems to be a fair enough method of doing it. If Her Majesty's Government can think of a better way of attaining precision, let them make it and produce it. Meanwhile, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 13, after ("carry") insert ("and had carried").—(Lord Hawke.)
§ LORD SOMERSI should like to support this Amendment. I feel that it is necessary. After all, as my noble friend has already said, nobody quite knows what are the routes over which London Transport has had rights to run during that period; and if they have had rights but have not used them, it is quite obvious that they did not consider them worth using and are not likely to consider them worth using in the future. In such circumstances surely it would be a pity if they were still included as London Transport Executive's routes, thereby excluding other operators from using them.
LORD HAWKEI am sorry. I omitted to make one point clear to the Committee—namely, that these are routes outside the Executive's home territory.
§ 3.52 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI had thought it possible when my noble friend opened his remarks, that he might be intending to discuss Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 together, as he said that to some extent they overlapped. This might have saved a little time, because the answers overlap, too. But I understand he has now relapsed into No. 47, so I will deal only with that at the moment. This Bill is a reorganisation 27 measure and its purpose, so far as the London Transport Board's powers are concerned, is to re-enact the status quo. The status quo means the existing powers, not only the existing powers which have been exercised within the last twelve months, which I submit to your Lordships would be an unreasonable qualification.
I understand that there are 50 routes and two areas to be certified under subsection (5) of Clause 8 which the Minister may, by order in a statutory instrument, certify to be the routes on which the London Transport Executive at any time within the period of twelve months ended November 2, 1961, had power to carry passengers. There are 50 of these routes and two areas which are to be certified under Clause 8, and of these the London Transport Executive have not used their powers on two routes within the twelve months preceding the date of publication of the Bill. They have used their powers to operate within the two authorised areas, although not on all possible routes within those areas. I am also informed that one of the routes on which they have not within the last twelve months exercised their powers, happens to be a road between the Old Windsor—Datchet Road from its junction in Old Windsor with the Staines—Windsor Road, and that this would not in any case be used unless some State occasion in Windsor caused traffic difficulties which might make it desirable for London Transport to make temporary diversionary arrangements. I do not think that the Bill as it stands is going to lead to any great confusion or difficulty and I would put it to your Lordships that the purposes of this Bill do not create any desirability for altering the existing powers of the London Transport Executive in this regard.
LORD HAWKEI was interested to hear my noble friend's reply. It contained a certain number of figures, and he must forgive me if I did not perhaps get them quite right. But I am going to proceed to ask if my understandings are correct. Do I understand that the Minister is proposing to certify 50 routes as those on which the Transport Board have power to operate under the powers they inherited; that out of those 50 28 routes there are only two on which they did not operate during the year in question, and that, of these two routes, one is the subject of a possible diversion when there is some ceremonial at Windsor? I first of all ask him, what is the other route? Then he said that there are two areas in question, and that the London Transport Executive have operated routes in both of those areas, but not all the routes. If I understand that correctly, can he tell me what the areas are?
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEMy noble friend has understood perfectly correctly what I have told him: that there are only two of the routes which have not been used, one of which I mentioned. I do not know which the other was. Equally, he is correct in understanding that there are two areas, and that within those areas they have operated some routes but not all possible ones. If you define an area, I should have thought it would be impossible, or most unlikely, that you would ever be able to run services between any two points that you might select within those areas. Obviously, you would select only certain points which would be most convenient. Without much greater knowledge of the geography of England than I have, I could not without notice describe either the areas or the permutations and computations of bus runs which might be possible and those which have actually been followed.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI have already said that I cannot do that.
LORD HAWKEPerhaps by the Report stage it will have been made clear to the representatives of the bus companies which, in fact, is this missing route. In regard to the ones which my noble friend has outlined it seems that the Amendment has been largely met; but, naturally, not knowing what I might describe as the unknown route, one could not possibly say that the Amendment has been fully met. Therefore I am prepared to withdraw this Amendment now, on the understanding that I may come back to it on Report stage.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
29
§
LORD HAWKE moved to add to subsection (5):
other than under a terminable agreement or arrangement".
§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment is on more or less the same point, but it is slightly different. At present, London Transport have power to operate outside their own boundary by agreement with other operators, and in all cases these agreements are terminable. Of course, it would be manifestly absurd to include in routes which the London Board will be able to operate for ever routes which their predecessors in this matter can only at the moment operate under terminable agreements. This matter was raised in another place, and the Government have attempted to clear up this anomaly by including lines 15 to 20 on page 9.
§ In fact, it does not really do so. For instance, it would not cover the case of Crawley, where the agreement with Southdown was not made in pursuance of Section 18 of the Transport Act, 1933, but was pursuant to a scheme of delegation of October 17, 1957, which was entered into as a necessary legal step to facilitate the entering into of a working agreement and thus the possibility of obtaining a licence. This is a somewhat technical point, but the private operators think it is very necessary in order to prevent a terminable agreement giving the London Board the right to operate a route for ever, which would happen under the first half of subsection (5), and the second half does not sufficiently modify the position. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 14, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Hawke.)
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI would again begin by saying that the purpose of this Bill, so far as the powers of the London Board are concerned, is to leave those powers as they were, and I do not think there is any good reason for altering the powers which it at present possesses. There is here a distinction between practices which have been created by a terminable agreement and a practice which, although it contains a terminable agreement, such as the Crawley one, does not depend for its existence on that agreement but arises from a statutory power. Although that may be a distinction 30 which is perhaps a little difficult to follow, I think it is an important distinction as a matter of law.
As my noble friend said, an Amendment on this was moved in another place whose purpose was to remove from the list of scheduled routes such routes as were operated by virtue of a terminable agreement or arrangement. The Government undertook to accept that Amendment and, as my noble friend has said, the last paragraph of this clause, beginning at line 15 and ending at line 20, gives effect to that undertaking; but it does not apply to arrangements which depend upon the exercise of statutory powers and not simply on the terminable agreement itself—which is the case in regard to Crawley.
Under Section 18 of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, the Board used to have power to enter into working agreements with other operators. Under Section 15 of that Act they could cross the boundary of the London Passenger Transport area by virtue of such an agreement. This section was repealed by the 1947 Transport Act, and, from January, 1948, onwards, although the London Transport still retained power to make working agreements, the power to cross the boundary of the area—which happened in this case—had to come from somewhere else. In the Crawley case the necessary power to do this was delegated to London Transport by the Transport Commission under Section 5 of the 1947 Act. So London Transport's powers, which it possesses now to run at Crawley, do not depend on the working agreement but on statutory powers delegated by the British Transport Commission, and I therefore think they should be continued on that statutory basis. We do not want to use this Bill as a means of altering reasonable and good arrangements which have been made for the benefit of the public under earlier statutes.
§ LORD STONHAMIf this Amendment were accepted and added to subsection (5), would it not affect the existing powers possessed by the London Transport Executive, which it is desired to continue to have terminable, and would that not in fact terminate the agreement? I am not talking about the kind of agreement dealt with in the same 31 subsection in the lines from 15 onwards, but of the Crawley type of agreement. If the words in the Amendment were accepted, the effect would be to terminate it, would it not?
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEThe distinction is between the type of agreement which is already terminated in the last paragraph, which does not depend on the statutory operation of the 1947 Act, and this Agreement, which does.
§ LORD CONESFORDMay I just put one point to my noble friend before my noble friend Lord Hawke expresses his wishes on this Amendment? Why are we legislating precisely in this way? The purpose of subsection (5) is to define the expression "the London Transport Executive's routes", and that is to be defined by the Minister's making a statutory instrument certifying what those routes are. I take it that he has already determined upon what will be the terms of that statutory instrument; he already knows the routes, as they have been referred to by my noble friend. Why is it necessary to have this statutory instrument? Why cannot we be told in a Schedule to the Bill what these routes are?
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEThat might be a better way of doing it, but under this clause the Minister simply has to certify what the existing routes are for purposes of confirmation.
§ LORD CONESFORDI am much obliged. I am only trying to clarify this. Practising lawyers like to look at an Act of Parliament to understand what it means. Subsection (5) will be quite meaningless until they look at another document, which will not be available in the volume of Statutes. It seems to me a wholly unnecessary complication, and I cannot imagine its purpose.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI have no doubt my noble friend could put down an Amendment to the Schedule, putting this in a better way, if he thought it would increase its clarity and comprehensibility to the public, to the lawyers or to your Lordships.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy noble friend has now completely missed the whole point. I cannot draft the Schedule be- 32 because I do not know which the routes are. The Minister presumably does. If this Bill goes through as it stands, the Minister will then have to make a statutory instrument stating which are the routes. If he already knows what they are, why, instead of making a statutory instrument, cannot he say which the routes are in a Schedule to this Bill?
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI will certainly consider that, if my noble friend thinks that it will be for the clarification of the Bill.
LORD HAWKEMy noble friend Lord Conesford said he could not see what was the object of doing the thing in this particular way. I venture to suggest that one of the objects is to disguise its effect on the bus routes in Crawley. The history of that transaction is that Crawley is bisected or divided by the line between the London area and the Southdown area. When the town came into being, it was considered a reasonable and proper thing to come to a working agreement between the two parties as to who should do what in Crawley New Town; and a working agreement was drawn up between them. I have here a copy of the agreement, and Clause 8 (2) says:
This agreement shall be terminable on the 31st day of December, 1970, or at any time thereafter by not less than six months' prior notice in writing given by either of the parties hereto to the other.That seems quite clear enough.Why the Government, on behalf of the London Transport Board, now claim that this division of the territory was not by the working agreement at all, but was by a statutory and permanent delegation under the Act of 1947, I just do not know. It is quite clear that the intention of these operators when they came together was to form a working agreement, and the result of this Bill, and the interpretation put on this situation by Her Majesty's Government, is that territory which was to be divided under the working agreement is now to be permanently annexed to the London Transport Board. For that reason, I am very reluctant to withdraw this Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
33§ Clause 9 [Duty and powers of Docks Board]:
§ 4.17 p.m.
§
LORD STONHAM moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
( ) The Docks Board shall co-operate with other Boards and Nationalised Transport Undertakings for the purpose of ensuring proper co-ordination and development of their assets and facilities and to provide efficent economic services for the said Boards and Nationalised Transport Undertakings and their users.
§ The noble Lord said: Clause 9 sets out the powers and duties of the Docks Board to manage the docks, to receive and consign goods on behalf of other parties and to store goods for other people. They will exercise an extremely important function in the whole of the transport system, and particularly, of course, in assisting our export trade. We feel that this new subsection is necessary in order to ensure that the Docks Board co-operate with other Boards in developing their assets and in providing comprehensive and efficient services. It might be suggested—I have no doubt it will be suggested—that common sense would compel their cooperation in these matters with other Boards and, indeed, with all users of the docks. Unfortunately, once separate undertakings get set up they have a tendency towards "empire building"; to consider their own particular problems and interests first; and this could lead, and does lead, to fruitless competition and increased costs.
§ We on this side of the Committee deplore the splitting up of the various functions of the Transport Commission, which is the essence of the Bill; but we should feel a lot easier if there were a clear indication in the Bill, or if the Government could give us a clear idea, of how the Boards will work together in these matters; and, if they do not, what powers are possessed or are imagined to compel them to do so.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI wonder whether I might interrupt for one second. I do not want in any way to evade any further discussion, but this matter was discussed together with Amendment No. 30, and I understood that they were being taken together. I should be delighted to go all over it again if the noble Lord would like me to do 34 so, but the questions which he has just asked are questions which I answered on Tuesday last week, when an exactly similar Amendment with regard to the Railways Board was discussed. I do not think it was divided on, but I am not sure.
§ LORD STONHAMI made some inquiry upon this very point before moving this Amendment separately, and it seemed to us that the particular position of the Docks Board should have some explanation from the Government. I had virtually reached the last word that I was going to say, and it remains for me now only to move the Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 40, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI have here the record of our discussion on the proposal that "The Railways Board shall co-operate with other Boards", et cetera, and we had a very full discussion. I am trying to think of any argument which might apply to the Docks Board which does not apply to the Railways Board, but it seemed to me, and still seems to me, that the arguments were precisely identical in both cases and that a duty on the Railways Board or the Docks Board to co-operate at large for the purpose of co-ordinating the services of all the other nationalised transport undertakings, or those of each other, would depend on precisely the same considerations. So far as we have gone, I do not think that I could add anything to what I said last Tuesday on the Amendment then being discussed, in which I referred to the Docks Board, although not specifically, of course. I think the considerations are the same in both cases, although, of course, the noble Lord is perfectly entitled to discuss the matter again.
§ LORD STONHAMI wonder whether the noble Earl could say anything in particular about the question of cooperation towards an efficient service in the matter of dock charges. That does not seem to have been adequately covered by the words he previously used. It seems a way by which, as it were, pressure could be exerted on behalf of one section of the transport service, and we should like to be satisfied on that point.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEIt is, as I think I said last Tuesday, right and proper that there should be consultations and arrangements between the Boards on the matter of charges, or on other matters for the benefit of the public; but what I particularly said last Tuesday, although I have not had time to verify the reference in Hansard at the moment, was that one reason why we should not make it a special statutory duty to have this co-operation was not only because it was unnecessary but also because it would seem to be a kind of loaded duty—that is to say, you would be making it a law that the Boards should co-operate with each other but not with private operators—private road haulage contractors or private transport operators. That would create, I think, very natural suspicions among those who conduct private transport industry that the Bill was designed to encourage, particularly in the matter of dock charges, arrangements which were weighted in favour of nationalised transport and in favour of the nationally-owned docks, and against private road haulage and privately-owned docks. I will try to find the reference, but I do particularly remember using that argument when I was replying to the first Amendment, which I think was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. Therefore, I would say this matter of dock charges, although it is perfectly reasonable in itself, is not a thing as to which it is desirable to impose what I might call a special, loaded duty, which might be interpreted as encouraging co-operation between nationalised Boards to the disadvantage of private docks and private road haulage contractors.
§ LORD SHEPHERDBut would the noble Earl not agree that it is not the private operator or the nationalised undertaker who pays the dock charges? It is the person who is consigning the merchandise through, either as an import or as an export. What my noble friend is querying is whether the Docks Board, in order to develop some of those docks which are not particularly busy at the moment, and in order to attract business to those docks, may quote to the general public special rates, to the disadvantage of those docks controlled by the Railways Board. What we do not want is these two dock authorities to be fighting each other for business 36 on a question of charges to the consumer. Certainly let there be competition as to which produces the efficient service, but what we do not want is to have one of the Boards fighting the other for business by quoting different rates, because that would be the ruin of both in the end. I wonder whether the noble Earl could help us on that.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEOnly on the general ground that, of course, it will be necessary for all nationalised undertakings or Boards to have consultations with each other and to co-ordinate each other's plans so as to achieve the greatest economy of service. But we also want co-operation and co-ordination between the nationalised undertakings and private haulage contractors. We want both to take place, but we do not want to put in the Bill a specific duty that the nationalised concerns are by Statute to co-operate with each other, because that might appear to imply that they are supposed to co-operate with each other to the detriment of private contractors.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ Clause 9 agreed to.
§ Clause 10:
§ Duty and powers of Inland Waterways Authority
§ 10.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Inland Waterways Authority in the exercise of their powers under this Act to provide to such extent as they may think expedient—
- (a) services and facilities on the inland waterways owned or managed by them, and
- (b) port facilities at any harbour owned or managed by them,
§ (2) It shall also be the duty of the Authority to review the manner in which the inland waterways owned or managed by them, so far as not required for the discharge of their duty under subsection (1) of this section, may be put to the best use, to formulate proposals with the object of putting them to the best use and to take all steps open to them to achieve that object whether by developing or converting any inland waterway themselves or by selling or leasing to other persons.
§ LORD CHESHAMThis Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 2, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
§ 4.29 p.m.
§
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved, in subsection (1), after "provide", to insert:
and maintain the navigable waterways and ports vested in them for public use and in connection therewith to provide.
§ The noble Viscount said: This is a very simple little Amendment and one with no binding legal effect, but it has a valuable purpose. As the Bill at present reads, the Inland Waterways Authority, now the British Waterways Board, have a duty to provide various things as they may think expedient or, in other words, to some extent or other. Then, if they find that they cannot do that particularly successfully on some particular waterways, they are able to get rid of those waterways under subsection (2). But the wording of it is such that the duty laid on the Board to run the waterways is comparatively weakly expressed, while the order in the matter of redevelopment and generally geting rid of the waterways is expressed in considerably stronger language.
§ A great many of your Lordships have, like myself, been officers of various armed forces at one time or another, and I feel sure that in the course of the time spent by your Lordships in the various Services you never gave any kind of order which expressed in weak terms your main wishes, and then afterwards, not as an afterthought but as a main order, declared what could be done if the main objective failed. Therefore, I want to put these words in to make it much clearer that their main duty is to run these waterways and not to close them, and that if, unfortunately, the main objective fails, then, alas!, we have to carry out the second objective. In other words, all I am asking for is a bit more guts and strength in the duties of the new Board, and I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 4, after ("provide") insert ("and maintain the navigable waterways and ports vested in them for public use and in connection therewith to provide").—(Viscount St. Davids.)
§ LORD CONESFORDI rise to declare not, indeed, a personal interest in this clause, but a very important interest of the National Trust, on whose Executive Committee I have had the honour of serving for a quarter of a century. The National Trust takes the greatest possible interest in the future of our 38 canals and in the preservation of things of great beauty and value for our people and for posterity. We are already playing a very important part in the preservation of our canals. As the Committee may know, two years ago the Trust took a five year lease of the southern section of the Stratford-upon-Avon Canal, and it has already half finished the restoration of that canal from its previously derelict condition. This has been done at a cost of over £45,000, of which the National Trust raised £25,000 by public appeal; and at the end of five years we have the option to acquire the canal. This venture is one of the most important ventures on the part of the National Trust in recent years, and negotiations are also proceeding about at least one other canal. So the National Trust is greatly concerned with the future of our inland waterways and would always like to be consulted on the possibility of our taking over any canal which may be threatened with abandonment.
For these reasons, we are in general sympathy with the series of Amendments put down by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, though I think the body with which he is immediately concerned is a different one. In my submission to the Committee, he is right in pointing out that for a declaration of the duty of the body that is dealt with in the first subsection the wording is very weak and really suggests comparative neutrality between preservation and abandonment. Those are not the words in which a Statute should speak of a thing of so much value as our inland waterways.
I cannot help thinking that one of the reasons for the unsatisfactory drafting of so many of these clauses dealing with inland waterways is that those responsible for the drafting of the Bill thought that the inland waterways really bore more resemblance, in fact and in law, to the railways than to the highways. But the canals are not at all like the railways, over which only the concern owning the line has generally the right of use. The canals are more like a highway by water, both in law and in fact, over which the public has very considerable rights. For those reasons, I think that the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, is quite right in seeking to strengthen this clause. I myself have a few subsequent Amendments with the same object, and I beg to support him.
§ 4.36 p.m.
§ LORD CHESHAMI do not wish very much to fall out with the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, right away, but I feel I must do so by saying that his idea of a simple little thing and my idea of a simple little thing are certainly rather different. I have not checked up—perhaps he will tell me afterwards—on the details of his own career in the Forces, but mine, such as it was, led me to believe that a bullet was a very simple little thing in itself, although the effects it could have could be devastating, disastrous and thoroughly lethal. And I am bound to say that I regard the noble Viscount's "simple little thing" with which he has presented us by way of an Amendment as being very much in that category, even if it does not go into the further stage of being a rather small bomb.
Let us see, to start with, exactly what it is that the noble Viscount's Amendment does. The duty which is put on the Board and which the noble Viscount and my noble friend Lord Conesford have criticised (to which criticism I will return in a moment) is quite clear. It is to provide, to such extent as they may think expedient, services and facilities on their inland waterways, and port facilities at their harbours, having due regard to efficiency, economy, and safety of operation. What the noble Viscount, with my noble friend's support, wants to do is to add an unqualified duty to provide and maintain the navigable waterways and ports vested in them for public use.
The first point, and the main point, is this: that the intention of this Bill is to reorganise the structure under which the waterways are to be run. I must ask the noble Viscount to recognise that what is added by way of the duty I have just described is by way of duty only; it does not add any power which the Board has not got at the present. No waterway, until the situation is changed by Parliament in the future at some date—and this is the main fear of the noble Viscount and my noble friend—is going to be, or can be, closed down except in the way it can be closed down at present: that is, with the authority of Parliament or by order of the Minister. It would be utterly contrary to the provisions and principle of the Bill if the 40 British Waterways Boards were not free to seek that authority as and when they thought fit to do so. The duty, which I described purposely as an unqualified duty, introduces a thoroughly new concept into this matter.
I would say to my noble friend Lord Conesford that there is no mystique about the selection of these words and none of the deep, dark intentions behind them which I thought were worrying him. The Amendment goes a good deal further than the Commission's original duty under the Transport Act, 1947, and their amended duty under the Transport Act, 1953, wherein they were required:
to provide in such places and to such an extent as would appear to them to be expedient, facilities for traffic in inland waterways.The intention was to base the stated duty of the new Board on the same lines. I do not think that these are weak terms or that they do not go far enough. They have served very well so far and I think that the duty expressed in the Bill is quite right.If this Amendment were to be accepted there would be the future effect that the new Board would have an uncertain discretion—or, it may be argued, no discretion at all—regarding the maintenance provision of navigable inland waterways and ports, because the words in the Bill "as they may think expedient" would not appear in the words the noble Viscount wants to put in, nor would the obligation which he seeks to put in be governed by the need to have regard to efficiency, economy and safety in the provision of service and facilities as laid down in the Bill. Therefore the proposed Amendment comes into head-on conflict with the principles contained in the Bill and in particular with the intention that the Board should manage its own affairs in an efficient manner and enjoy a measure of commercial freedom, and with the Board's duty to keep revenue deficits to the lowest possible level. It would mean that they would have to maintain navigable waterways and ports vested in them, regardless of the cost and service. Under Clause 23 it is proposed that there should be substantial revenue assistance for the Board for five years to enable them to face up to the deficit on which they are at present working. If there is no duty to be economical, this must be extremely unfair to the taxpayer.
41 Though I welcomed the words from my noble friend, Lord Conesford, about the National Trust—having seen the Stratford-on-Avon Canal I should be the first to pay tribute to the Trust's excellent work—I do not believe he indicated that the Trust are in a financial position to take over the majority of the canals in this country, excellent as such efforts are as they do find themselves able to make. Even if a number of canals should be closed to navigation, that does not mean that in other areas arrangements cannot be come to with bodies such as the National Trust who will agree to take these over. Therefore I do not think that that is a valid point in support of the Amendment. What is valid is what I have been saying. We cannot accept or advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment, because it is completely uneconomic and utterly at variance with the principle of the Bill. I am sorry to say this, because most of us have sympathy with the noble Viscount's basic idea.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSI am sorry that the noble Lord takes my little Amendment as he does. It is not meant to be a bomb under the Bill. I should have thought that such words would not have stopped the Board from having due regard to efficiency, economy, safety or anything else. After all these words will remain in the Bill together with the words I intended to add. These words are intended simply to give more forcible effect to the intention to keep these waterways in a decent state in the hands of the present authority, if possible. If these words cannot be put in for that purpose, I do not think that I should carry this Amendment any further.
§ LORD SHEPHERDBefore the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, is there not some half-way house we can come to in this matter? Can we not ask the Inland Waterways Board to keep these canals in a first-class condition, or in the condition in which they are now, until a stage is reached when they know which canals they propose to keep in operation and which they propose to discard, so that the National Trust or any of the boating organisations will be able to take over any canals they wish in a reasonable condition. If one goes to Holland 42 and sees what the Rotterdam and Amsterdam Corporations are able to do in the way of amenities, one would think that we could do something in that direction.
§ THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEMay I remind the noble Lord on the Front Bench, who answered a Question of mine about redundant canals a year ago, that about three years ago the Minister set up a Committee of six—part-time, I believe—for the purpose of testing public opinion and requirements for the use of some of these old canals? On that occasion the noble Lord told me that hardly any applications from the public had come forward.
§ 4.50 p.m.
§ LORD CHESHAMI think we are in danger of wandering off into a sort of general Second Reading debate on the subject of canals. There certainly was the Redevelopment Committee, which was an advisory Committee and has done a great deal of work, as I am sure the noble Viscount opposite is well aware. On this I would warn the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, not to get led away by trying to draw accurate comparisons with Continental practices, where they have a very different set-up with which to work. It is difficult to base the idea of the one on the practice of the other.
Nevertheless, I am not attempting to attach no importance to his words. We may have some discussion later on about certain things that the Commission are doing at the moment which are rather in line with what the noble Lord suggested; in other words, not letting things go too far. But this is a matter on which one cannot generalise, and it has to be considered almost canal by canal. Therefore, to write a kind of moratorium into the Bill that the status quo of the entire canal system of the country must be preserved until it can all be sorted out would cost the country too much money. The losses that are being incurred on the canals at the moment must be reduced by all reasonably practicable means. However, I assure the noble Lord that the possibility of other uses and handing over, which is indeed encouraged by the Bill, are being borne in mind.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSI would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that there are many waterways for which one can now see no rational future; and I know all about the Redevelopment Committee, whose work certainly was excellent. But what is horrifying is the way the Minister is going against the suggestions of his own Redevelopment Committee, thus showing a further stage of weakness, of which these words in the Bill are symptomatic. However, I think it is impossible to achieve anything by trying to force these words into the Bill, and I do not think we shall get any further on this particular point. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ LORD CHESHAMBefore the noble Lord withdraws, without getting drawn into a discussion, I should like to say that the question of the Minister's attitude to the Committee's recommendations is entirely one of opinion, and I might, in my turn (we may return to this later; I do not know) regard the noble Viscount's remarks as fallacious and unwarranted.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
LORD CONESFORD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "they may think expedient" and insert "may be reasonably practicable". The noble Lord said: Though my noble friend Lord Chesham found himself unable to accept the last Amendment, for reasons which I think I can appreciate, I was encouraged by some of the things he said about the general attitude of his Ministry to the problems of inland waterways. The further Amendments that I have down to the clause are not, I think, open to the objections which he raised to the first, and important, Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids. The words now in the Bill are the Government's own words defining the duty. They are:
It shall be the duty of the Inland Waterways Authority in the exercise of their powers under this Act to provide"—
and these are the only words that I question here—
to such extent as they may think expedient…
I should prefer to see the words, "to such extent as may be reasonably practicable". They would at least give a difference of nuance and accent from
44
the words in the Bill, without, I think, involving the Minister in any of the difficulties which his resistance to the previous Amendment disclosed: in fact, one of the reasons why I drafted and put down this Amendment was that I thought the might find the previous one rather too strong meat. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 4, leave out ("they may think expedient") and insert ("may be reasonably practicable").—(Lord Conesford.)
§ LORD CHESHAMI was a little worried about how I was going to reply to this Amendment, because it so happens that my noble friend Lord Conesford is my own dictionary, Roget's Thesaurus, lexicon and everything else when I am in trouble, and I go to him when I desire to learn the meaning of a word that I do not understand. It seems to me that I could get mixed up with him in an exercise in semantics in which I should be bound to come off second best. As my noble friend says, this Amendment does not introduce so important a principle as the previous one. But, to put the point briefly, before I expand on it a little further, I think it can definitely be said that if the Board are going to decide to do something because they think it is expedient, then it is going to be reasonably practicable: otherwise, they would probably not decide to do it. On the other hand, everything that is reasonably practicable may well not be expedient. For instance, it may be reasonably practicable, but it may be much too expensive for the circumstances. That, I should have thought, was in essence the difference between the two forms of words.
§ LORD CONESFORDMay I suggest, in the example my noble friend has given, that it might be practicable, but, if it was very expensive, it would not be reasonable.
§ LORD CHESHAMThat brings in the conception of the judgment of the Board, which I should have thought is just what my noble friend is trying to get rid of. If he had just said "practicable", which has a nice ring of common sense about it, there would have been perhaps a certain argument in its favour. But when he says "reasonably practicable", somebody has to judge what is reasonable. I do 45 not want take this too far, but I feel that the word "expedient" is better.
There is some substance in the Amendment, because there is express provision in the Bill for the Board to judge as a subjective matter as to what services and facilities they should provide, and that would be taken away and replaced by an objective criterion of what is reasonably practicable. I think that the new Board, when appointed will be face to face with a very strong pressure group which would derive at least a considerable debating advantage in arguing that Parliament has laid down that the Board shall have an inherent duty to provide inland waterways and port facilities to the maximum extent which is reasonably practicable. That, I am bound to say, will rather cut across the question of what they consider to be expedient. The wording in the Bill follows the wording of the 1953 Act, under which the Commission's duty was to provide such facilities for traffic as might appear to them to be expedient.
On the economic side, I think that the new Board should not be placed in any position regarding finance which would militate against the proper use of their powers and the carrying out of their duty. I hope my noble friend will agree that the advantage of the present wording, "as they may think expedient", is that the provision of the facilities is left to the judgment of the Board, which is the right place to leave it.
LORD REAMight I suggest a compromise between the two noble Lords; that is, instead of the words, "reasonably practicable" the words "practicably reasonable"?
§ LORD CONESFORDI do not think the last suggestion is an improvement. I did not intend, nor did I think I achieved, the purpose of taking the matter outside the judgment of the Board. But I thought that my words would encourage them to regard canals as a good thing which should be supported, if it were at all "reasonably practicable", in contrast to what strike me as the very neutral words, that they should consider which course was more expedient, almost as though there were no bias either way between preservation and abandonment. For that reason, I 46 think that between now and the next stage the exact wording merits rather more consideration, both by Her Majesty's Government and by those of us who seek to improve the wording. But I have no intention of dividing the Committee upon the Amendment at the present moment, and I ask leave to withdraw it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 5.3 p.m.
§ LORD CONESFORD moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "facilities" insert "for traffic". The noble Lord said: I now come to an Amendment which is largely exploratory. By inserting the words "for traffic", I am only restoring the words in the existing law; and the Minister himself will admit that, because he quoted them in answering the first Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids. I read the speech of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport in the Committee stage in another place, and he revealed to the Committee that the words "for traffic" had been left out. He gave no reason why. He said that it was rather doubtful whether they ought to have been left out, and anyway that the matter was highly controversial, and that he was considering whether it would be better with the words or without the words.
§ I do not know what lies behind the omission of these words. I hope that I have an open mind on the subject. If either of the Ministers now in charge of the Bill before this Committee can say why he thinks the words of this paragraph (a), without "for traffic", are better than the words in the existing Statutes, I shall certainly consider very carefully what he says. But I should have thought that, on general principle, it is better not to leave out the words that appear in the existing Statutes unless you find something wrong with them and think they ought to be altered. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 5, after ("facilities") insert ("for traffic").—(Lord Conesford.)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLLMight I ask my noble friend whether the words "for traffic" include pedestrians? If, as I suspect, pedestrians are "traffic", I think it is essential that these words should be included, because, otherwise, 47 towpaths (which nowadays are used virtually only by pedestrians, as there are very few horse-drawn barges left) would be allowed to fall into rack and ruin. The Authority would be providing services and facilities only for canals and inland waterways, and the towpaths would be allowed, perfectly legally, to go to rack and ruin. And that, I think, would be a great pity.
LORD REAMay I support the noble Duke by putting forward the question of amenities in general? Some of these waterways are particularly pleasant, as I am sure the Minister will agree. It therefore seems to me desirable that that aspect of it should, if possible, also come within the purview of the Board, and not merely commercial traffic.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSMay I add that I too feel that it is most important that towpaths should be kept up as part of the navigation. It may seem strange to the noble Lord opposite, but there is a certain amount of waterways traffic on these towpaths. There is a certain amount of towed craft, and a certain amount of pleasure towed craft, both by horse and bow-haulage—that is, manhauled. I have myself bow-hauled boats for many miles.
§ LORD WALSTONThere is one further point, surely, in this. Last week, when we were discussing water, it was specifically stated—I think in the White Paper which we were discussing—that inland waterways might at times be used for carrying water from one river authority to another. That idea clearly has not yet reached a very advanced stage of thinking. It might be that it will be considered worth while, in certain instances, to use inland waterways for that purpose while still retaining them in the ownership of the Inland Waterways Board, rather than hand them over to some other authority. If these words were inserted, it would be almost impossible for the Inland Waterway Board to maintain these very important methods of transferring water from one river authority to another, unless there were also traffic going along them. There may be no need for traffic to go along them but still need for the water to pass.
§ LORD CHESHAMThis is getting very interesting. I must admit that I was relieved when my noble friend opened his remarks by saying that he had put down this Amendment as an exploratory Amendment, as I had pre-considered what I thought I was going to answer to him as a sort of exploratory answer, because I could not really see what it was he wanted to achieve in this Amendment. But now we know that, I would go on to say that I do not think there is any great magic in the matter. My first reaction when I considered my noble friend's Amendment was that it did not seem to make much difference one way or the other, and that if the words proposed were added they would not make much difference to the work of the Board.
Thinking about it a little further, I thought there was a possibility of the words having some limiting effect, in that if the duty is to be related only to the provision of services and facilities for traffic, it might possibly conflict in some way or other with the duty imposed by subsection (2) of the clause to find other uses. I should like to think this matter over, because I am wondering—although, as my noble friend has said, the words were used before and they occur further down in subsection (3) under "powers"—whether it would not on balance be preferable to leave it as it is. Where the point occurs under "duty", I am wondering whether, apart from the water-carrying aspect which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, mentioned, which is certainly an important one, it covers other things like swimming, fishing, houseboat moorings, or something of that kind, which could not really be described as traffic. On balance, my inclination, though perhaps not fighting very hard, would be to suggest to my noble friend that he might not after all wish to put these words in. But in order to forestall him, for once, I should be quite ready to give the matter further consideration between now and a later stage, if he so wishes. But I rather doubt, unless he becomes even more eloquently persuasive than usual, whether I shall find anything very different from what I have already found.
§ LORD CONESFORDWhen I said that this was an exploratory Amendment, that is precisely what I meant. I 49 have a perfectly open mind as to whether the words are better as they stand or with this addition. But I did what I think very few noble Lords in the Committee have done; I read the Minister's speech on this particular clause when the Bill was in Committee in another place. He drew attention to the fact that he had left out these words and had received some correspondence questioning the omission. I thought that somebody would ask at some point what was the reason for the omission. My noble friend Lord Chesham has said very much more than had hitherto been said on the subject. I am content with his assurance that he will give the matter further consideration. I am quite willing to do the same, and in these circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD CHESHAMI beg to move the next Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 11, leave out ("Authority") and ins2rt ("Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
§ LORD CONESFORD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "or converting". The noble Lord said: This Amendment, again, is designed to make it clearer than it is at present that we desire that these waterways shall, if possible, be preserved. If we leave out the words "or converting" it would be open to the authority to take all the steps open to them to achieve their object by developing the inland waterway themselves or by selling or leasing it to other persons. Either of those courses may be desirable in different circumstances. But it seems to me that if they want to convert a waterway in such a manner that it ceases entirely to be a waterway, then they ought to go back to Parliament for that purpose. It may be that this clause does not affect powers at all. I have not looked into the law on the subject to see how far powers are affected by this subsection, but I should have thought that, on general principles, the indication of what was wanted would be better shown if we omitted the words "or converting" than if we left them in. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 17, leave out ("or converting").—(Lord Conesford.)
§ LORD CHESHAMI am grateful to my noble friend for stating his object so concisely, because it enables me also to be fairly concise. I think that if we were to leave out these words it would be unduly hampering on the new Board in making the best possible use of their assets; that is, of their waterways. It might mean that in certain circumstances—for example in connection with pipe-lines, or even road building—they would not have adequate power to do the right thing. I think that powers of redevelopment or building are necessary to this declamatory part of the Bill. With regard to my noble friend's second point, of course these words do not affect the Board's powers. If the Board wishes to close a canal—if, say, it becomes a road, which of course is tantamount to its elimination first by being filled in—I think the Minister will have to go to Parliament for the necessary powers, in exactly the same way as he has had to do up to now. I therefore hope my noble friend will agree to these words remaining in.
§ LORD CONESFORDI certainly do at this stage, with the assurance of my noble friend that the inclusion of the words "or converting" in no way affects powers, or alters the existing position. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD CHESHAMAs we have here seven Amendments relating to exactly the same point in exactly the same clause, I understand that it will be in order if I move them altogether.
§ I beg to move them all.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 10, line 19, leave out ("Inland Waterways Authority") and insert ("British Waterways Board")
§ Page 10, line 28, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Board")
§ Page 10, line 32, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Board")
§ Page 10, line 35, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Board")
§ Page 10, line 44, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Board")
§ Page 11, line 13, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Board")
§ Page 11, line 20, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Board")—(Lord Chesham.)
§ Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
51§ Clause 11:
§ Development of land
§ 11.—(1) Subject to this section, each Board shall have power as they may think fit to retain or dispose of such of their land as is not required for the purposes of their business and to develop their land in such manner as they may think fit.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEThis is a drafting Amendment, to clarify subsection (1) of Clause 11. I beg to move—
Page 11, line 23, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 24.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
§ 5.15 p.m.
§ LORD SILKINI hope I shall be permitted at this stage to talk about Clause 11 as a whole. I must confess that what I am going to say has no particular bearing on the Amendment which the noble Earl has just moved, but it might be convenient if we talked about this clause at this stage—it is as good at this stage as at any other—because it is probably one of the most important clauses in this Bill and, to a certain extent, one of the most controversial. In my view, and I have studied it quite a lot, the clause is badly drafted. It does not carry out what I think is in tended and it carries out things that are not intended. Let me just deal with that aspect of it. It understand that it is not the intention of the Government that the Boards shall be able to carry out development of the surplus lands themselves. Nevertheless, the rubric says Development of land, and Clause 11 (1) says they may
develop their land in such manner as they may think fit"—which is very far from imposing any limitation on their use of their land. Subsection (3) of the same clause provides that they must not carry outany substantial item of expenditure in developing their land"—in spite of developing it "in such manner as they may think fit"—for purposes which are not the purposes of their business without the consent of the Minister",and the Minister may define what is "a substantial item of expenditure".I really think that all this needs careful looking at again in order that the clause may be made more specific as to what is the real intention of the Government regarding the disposal of land. 52 Are the Boards to be allowed to develop this land as they think fit, or are they to be required to go to the Minister if they want to develop, without any criterion being laid down as to what development they may be permitted to carry out? Would they be enabled, for instance, under Clause 11, to do a deal with the two great property men, whose names I will not mention, and dispose of their land to them as part of a bargain with them to develop the land, with the Boards taking a share of the profits? All these things seem to me very vague indeed, and they require elucidation. I have an Amendment down later on, which I will move but probably not speak on to any extent, since I am making my speech now, which asks the Government to take this clause back, not because I want to take the powers away from the Government—that is, from the Boards—to dispose of their land, but because I should like the Government to look at the clause again and be a little clearer and more specific.
There is one other point I should like to deal with at this stage, and that is the powers which are conferred upon the Boards for disposing of their existing land and not necessarily redeveloping it themselves. I referred to this subject on the Second Reading, and the only answer I had from the noble Lord, Lord Mills, in reply to a fairly long, detailed and, I am afraid, somewhat technical speech was that the Boards would have to get planning permission for anything they want to do. With great respect, that is not strictly accurate. There are some kinds of transaction which would not require planning consent. For instance, if one of the railway undertakings had a warehouse, or a factory or block of offices, they could, under the Town and Country Planning Acts, dispose of them to some purchaser without having to get planning consent at all. Section 12 of the Town and Country Planning Act defines what is development and, therefore, the occasions when permission has to be obtained; and under this section certain uses are not development. One of them is where it is proposed to use premises within the same class; for instance, if they are seeking to dispose of industrial premises which are zoned 53 for general industry, then they can dispose of those premises for any other kind of industry that is within that use class, without having to get planning permission at all. If they have a block of offices which they want to dispose of as being surplus to their requirements, they can dispose of that to any undertaking which proposes to use it as offices. So it is not strictly correct to say that planning permission always has to be obtained for any kind of disposal of their premises.
On the other hand, they would have to obtain planning permission if they were going to dispose of their premises in respect of any use which represents a change of use. If, for instance, they wished to convert a warehouse into a block of offices, even though it meant no alteration to the external appearance of the building and merely required internal alterations, they would still have to get planning permission. Or if they wanted to make an alteration to their premises even within the existing use, such as substantial additions, then they would have to get planning permission.
The problem I want to put to the Government is a two-fold one. In a great many cases the existing use of these premises is one which it would be undesirable to perpetuate in the public interest. For instance, if there is a block of offices in existence it would be undesirable, certainly in the case of Central London, to dispose of those buildings for the purpose of their use as offices. It may be more desirable from the point of view of the London Plan, or the Birmingham Plan, that those buildings should be pulled down and the site used for the erection of dwellings. The same would apply to any other use which is permitted. The question therefore arises whether there should be some control over the disposal of those premises in respect of which no planning permission is required. Unless there is some such control, then it would be possible for those premises to be disposed of and for the purchaser to carry on with the existing use, without having to ask any permission whatever, and we should then be perpetuating or increasing the evil, certainly in places like London, which we are most anxious to prevent: that is, an increase in the amount of office accommodation or the 54 amount of industrial use within Central London. That is my first point on that question. I hope I am making myself clear; I am trying hard, and it is not an easy subject.
There is another class of case, and that is the one where a change of use is involved; to take an example, a warehouse which the purchaser desires to acquire for the purpose either of pulling down and building offices or converting into offices. That, as I said earlier, is something for which planning permission would be necessary, because it involves a change of use. This matter comes before the planning authority and they are in this difficulty. If they refuse permission, I am not sure, but they may be involved in having to pay heavy compensation. I am certain that they would be involved in paying compensation if they had the power to refuse permission in respect of an existing user; but I am not quite so certain about the compensation in respect of a change of user. But if one takes it as a fact, then in certain circumstances the local planning authority would be involved in compensation for refusing something which is against the public interest.
As I said on Second Reading, undoubtedly in the large towns it is against the public interest to increase the amount of office accommodation. Indeed, in normal cases where a person desires to build new offices in London and is refused planning permission, the odds are a thousand to one that if he appeals he will be refused. It would be anomalous if in the case of the surplus buildings the railway undertakers were in a more favourable position than a private person. I therefore want to ask the Government whether they have considered this question of compensation. Undoubtedly, in a great many cases—and I put it quite generally—the local planning authority, if they refuse permission for the existing user or even for the change of user, will be involved in compensation. Undoubtedly it will be heavy, and it is my view that the liability for that compensation should be on the undertakers and not on the local authority. After all, the statutory undertakers are being given a new privilege, a new right to dispose of their land. It will help them greatly, and in a great many cases, possibly the majority, they will reap the benefit of it. So long as they can do it 55 within the compass of the national interest, by all means let them do it.
I should not particularly object to their being allowed to develop as well. But that is a matter which is Government policy. All I am asking on that is that it should be made clear. But in cases where it is against the public interest, then I submit that they ought not to be entitled to be paid compensation for not being allowed to do something which is admittedly against the public interest. This clause makes no provision about that. I do not know whether the framers of the clause have ever considered that position, but it is one which I know is giving many local authorities concerned a great deal of apprehension. So I feel that perhaps the wisest thing would be for the Government to take back this clause, to look at it again in the light of my observations, and to come back with a revised clause. On the other hand, if they were to give an undertaking that they would look at all these matters between now and the Report stage, I think we might arrive at exactly the same result—I should not wish to be dogmatic about moving the Amendment to delete the clause. But I certainly think that, whichever way it is done, this needs a good deal more consideration.
LORD HAWKEI, too, have an Amendment to delete the clause. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has taken the most unusual step of speaking at the beginning rather than at the end of the debate on the clause, and I suppose that I ought to follow suit and say why I want to delete the clause. My reasons are not wildly dissimilar to his, but they are slightly different.
§ LORD CONESFORDMay I say that, like my noble friend Lord Hawke, I am a little disconcerted by the course that has been taken by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has raised matters of the greatest importance on which he speaks with great authority. I have a most important Amendment down to this clause. It is Amendment No. 62, and it has been down for as long as any. It is an Amendment to which I attach the greatest importance, as indeed I think do noble Lords in all quarters. I should have thought that the logical thing would be that we should discuss that Amendment 56 and know its fate before we decide whether we wish the clause to be omitted or not, or even before my noble friend Lord Hawke decides whether he wants it omitted or not. I am in the hands of the Committee, but it seems to me that my own Amendment and the discussion on it are greatly prejudiced if we discuss the fate of the clause before we know what the clause will be.
§ LORD SILKINPerhaps I might explain. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, was good enough to talk to me about his Amendment, for which I have a good deal of sympathy. But I think it is too narrow. It does not deal with the whole of the problems that I put forward, and I felt it might be in the interests of the Committee to have the whole picture of all the difficulties I find in this clause, rather than for me to confine myself in discussion to the more narrow aspect of it.
§ LORD CONESFORDI only wish to say that that shows the wisdom of the procedure in this House and in another place, whereby you take things in proper order, taking the Amendment to the clause before taking the clause. The last thing I wish to do is to deny or question the importance of anything said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for whose knowledge of this subject I have the highest respect; but it puts me in a considerable difficulty to know whether to intervene on my Amendment now or when we reach it.
§ LORD MERRIVALEMay I take this opportunity to ask one question of noble Lords opposite—namely, whether the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Stonham, propose to move Amendment No. 61?
§ LORD SHEPHERDCertainly.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI should like just to say that I am completely in the hands of your Lordships about this. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, put his observations about the clause standing part, for reasons which I think he explained in a clear and interesting fashion, because he said he thought it would save time. If I attempted to reply to the noble Lord now, I should also do 57 so in a manner which I would hope might save time, and that would involve the discussion of certain points which I am sure will arise both on the Amendments of my noble friend Lord Conesford and also on Amendment No. 61. I think they are all linked up with each other.
As for procedure, your Lordships are masters of your own procedure to a much greater extent than is another place. Your Lordships can make your own rules, more or less, as we go along, and if your Lordships would like me to give a general reply to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, now that would of course not preclude us from a full discussion on Amendments Nos. 61 and 62. On the other hand, it might shorten the discussion on those Amendments if we can still remember what was said on this discussion by the time we reach them. If the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would like me to reply now, and if your Lordships are in agreement with that, I will try to do it. If the noble Lord would prefer to wait for my reply until we have discussed the other Amendments, I am equally agreeable to take that course.
§ LORD SILKINI personally would prefer the noble Earl to reply now, while my weighty observations are still fresh in his mind.
§ LORD MOLSONWe seem to be having a discussion on whether the clause shall stand part, before we have reached the Amendments. I am not sure that that is a convenient way to deal with the matter. Certainly it is the opposite of what is logical. But in view of the fact that we have had a considerable discussion, I wonder whether it might not be convenient for my noble friends Lord Hawke and Lord Conesford to make their general observations upon the clause, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has done. I make this suggestion only because we seem to be halfway through the debate now.
§ LORD CONESFORDIf, in the opinion of Lord Silkin and my noble friend, it is the convenient course that the Minister shall make a general statement now, of course I do not want to interfere. But what I cannot possibly do is to agree that my Amendment shall not be separately considered, considered 58 on its merits, argued on its merits and, if necessary, be made the subject of a Division. I make no disguise whatsoever of the importance I attach to it, and therefore I shall not speak until my Amendment is reached, though I may wish to speak again when either my noble friend Lord Hawke or the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, move the deletion of the clause.
§ LORD STONHAMI should tell the noble Lord at this stage that we on this side would wish to move separately, and have separate consideration of, our Amendment No. 61.
§ LORD SILKINCertainly.
§ LORD SHEPHERDBut are we not in some difficulty? We have a clause which my noble friend has spoken to, but we have what may be a major Amendment in the name of the Government, Amendment No. 61A. Which clause are we talking about? Is it the one that is in the Bill as it now stands, or as the Government propose to amend it after discussion?
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI should like to please everybody. We do not usually have discussions on the clause standing part, unless some Members of your Lordships' House desire either to divide against the whole clause or to ask for some explanation of that clause, and an Amendment to leave out a particular clause is very often a convenient peg on which to hang a request for information. I think I could perfectly well give information about the clause now; then, if when we reach the Motion, Whether the clause shall stand part, some of your Lordships wish to vote against the clause, it would of course be perfectly proper that we should have a Division upon it. We could, meanwhile, have a further discussion, if your Lordships wished, although one would hope that, since the noble Lord has now made his observations, that might perhaps not be necessary.
I fully agree that the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Conesford is of great importance, and I shall do my best not to anticipate any of the arguments he may want to put forward; although it may perhaps be hoped that anything we say now about the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will not have 59 the effect of lengthening subsequent discussions, because they may make clear certain things which movers of Amendments might like to find out. I think that that also applies to Amendment No. 61, which is to be moved by the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Shepherd.
LORD REAIs it the intention of the noble Earl to speak to Amendment No. 63 now, in the inclusive sense taking in the others? With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, it does not seem sufficient reason for us to deviate from the ordinary practice of taking Amendments one by one in their proper order.
§ LORD SILKINI personally was not asking for any Amendment to be taken now other than the Amendment that is before the Committee at this moment. Although I explained at the outset that perhaps I was going a little wide of that particular Amendment, all that the Committee is going to decide upon at the end of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mills, is whether the Government Amendment No. 60A should or should not be accepted. It does not prejudice any others.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEIf your Lordships will allow it, I will not make a lengthy speech on this occasion, but, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, may I make a few general observations on this drafting Amendment which I have moved, without prejudice to anything that may be said or decided on subsequent Amendments, or on the final question as to whether or not your Lordships wish this clause to stand part of the Bill? I appreciate very much the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to save time, and if his well-meaning suggestion of procedure should have the opposite effect I am sure that will not be his fault. At any rate, let us all try to co-operate in the noble Lord's desire to save what time we can.
I would first of all say that the need for this clause in particular arises from the statutory background under the Transport Act, 1947, which has a considerable adverse effect on the Commission's powers of development. By reason of that Act the Commission are under a heavy disability which does not 60 apply to other people who may want to develop land. That arises from the third proviso to Section 2 (2) of the 1947 Act, whose effect is to preclude the Traffic Commission from building anything which is not required for the purpose of their own undertaking. What we want to do in this Bill is to put the Railways Board and the other Boards in exactly the same position, not having any privileges and not having any disabilities which are not shared by any other individuals who desire to develop land.
Lord Silkin said that the language of this clause—whose intention, I would impress upon your Lordsihips, is really very simple—does not make that intention clear. I have read what the noble Lord said on the Second Reading debate—I have the OFFICIAL REPORT here—and I have listened with interest to what he has just said. He asked whether we would take the clause back and look at it again in the light of his remarks. Well, we have these few drafting Amendments, the first of which we are on now, and the other three or four which I shall move a little later, all of which have been designed to clarify, as I think they do, the clause to a certain extent. But even if the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, had not asked us to do so, we should of course have looked carefully through this clause with particular reference to what the noble Lord has said both on Second Reading and now on this Amendment, and we shall most certainly do that. We know that the noble Lord's intention, as ours is, is to improve the Bill and we shall certainly look at it again and, if necessary, consult with him further before the next stage in order to see whether we can make it any clearer. In the meantime, I should like to tell your Lordships of its general intention.
I might perhaps save a little time if I were to refer to the last subsection of Clause 14, which declares that
those provisions"—that is, the powers conferred upon any Board which are contained, among other clauses, in this Clause 11—relate only to the capacity of the Boards as statutory corporations, and nothing in those provisions shall be construed as authorising the disregard by any of the Boards of any enactment or rule of law.61 Then, in Clause 85, the application of the Town and Country Planning Acts to these powers of the Board is more carefully defined in detail. I do not want to anticipate later discussion—I may perhaps inevitably impinge to a slight extent on future Amendments—but the noble Lord suggested that the Town and Country Planning Acts, as they are now, might enable the Board to do certain things which he thinks it would not be in the public interest for them to do. If that is so (and I took a careful note of all the examples the noble Lord gave) the position in regard to the Board is no different in any way from the position in regard to any individual or any body which owns land.It seems to me that, if we want to prevent the Railways Board from doing these things, we must have, not a new Transport Bill but a new Town and Country Planning Bill. What we prevent the Board from doing we must prevent other people from doing. We do not take the view that we ought to discriminate against the Railways Board by preventing them from doing things which other people are allowed to do. They are to be subject to exactly the same controls under the Town and Country Planning Acts as anybody else. The noble Lord asked, in particular, whether they can develop as they think fit, like anyone else, under the Planning Acts. The answer is: Yes, they can do it in exactly the same way as anybody else can. They are also, of course, subject to exactly the same planning controls as anybody else is.
We do not contemplate that the Board should be allowed to use the land, if it is developed for some purpose other than whatever undertaking the Board are engaged in, but they should have full powers to arrange for it to be developed; and their position in regard to compensation will be the same as that of any other possessor of land. I will not pursue that point, because I think my noble friend Lord Conesford may wish to bring it up specially on his Amendment, and I think it would be a pity if we were now to bring in particular points of detail like that. Any material alteration of the use or external appearance of any of the Railway Boards' property would need planning permission, in exactly the same way as the property of any other people. We 62 considered the question of compensation, and the Boards again will be in the same position; no better and no worse than an ordinary private developer. They will get no favourable treatment and no special compensation in any way. That, again, is made clear, I think, in Clause 85.
I do not want to say more than this, because I want to try to combine what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was trying to do with what some of your Lordships who have Amendments of your own would like to do. I do not want to frustrate the purpose of either the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, or any of your Lordships who are proposing to move Amendments to this clause. I hope that I have made clear the general purpose of the clause. It has no other purpose beyond that which I have tried to explain. I would repeat that we shall be delighted before the next stage of the Bill to collaborate with the noble Lord in trying to make the clause clearer, which we have already tried to do to a small extent by this and a few other drafting Amendments. I now suggest that we should put the Question on the Amendment to which I am speaking.
§ 5.52 p.m.
§
LORD CHAMPION moved to add to subsection (1):
Provided that the Board shall not dispose of any land—
§ The noble Lord said: The last discussion has been something of a revelation to me: the fact that we can in this House adjust the normal method of dealing with things in such a way as to permit a discussion of the clause on what was the opening Amendment on the clause. I cannot complain of this. Actually, I should think it makes things easier in some ways, but in other ways, perhaps more difficult. I have been brought up in the other way of doing things and have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, in this regard. However, I am in something of a difficulty myself, because I am here 63 moving an Amendment which applies to words which have now been left out of this subsection.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEMay I on that point suggest that if the noble Lord would like to discuss this Amendment together with Amendment No. 71, which is on exactly the same point—I understand that is the intention of noble Lords who have put it down—it would not be necessary to worry about what has been left out.
§ LORD CHAMPIONI thank the noble Earl. I am grateful for that. But I was thinking that it would be well, in any case, despite the omission which has been agreed to by the Committee, to discuss Amendment No. 61 in principle. That is what we intended to do, and the principle will apply to the later Amendment mentioned by the noble Earl.
It is true that we say of this Bill that, in some instances, it is in its character unnecessarily restrictive on the Boards. This was argued at some length by my noble friends on Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill, in relation to the London Board. Our argument ran at that time: "why restrict the London Board so that it cannot re-enter the profitable contract carriage field of operation, or otherwise profitably use its fleets of vehicles in the off-peak periods?" We then said: "Give the London Board commercial freedom to compete in that field." But, having said that, it may seem strange that we are here attempting to move into the Bill a restrictive Amendment—and this is, of course, a restrictive Amendment. But the restriction we propose to have included in the Bill here is merely a delaying one. It would impose merely a little additional delay on the Board, or Boards, when they were thinking of selling their land.
There may be some argument here about what is reasonable. What does "reasonable" mean in this context? But that, of course, is a word which is not unknown in legislation, and is, in fact, used in this Bill, as is the related "unreasonable". We have put the word "reasonable" into our Amendment rather than attempt to state a time limit. If we had said "six weeks" or some such time, that might have proved wholly reasonable in connection with the sate of one parcel of land, but quite 64 unreasonable in relation to the sale of another parcel of land.
What we are here trying to do is not to establish the mechanics but the principle involved. The principle is that there shall be consultation between the Boards before any one of the Boards sell their land. Throughout the passage of the Bill in another place the Minister said constantly that what the Government were trying to do was to ensure that there should be co-ordination between the Boards in appropriate cases, and the Government said quite often: "We have ensured this by various means, including the Nationalised Transport Advisory Committee" It would seem to us to be wholly reasonable that, in disposing of land there should be consultation between the Boards before land was actually disposed of by any one of them.
The first part of the Amendment deals with the powers being granted to sell land only in so far as any parcel of land may be of use to another Board or a nationalised undertaking. It may well be, for example, that the Railways Board will consider a parcel of land surplus to their requirements, but it may prove on examination by another Board to be so situated that it could advantageously be used by that Board for their purposes. In such a case, it would seem to us to be desirable that that Board should have the advantage of being informed of the Railways Board's intention to sell—that one Board should know what the other Board intend to do with their land.
I am sure I need not go into a lot of detail here about the advantages that may flow from this, or, indeed, the circumstances in which one Board ought to know what the other Board are doing in this connection. A bus holding, for example, as part of the Holding Company, and therefore a part of the nationalised undertaking, may well see the advantage of land in close proximity to a station, which might be sold by the railways, being used by them for the purpose of a garage or of a bus station. This is a distinct possibility. The Electricity Board might find that it would be advantageous in the public interest to use for a sub-station or something of that sort land which was to be disposed of by the Railways Board. 65 The National Coal Board may require the land for any one of its purposes, It is the case, of course, that the coal mines are usually situated alongside railway property, and sometimes the use of a little bit of land now in the possession of the Railways Board may be of considerable advantage to the Coal Board for its purposes. I am sure that many other purposes in this connection will suggest themselves to Members of this Committee.
There would also seem to me to be cases where the other Boards, upon learning of the Railways Board's intention to sell, could see that such a parcel of land could be used jointly with some advantage to both Boards. Such a situation, it seems to me, is foreseen to some extent in the Bill itself, for in Clause 14 (1) (b) we read:
Subject to this Act, the Boards shall 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".That is a sensible provision, but it would be much more sensible if one Board were enjoined to consult the other before selling land that might well prove to be so situated that the words of that subsection would apply to it—that is, that it could be jointly used. It would seem to me to be wise that, before selling land, this sort of joint usage of that land should be considered. A Board other than the Railways Board might well have a proposition in this connection which they could put forward for the use of the land to the national advantage. It is not impossible to envisage circumstances in which such an arrangement might well apply. But certainly there must be cases where, even if it meant the outright sale of a piece of land, it would be to the national advantage if a Board wishing to sell land were to advise the nationalised undertakings.As to the second part of our Amendment, it seems to me to be reasonable that, when nationally-owned land is up for sale, it should first be offered to the highway authority. Highway authorities are hungry for land for purposes which are glaringly obvious to all. Subsection (1) of Clause 11 is framed mainly, I think, to permit the Railways Board 66 to dispose of land which will prove surplus to their requirements as the railways shrink under the impact of Dr. Beeching and increased road competition. Stations will be closed and goods depôts will cease to function as the railhead system develops. Branch lines are going, and, at the same time, highway authorities are seeking more and more land for their essential purposes. They want land for car parks; they badly need land for car parks, if the traffic of our towns and cities is not to be brought to a standstill by the cluttering up of our roads with vehicles on the sides of them. They also want land for highway developments.
There is an example of this in my home town at this very moment. A highway development is taking place on the main road between Pontypridd and the Rhondda Valley. Houses are being demolished and the existing road widened at the cost of nearly £200,000, while just across the river there is a derelict section of the old Barry railway wide enough, for a much longer part than the length in question, to take a road with at least four lanes of traffic. So that here we see a development taking place at the bottom of this comparatively narrow valley involving the expenditure of all this money, while just across the river there is a derelict section of an old railway owned, as it will be, by the Railways Board, which could be used for developing the highway system to this Rhondda Valley.
I do not pretend to know why it was not used for the purposes of a road, but I do know that, soon after it was abandoned for railway purposes, all the bridges carrying it over various small roads, et cetera, were demolished. That seemed to me to be a crazy thing to do. I would add only that the road widening which is taking place will be quite inadequate for the traffic it will have to carry in a few years' time, even if it is adequate immediately. Clearly, this is the sort of land that ought to be offered to the highway authority for highway purposes before it is sold for other uses.
I am not for one moment suggesting that these Boards should be expected to sell their land at a price below market value, either to another Board or to a highway authority: the transaction must 67 be on a commercial basis. But in the national interests other Boards and highway authorities should be given the right of first refusal. That is all we are asking in this connection: that the other Boards should be consulted and that they should be given this right of first refusal.
I read the debate in another place, and it seemed to me that the main argument against an Amendment having some similarity to this was that it would restrict the commercial freedom of the Boards. I must say that that appears to me to be a flimsy argument, especially coming from those who say that these undertakings must be wholly commercial in outlook, but that they are to be restricted when the competition would affect privately-owned bus companies or, as we shall see later, if they attempt to use their vast workshops in competition with manufacturing interests. All we are asking here, as I have said, is that reasonable notice of an intention to sell should be given to other Boards and to highway authorities. A slight delay only would ensue as a result of this Amendment. I seem to remember that the Government themselves, when they were disposing of land after the war, decided and expected that Departments would consult others before finally disposing of the land that had come into their possession as a result of the war, and before deciding the use to which land should be put at that time. That is all we ask in this Amendment: that there should be reasonable consultation, and that there should be this notice of intention before the Board finally decide to sell to someone else.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 25, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Champion.)
§ 6.10 p.m.
§ LORD MERRIVALEI should like to support this Amendment, in particular with regard to the notification to highway authorities, and also in regard to notification by the Railways Board to, for instance, the London Board. As your Lordships are well aware, the problem of land acquisition for new routes in urban areas is one of extreme difficulty. As has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, there is an urgent need for new roads and for park- 68 ing accommodation. I would say that this need for parking accommodation is particularly great, as it could contribute to assisting the flow of traffic, and I have in mind particularly the flow of public transport.
Although I deprecate the closure of railway lines or the abandonment of railway lines, I feel there may be an opportunity here for the London Board, in order to develop such land which might become available owing to the closure of railway lines in urban areas, particularly London, to introduce the principle which is so successful in America of fast transit. Disused land or old railway lines could be converted to fast transit; in other words, using a reserve track, and developing the system which is so prevalent and successful in America of "park and ride". I feel there is an opportunity here for the other Boards to acquire railway land without going through the usual complex and lengthy consultations which are necessary for land to be used for through traffic routes; and I think the Committee would be unwise to let go by this opportunity whereby others who might be interested in using the land for initiating through traffic routes could acquire such land. It is for those reasons that I support this Amendment.
§ 6.12 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEThe noble Lord who moved this Amendment, with, if I may say so, a very persuasive and eloquent speech, spoke once or twice of the right of other Boards to have the first refusal of any land which the Railways Board, or any one of the Boards, were going to dispose of. That is not what the Amendment says. It proposes only that the Board shall not dispose of any land without giving notice to the Boards or any other nationalised undertakings of their intentions, and without giving reasonable notice to appropriate highway authorities. The giving of notice would not compel the Board who were disposing of their land to dispose of it to one of the other Boards or undertakings, which I should have thought would certainly be an unreasonable restriction of their freedom to make the best use of their own property, although the noble Lord did say that the other Boards which he would like to see with a right of option should pay what I think he intended to be the 69 highest market price. I understood that that was what he was advocating: that they should, not get it cheaper than anybody else who was willing to buy it.
We feel that this would place some commercial and administrative disability on the Boards in making the best economic use of their property. Of course, if the land were likely to be required by a Board or undertaking, and if they were likely to be the best purchaser, naturally the Board would consult them about it. But to put them under a statutory obligation to consult all the other Boards, even if it did not take very much time, would, I think, be a restriction which would not be balanced by any particular good to the public, who might assume that the other nationalised undertakings and Boards, although not necessarily interested in the property which was being disposed of, were being put in a different position from other persons, bodies or corporations which were not nationalised undertakings but which might want to develop the land. There does not seem to be any particular reason why the Board should be compelled to give to the other Boards a preference which they do not want to give.
When the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made his remarks a few moments ago, I hoped that I should be able to reciprocate his desire to save time. I would again remind your Lordships of the passage which I read out in the last paragraph of Clause 14, which makes it plain that the Boards are always subject, in exactly the same way as everybody else, to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts. So if the Board were going to dispose of their property, they would have to get planning permission if the property was going to be used for some purpose different from its existing use; and, of course, if it was not the Board would probably develop it themselves. But the Board have to do that, and that, in itself, gives other Boards an opportunity of considering whether they would like to make an offer to acquire the land of which the disposing Board want to get rid.
I would also remind your Lordships of the provisions of Clause 56, with particular reference to highway authorities. When the Railways Board or the London Board are proposing to discontinue passenger 70 services at any station or on any line, they have to publish, not less than six weeks before carrying that proposal into effect, on two successive weeks in two local newspapers circulating in the area affected, a notice giving particulars of the proposed closure. Therefore if, as the noble Lord said, closure of railways would often make available land which was suitable for development of highways, the highway authority would have plenty of opportunity to see what was being done. Then, again, according to line 15 on page 58, when a notice has been published, any body representing users may lodge a protest. That will give time and publicity to what is being done. If I may once more mention the ordinary law under the Town and Country Planning Acts with respect to planning permission, I would point out that in the event of disposal the machinery under those Acts would inevitably make the highway authority aware of what was happening if they wished to acquire any part of, let us say, the Railways Board's land for their own purposes.
May I end by repeating what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin? We are trying in this clause to give exactly the same freedom to the Railways Board and the other Boards as is enjoyed by any individual or company or corporation which owns land in this country and which wishes either to develop it or to sell it or lease it for development to another body or person. We think that it is right that they should have the power to do that. If we do not want them to abuse that power, then we have the procedure of the Town and Country Planning Acts to prevent them from abusing it. Again, I submit to your Lordships that if we think that these powers are not sufficient to prevent any development which is not in the public interest, surely it is the Town and Country Planning Acts, and not the Transport Acts, which should be amended, otherwise we are going to put the Transport Boards in a disadvantageous position, and it is a disadvantage which may be paid for heavily by the taxpayer. It is not fair to charge the Boards with the duty of running their businesses and trying to make them pay, if we put them at a disadvantage compared with other people who are allowed to develop their property to the best economic advantage. 71 Everybody should be subject to the same law and if we do not think that the law is right, we ought to change it for everybody and not for the Transport Boards alone.
LORD HAWKEMay I ask the noble Earl one question about advantages and privileges? Are the Board subject to compulsory purchase order for any land they do not want for their own purposes?
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEIf, for instance, the Railways Board were going to sell a piece of land they do not want—they can only develop it themselves for the purposes of their own business—and they thought it could perhaps be better used for offices, which is one of the things we are anxious to guard against, they must conform with the Town and Country Planning Act with regard to that. If a local authority want to acquire the land from the person to whom the Board have sold it, they can do so and prevent development which they consider is not desirable.
LORD HAWKEBut a local authority cannot issue a compulsory purchase order for land for which the railways no longer have any use?
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI think they can do that now under this Bill. I should like to be able to give my noble friend the exact reference in the Bill and shall do my best to get it before we are finished with this debate. What we are doing is to put the Transport Board in exactly the same position as everybody else in respect of town and country planning.
LORD WALERANI should like to ask the noble Earl to give us an assurance on this. Are we to take it that the Board can sell land to somebody else and then the local authority can make a compulsory purchase order? We are frightened that the Board may sell land and that somebody will come forward with a compulsory purchase order afterwards.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEIf the land were sold without planning permission, that would be subject to the land's being used for the same purpose as it was used for before sale. Then the onus for getting planning permission would be on 72 the purchaser and it would be his lookout.
§ LORD WALSTONI must say that I find the noble Earl's arguments unconvincing. It is true that there is no desire to place any of these Boards in a position worse than that of a private or public company when it comes to selling their assets. But, as the noble Earl mentioned, we must look on the taxpayer as, in effect, a shareholder in all these nationalised industries. The Boards share the same shareholders. I would think that, under private enterprise, a well-run company, which might be part of a group of companies all of whom have the same shareholders though different boards of management, when giving up a factory or piece of land sees whether any other member of the same group wants it before offering it to the general public.
That is no more than what is being asked for in this case. It is a perfectly sound and reasonable business thing to do. It is being done at the present time perfectly reasonably by the Ministry of Works. The Ministry are the effectual owners of a considerable number of properties occupied by Government Departments. If one of these is to be given up by the Department which is using it, other Government Departments are notified in case they may need it before it is either handed back, if under requisition, or disposed of in some other way. Surely that is the right way of looking after the interests of the taxpayer?
Similarly, before any Government Department or para-Government Department which requires property for a new office building is entitled to go out into the open market and buy, it has to go to the Ministry of Works to find out whether there is available any suitable place or site which is already under Government control. This works well. It may cause a little delay, but no doubt it is a reasonable provision in the interests of the taxpayer and it seems to me that what my noble friend Lord Champion has suggested is simply an extension of this; it will in no way place the Railways Board at a disadvantage and will facilitate a fair market price, just as if the sale were to the highest bidder.
Before the Board dispose of a disused railway station, it will be advised of the 73 correct market price and eventually put it on the market at that price. Surely, from the point of view of the taxpayer—and I emphasise that—it is far better that that railway station should be made available to another body. For instance, if the London Passenger Transport Board knew it was there, it might fit in with their plans, and they should have the first option on it. Nobody will be the loser, except possibly some outside private company who desire to make a profit out of it, in effect at the taxpayers' expense. If they bought it, a few weeks later the London Board might find that they needed this station and have to buy it back or find a less suitable and more expensive place elsewhere. Not only is this Amendment putting sound business practice into effect, as it is carried out by all well-run groups of businesses, but it is not putting any particular hardship on any particular Board.
§ LORD SILKINThe noble Earl, I thought, took his stand on two principles. The first is that the Railways Board should be in no worse and no different a position from that of other owners of land. I understand that principle, but in fact it is not carried out in this clause. There are a good many limitations contained in Clause 11 and the Boards are not in exactly the same position as anybody else. For instance, Clause 11 (3) limits them by providing that they cannot incur substantial items of expenditure in developing their land without getting the consent of the Minister. Subsection (4) likewise limits them quite considerably, because they cannot buy adjoining land which they may need, and which may be of advantage to them, without getting the consent of the Minister. This goes much further and says that in certain circumstances the Minister must not give his consent. Whether that is right, I am not at the moment arguing. But is the noble Earl quite right in saying that he is putting the railway bodies in exactly the same position as anybody else? He is not; he is limiting them. All we are proposing is a minor limitation which we regard as being in the public interest.
The noble Earl did not direct his speech particularly to the nationalised undertakings, but he thought that somehow, through the ordinary machinery of the Town and Country Planning Act, 74 the highway authorities would get to learn of the fact that land was about to be disposed of. That would, however, be true only in certain circumstances. It is true that there is internal communication between the town planning committees of a local authority and the highways committee while an application for planning approval is being considered. But, as the noble Earl himself recognised, there are many cases where planning permission is not required, and it would be quite possible for the railway undertaking to be negotiating, and even entering into a contract, for the sale of land, before the highway authority got to know about it. I would ask the noble Earl to have another look at this point and see whether any great harm would be done—and, indeed, whether good would not be effected, as my noble friend has just pointed out, in the public interest—if these particular bodies referred to in the Amendment had an opportunity of considering for themselves whether they needed the land.
§ 6.33 p.m.
§ LORD MOLSONI hope that the noble Earl will consider what has been said on this point. I think the reply he gave earlier indicated that in most circumstances if land was intended to be disposed of the disposing authority or Board would wish to publicise the fact as widely as possible, with a view to obtaining the highest price; but I can imagine circumstances in which the information might not come to one of the other Boards. The noble Earl has said that it is the desire of the Government that there should be co-operation in these matters. As he has pointed out, the Amendment does not provide that another Board should have any right of pre-emption or of acquiring at less than the price which would be obtained elsewhere. I should have thought it would be in accordance with the general policy of ensuring that every public concern likely to be interested should have the information if he would consider, if not now at a later stage, accepting something on the lines of this Amendment in order to ensure that these Boards, who are discharging important public functions, should be informed before land is disposed of.
§ LORD CONESFORDI should like to support what my noble friend has said. 75 It seems to me that the essential truth about this clause is that we are giving new powers to Boards which they do not at present possess. There is, therefore, nothing whatever illogical in putting in such safeguards as are required to see that the public interest is not thereby injured. I do not think this present Amendment will do as it stands, because, among other things, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, pointed out, as the result of a previous Amendment it is now in the wrong place. Nevertheless, I support what my noble friend Lord Molson has said and think that this should be looked at further and something inserted at a later stage.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI should like, first, to refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said about Clause 11 (3) and (4). The purpose there is not to restrict the freedom of the Board in development of their property, but to control their expenditure of capital. We think it right that the Minister should have power to control the extent to which the Board incur new capital expenditure, especially on any business which they are not undertaking themselves. The Minister has power to control the money they spend on the acquisition of land and on the development of land themselves.
I am still a little inclined to feel that this Amendment would be either unnecessary or else hampering to the freedom of the Boards to make the best economic use of their property. However, I see the force of the arguments which your Lordships have used. I have already told the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in reply to what he said about the clause as a whole, that we should be glad to consider any methods of improving it; and I shall certainly be glad also to ask my right honourable friend the Minister to reconsider this Amendment, as I have been asked to do, both by noble Lords opposite and by the noble Lords, Lord Molson and Lord Conesford, in what I thought was a very reasonable and persuasive way. I could not undertake to accept now an Amendment of this kind, which, as my noble friend pointed out, would not, in any case, be the right form; but in view of what has been said by your Lordships, 76 I will gladly ask my colleagues to reconsider the matter.
§ LORD CHAMPIONHaving regard to the graceful undertaking given by the noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI beg to move the next Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 11, leave out lines 27 to 31 and insert—
with a view to selling or otherwise disposing of any right or interest in the land or, as the case may be, the buildings after the development is carried out.")—(The Earl of Dundee.)
§ 6.38 p.m.
§
LORD CONESFORD moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
( ) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsections (1) and (2) of this Section, no Board shall have power to develop any part of their land within the County of London to provide office accommodation not required for their own business, unless the Minister of Housing and Local Government certifies that he is satisfied that by the time such office accommodation is available for use an equivalent amount of existing office accommodation within the said County will have been converted to residential use.
§ The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. I would remind the Committee that this clause which I am proposing to amend gives new powers to the Boards which they do not at present have. My Amendment does not oppose granting those powers in general. What it seeks to do is to provide a statutory prohibition of a development Which would be disastrous. When new powers are sought by public bodies it is perfectly logical to say: "We will put in such a safeguard as to ensure that the new power does not go too far and harm the public interest." The fact is that, in the opinion of all who have studied the suibject, the growth of office employment in the County of London now threatens disaster. It threatens the standard of living of millions of people, 77 and it threatens the life and efficiency of our capital city. The continued growth of the numbers who have to travel into and out of London daily will within a measurable period bring London to a complete standstill.
§ Those facts are known generally to those who have studied the matter. We are quite right, when new powers are sought which may have the effect of making this development worse, to guard against it and to see that the new powers do not extend that far. The measures of the planning authorities to deal with this problem have been invariably too little and too late. For this, in my opinion, the planning authorities are themselves less responsible than various Governments, because there have been interferences by Her Majesty's Government with decisions of the London County Council, when the London County Council has sought to curb this evil, interferences which have made it worse. I could give the example of the Constitutional Club site, and, to take the case of another public body, the proposed development, wholly unnecessary, of Carlton Gardens for office building.
§ The problem has recently received a good deal of publicity in an excellent little book The Paper Metropolis, a study of London's office growth, made by the Town and Country Planning Association. I am not going to say that there may not be legitimate criticisms to be made of some of the statements in that book, but in general it states some essential truths very well, and deserves the closest study (as I hope it is receiving) from all Government Departments, and not least from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Let me make this clear to the Committee. Even if my Amendment is accepted, a great deal more office building in the County of London will take place in any event, under permissions which have already been granted. Probably at least 5 million square feet of new space will be devoted to office building in the County of London, even if my Amendment is adopted this evening by the Committee.
§
I ask anybody interested in the efficiency of our capital, and in what is happening and threatening that efficiency, to look into the question of traffic congestion and the increasing
78
housing shortage—inter-connected subjects. As long ago as 1955, my right honourable friend Mr. Duncan Sandys said:
It is the enormous number of offices and office workers which constitutes the greatest single cause of congestion.
Unless we adopt my Amendment, there is a danger of making that congestion very much worse under new powers which this clause will be granting. A calculation has been made that each 100 square feet of office development will mean one extra man or woman employed. But I do not ask your Lordships to accept either my statement or the careful statements made by the experts who joined together and wrote The Paper Metropolis. Let me quote a short passage from Mr. A. B. Valentine who, even in the opinion of the Government, must be a man who knows something about the subject, because he is the Chairman of the London Transport Executive. This is what he said as recently as last month:
There were 1,250,000 rush-hour travellers, 12 per cent. more than ten years ago. Office accommodation in the central area already planned and approved would involve an increase of perhaps another 100,000 workers a day.
That is the addition to those travelling into and out of London daily under permissions already granted, and without regard to the new powers conferred by this clause at all.
§ I do not know if noble Lords realise that an acre of office floor space employs seven or eight times as many people as an acre of factory floor space, and offices usually concentrate a greater total of floor space on a given site. In the last ten years or so there has been an average increase of 15,000 persons a year in the County of London mainly engaged in office employment. The British Transport Commission are proposing, as the Committee may know, to build 10 million to 15 million square feet of offices on sites adjoining mainline stations in central London. They will do it at the cost of making civilised life in London almost impossible, and travel into and out of London daily even more horrible than it has yet become.
§
My Amendment does not propose to stop any of these Boards from developing their property to provide office building. The sites at the London termini may
79
be very good places to have an office building if, for example, it houses those who come into London daily by the line concerned. But it is only good development if other existing office buildings within the same County of London are converted from office building to residential use, and that is what my Amendment provides. It says that no Board—of course, one thinks principally of the Railways Board, but it is not necessarily the only Board which may be concerned—shall develop its land for office building not required for its own business
unless the Minister of Housing and Local Government certifies that he is satisfied that by the time such office accommodation is available for use an equivalent amount of existing office accommodation within the said County"—
that is the County of London—
will have been converted to residential use.
§ On the Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made some most pertinent observations on the subject of this clause, and my noble friend Lord Mills, when he came to reply, said that the developments would be subject to planning control. But that, of course, is wholly insufficient to satisfy any man who has studied the problem. Suppose that it was subject to planning control, and say the Railways Board wished to secure that a great deal of building in Central London surplus to their requirements was to be used for office building. And suppose the Minister of Housing and Local Government thought that course disastrous, but the Minister of Transport thought that it would help to diminish the adverse balance that the Board were incurring. Under our system of government the matter would have to go to the Cabinet. But it would be a very foolish person who thought that, when the matter went to the Cabinet, it would necessarily be the Minister of Housing and Local Government whose view would prevail. At the present moment, it would appear that the Minister of Transport has a more or less free hand to take the most far-reaching decisions affecting the happiness of whole communities in London, without even consulting the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I very much doubt whether the Minister of Housing and Local Government was consulted about the proposed destruction of Highgate.
80§ Nor is it satisfactory that this matter should depend on planning powers exclusively and what happened when the matter went to the Cabinet. I say that Parliament has a duty. When Parliament is asked to give wholly new powers to these Boards, why should it not insist that those powers should not be so used as to do immense harm to the national interest? I ask for an appropriate prohibition in this clause. I admit at once that more will be required before the excess of office employment in the County of London is remedied, but the fact that more may be required does not excuse us from not doing the right thing in this clause now. There may or may not be a good case for drastic amendments and improvements of the general law of town and country planning, but that in no way affects the duty of Parliament, when giving new powers to public bodies, to insist that those new powers are not such as can be used demonstrably against the public interest.
§
In this Amendment I am confining myself to what is required in this Bill and in this clause. If it does mean, as it may be my noble friend is going to say, that the Board concerned will get less than it otherwise would for some of its land, then I would make two comments. The first is that I would invite attention to the White Paper on the Reorganisation of the Nationalised Transport Undertakings, (Cmnd No. 1248) where noble Lords will find, in paragraph 58:
The present statutory restrictions on the development of property by the nationalised transport undertakings will be suitably relaxed.
Not that they will be abolished but that they will be "suitably relaxed". That is what I am asking for in my Amendment.
§
I should also like to quote, because I agree with it, a passage in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in the debate on Second Reading. We should be quite mad—I am not yet quoting, I will come to the passage in a moment, and the noble Lord's language is always very much more moderate than mine—to allow the Board, for a small profit, to inflict an injury on London against the national interest which will cause the Government to incur an enormous expenditure in an effort, almost certainly
81
a vain effort, to remedy the worst consequences. Now, if I may, in order to express my agreement with it, I will quote the passage from the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin on that occasion where he referred to the clause [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 240 (No. 74) col. 137]:
If they are to be allowed to develop their land in a way which the Government regard as anti-social, and which certainly local authorities regard as anti-social, then, of course, they will get the full value for their land. But are we, in the interests of so-called sound finance, to permit the railway undertakings to use their land for what the Government themselves regard as anti-social purposes and to create new problems of congestion and the need for further transport which would be impossible to satisfy?
§ Every sentence there is correct, and I believe that everybody with any experience of planning legislation—my own ministerial experience preceded that of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—and every student of the present position in London knows that to be true.
§ In general I do not quarrel with the present proposal in the clause but I say that this limitation must be made, whatever else we do with this Bill and whatever we do or do not do with planning legislation. It is in no sense inconsistent with the demand to give these Boards more freedom, and I have quoted what the White Paper itself said on the subject. I ask the Committee to remember that new powers are being sought; that my Amendment accepts those new powers, subject to a reasonable limitation, and this reasonableness, I think, has not been challenged yet in any quarter. More may be necessary, but this at least is required; and, even if my Amendment is accepted, it will still remain the fact that the amount of office building which will go on in the County of London under permissions already granted will be very great indeed, and the already appalling problem of the rush hour, with masses of people coming into and going out of London, will be made worse in any event. But, unless we are mad, we shall insist on the principle of my Amendment being included in this clause. I do not believe that in any planning matter—and I have had some experience—I have ever addressed either House of Parliament on one which is so urgent and vital. We are concerned with the future of our capital, and it may be even more 82 important if our progress towards the Common Market is successful. This may be one of our last legislative chances to prevent the position becoming much worse. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsections (1) and (2) of this Section, no Board shall have power to develop any part of their land within the County of London to provide office accommodation not required for their own business, unless the Minister of Housing and Local Government certifies that he is satisfied that by the time such office accommodation is available for use an equivalent amount of existing office accommodation within the said County will have been converted to residential use.").—(Lord Conesford.)
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI do not think we could do justice to the case which my noble friend has put forward without greatly exceeding the limits of time which have been agreed on through the usual channels, and I would therefore suggest that we adjourn now, while the subject of planning is still fresh in your Lordships' minds. I undertook a short time ago, however, to inform the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, of any passage in this Bill which confirmed the power of local authorities to acquire land compulsorily from the Transport Commission, as it is now; from the Boards, as they will be under this Bill. There is nothing about it in the Bill but it is part of Statute law now and this Bill does not alter it, so that is the position. If your Lordships are agreeable I would now propose that the debate on this Amendment be now adjourned, and move that the House do now resume.
§ Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.