§ 4.8 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN)My Lords, before I introduce this Bill to the House, may I officially, from this side, say what I have said privately to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and congratulate him on the honour that was conferred upon him and announced last Tuesday, of becoming one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. I congratulate him most heartily.
The purpose of this Bill is to put right an unsatisfactory situation that has existed over local authority travel concessions since 1955. The Bill redeems a pledge given by the Labour Party in the last Parliament that this would be one of the first measures it would introduce. Before I describe the Bill, I should like to say a word or two about the history of travel concessions on municipal transport services. Local authorities which operate their own transport undertakings have by long tradition given free travel or reduced fares to special classes of passenger: children, old people, the blind and the disabled. The practice went on undisputed for many years, until 1954 when Birmingham Corporation decided by resolution to grant free travel on their omnibuses to certain classes of elderly people. A local ratepayer, a Mr. Prescott, challenged this decision in the High Court and obtained a ruling, which was upheld on appeal, that the Corporation's action was ultra vires.
Noble Lords will readily understand that the Court of Appeal's decision in the Birmingham case placed in jeopardy all the travel concessions that were being given by other local authorities. For this reason, Mr. Edward Short, the Member of Parliament, who in another place 1216 has been persistent in his endeavours towards a reasonable solution of these difficulties, introduced a Private Member's Bill designed to give local authorities general permissive powers to grant these concessions, and thus to restore the position to what most people had believed it to have been prior to the decision in Prescott's case. But, unhappily, my Lords, the Government of the day were prepared only to go so far as to confirm the right of local authorities to go on giving those concessions that already existed in November, 1954. Mr. Short's Bill was adopted to that extent as a Government measure and the present Statute—the Public Service Vehicles (Travel Concessions) Act, 1955—came into being.
The decision of the then Government was, in my opinion, unfortunate, because it meant that travel concessions were frozen in the exact form in which they happened to be laid down in 1954. Some noble Lords may recollect that at the time the 1955 Bill was before Parliament it was indicated that if local authorities wanted to give new or extended concessions they could seek powers by Private Bill in the usual manner. I am informed that there have been thirteen attempts to do this since 1955.
Certain of the local authorities which promoted Bills sought only to make minor alterations in their existing concessions. In Newcastle-upon-Tyne, for example, old people enjoyed a concession on the trolley-buses operated by the local authority, and the Corporation wanted to ensure that they would not lose the concession when the undertaking changed over to diesel buses. Liverpool, because of congestion in the city, had to rehouse many of its people outside the city limits, and it wanted to secure that old age pensioners who were rehoused in this way, but were still served by Liverpool Corporation buses, would continue to enjoy the concession they had had while they lived within the city boundary. Other authorities wanted, for example, to raise the age limit for children's fares from fourteen to fifteen, or to extend to disabled civilians an existing concession to disabled ex-service men. Then there were some authorities which wanted to give new concessions similar to those which were already being granted by local authorities elsewhere. In Scotland, for instance, Edinburgh and Aberdeen sought 1217 powers to give concessions to old people, such as were already in force in Glasgow and Dundee.
All these attempts, whether for adjustments to prevent existing concessions from being lost because of changed circumstances, or for small extensions of concessions, or for new concessions, met with failure. In fact, no alterations or extensions whatever of travel concessions have been accepted in Private Bills since 1955. And Mr. Short's efforts in another place to introduce further general legislation by Private Members' Bills were equally unsuccessful. Towards the end of the last Parliament the late Government promised to consult local authorities with a view to introducing legislation to secure that their powers to grant concessions under the 1955 Act were not eroded by changes in local circumstances since that date; such circumstances as I have already mentioned were worrying the Newcastle authorities in regard to changing over from trolley buses to diesel buses. But they were not prepared to go further than that. Therefore I should now like to torn to the attitude of the present Government.
My Lords, foremost in our minds is the fact that concessions of this kind are already a long-standing tradition with local authorities which have transport undertakings. They all give concessions to children; nearly all of them give concessions to the disabled; and about one-third to old people. Of the existing concessions, nearly all of those for blind and disabled people are for free travel: and so are about or e-third of those for elderly people. Very young children are also carried free. Tie remaining concessions are for reduced fares. The concessions that are given are usually subject to conditions. Very often they are restricted to off-peak periods, so that the passengers who are getting the concessions are carried on existing services. The buses or trolley-buses are running, in any case with empty seats, and there is therefore no extra operating cost to the undertaking.
We think it no more than reasonable that those local authorities which are already authorised to give concessions should be able to adjust them to meet changed circumstances; and that those authorities which do not at present give concessions should be able to do so if 1218 they wish, in the same way as other authorities already can do within the law. There is no new principle involved in this, and no obligation on local authorities to use the powers granted by the Bill if they do not want to do so.
Coming from the general to the particular, we know that many local authorities are anxious to be able to extend concessions to old people. The last Government's objection to this was that benefits to the elderly ought to be in cash, not in kind. This is also the main argument that was used in objection to the proposals for private legislation which have been before another place since 1955, and which were unsuccessful. The claim then was that social benefits should be given on a national basis, and in cash, not on a local basis and just for travel. And the present Government certainy do not consider that travel concessions are any substitute for an adequate provision in money which elderly people can spend in the way most suited to their own individual needs. Noble Lords will be well aware of the increases in the existing rates of National Insurance and other associated benefits which the Government have decided to introduce. We wholeheartedly accept that the well-being of old people is a national responsibility. But what we also feel is that if local authorities want to give to their own senior citizens on their own transport undertakings some little extra benefit by way of concessionary fares, as many other local authorities are able to do to-day, it is reasonable for them to have discretion to that extent.
The 1955 Act gives local authorities which grant concessions under the Act a discretion to charge the whole or part of the cost of those concessions to the rates, instead of letting it be borne out of the revenue of their transport undertaking. We propose to continue that discretion and to apply it to additional or extended concessions given under the new Bill. Of course, if there is any deficit in the account of the transport undertaking as a whole, it falls upon the rates in any event. It has been suggested that because the cost of concessions can be charged to the rates, authorities may be tempted to award these concessions extravagantly or irresponsibly. We do not think this fear is well founded. Local authorities will, as always, be answerable to their own ratepayers for the amounts 1219 they spend out of the rate fund and for the objects they spend them on. We have no reason to suppose that they will not exercise their discretion wisely in regard to travel concessions, as they do in other matters. And, as we have seen, many local authorities have the powers and are exercising them already.
My Lords, this is, therefore, a simple Bill. Its main provision is to remove the provision in the 1955 Act which ties local authorities to "established" travel concessions, that is, the concessions which they were giving in 1954. The effect will be to enable them to grant either extended or new concessions, provided they grant them to "qualified persons" as defined in the 1955 Act. Perhaps it will be helpful if I briefly remind noble Lords of what the categories of "qualified persons" consist. They are: men over 65 and women over 60; children under 15; full-time scholars between 15 and 18, travelling for educational purposes; blind people; disabled people; and council members travelling on council business. These are the statutory definitions, and they are in general terms. If individual local authorities want to define their own concessions more narrowly—if. for example, they wish to give a concession only to retirement pensioners instead of to all old people—they can do so.
We propose that the categories of "qualified persons" should, generally speaking, remain as at present. The categories in the 1955 Act reflect the general practice of local authorities, and hence, we think, the extent of the classes which are generally accepted as most deserving of special treatment. Local authorities have shown themselves content that these classes give them the scope they desire. We propose one minor revision only. This will have the effect of substituting 16 years for 15 years in the definitions for children's and scholars' concessions, when, at a later date, the school-leaving age is raised from 15 to 16.
As I have said, both the 1955 Act and the present Bill deal only with concessions on municipal transport undertakings. It has been represented to the Government, both from within and without Parliament, that the Bill should also provide for concessions to be given by private bus companies, or the London 1220 Transport Board, or British Railways. My Lords, there is no need for statutory provision to enable this to be done. These undertakings are all in a position to grant concessions if they wish, subject to the approval of the traffic commissioners or the Transport Tribunal, where appropriate. But the company bus operators operate as commercial undertakings, and that fact necessarily limits their willingness to grant concessionary fares, unless such fares can be justified on commercial grounds. They have great difficulty, as we all know, in keeping their ordinary fares down, under present-day conditions. Apart from the usual special children's and scholars' fares, and certain special arrangements for the blind, it is not their custom to grant concessions. The nationalised Boards are in a similar position owing to their statutory duty to pay their way.
I would say that it is generally recognised that these non-municipal undertakings cannot be pressed to do more in this respect than they are prepared to do out of their own resources. They cannot get help from the rates as the municipal undertakings can. Following indeed, from recognition of this fact, it has been suggested to us that local authorities, in London and elsewhere, should be enabled to reimburse the non-municipal undertakings, such as London Transport or a private bus company, for the cost of granting concessions to their citizens. This suggestion has come to us from places where the transport is provided entirely by a non-municipal undertaking and the municipality has no running powers; or where there is a borderline problem, because either the municipality has operating powers but does not exercise them or it provides the services jointly with a private undertaking but could relate the concessions only to its own services.
My Lords, we sympathise with the thought behind this suggestion, but after full consideration we do not feel that we can go so far as this in the present Bill. As noble Lords will know, local authorities have many powers under General and Private Acts to engage in activities of their own, but Parliament has granted them up to now very restricted powers to contribute financially to the activities of commercial undertakings. This is a long-standing general principle of local government. We do not feel that it 1221 would be right for us, in this Bill, to venture into this wide field by making provision for local authorities to make a financial contribution to transport undertakings, whether publicly or privately owned, which are not under their own control. We feel fiat the only course is to maintain the clear distinction observed under the 1955 Act, and in this Bill, for present purposes, to confine ourselves strictly to municipal transport. The wider issue is one which we shall bear in mind in the more general context of our transport planning in the interests of the community as a whole. I commend this Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lindgren.)
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, may I start on a personal note, too, by thanking most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, for what he said, and through him extend those thanks to the House for the way it received his remarks? I think it was most kind or him to say anything like that. I hope he does not think I am sure he will not—that having said that is going to make the slightest difference to my views on the Bill that is before us. Naturally, I am in no mind at all to oppose this Bill, but I regret that I cannot welcome it to your Lordships' House any more than it was received with anything approaching an unqualified welcome on either side of the House in another place. The noble Lord has been good enough to explain some of the reasons why I cannot, for which I am grateful. But basically the reason is that I consider it to be a bad way of carrying into effect an underlying principle which basically and substantially is, of course, a good one which we should all support and which is to benefit the deserting people for whose cause the Bill is aimed. I quite accept from the noble Lord that this Bill is nothing but well-intentioned. I do not think it crossed our minds as being anything else. But, to my mind, it is clumsy, in that it will create many more anomalies and injustices of the kind that it seeks to remedy, although I agree that it remedies certain anomalies. However, I do not think that thereby there is sufficient justification for creating a good many more.
The noble Lord criticised the position—he described it as "freezing"—which 1222 came about in 1955. I should like to put the other side of the argument. I do not want to dwell at length on arguing exactly what happened in 1955, because I think the explanation will be equally apparent from the case and the remarks I make to-day; I think that they will cover that aspect of the matter just as well as to-day's situation. I could not help wondering whether, in the introduction of this Bill, there had not been a certain amount of—shall we call it?—political expediency. I thought that the noble Lord seemed rather to confirm that in his emphasis on redeeming Election pledges. It may or may not be, in his mind, a little bit of electioneering. It may be that his mind is even going forward to the next Election. He may be getting worried about that. If he were, nobody could blame him.
No one disagrees that the classes of people dealt with by the Bill are well deserving of benefit at the hands of the nation, or that they should get it; but I think that the benefits should be derived from some other method. I want to consider how the provisions of the Bill will apply. It is true that it is permissive; but that fact, I think, is as much its weakness as its strength. It is permissive, naturally, only in those areas where the local authority run their own public transport system. The situation arises that in different areas there will be different amounts of benefit to differing classes of people. Benefit will be received in districts where the authority run their own public transport, but the Bill does not apply at all where they do not. Therefore, the benefit is denied to those classes of people mentioned in the Bill who happen to live in areas without municipal transport.
I do not think that that is the right way to go about it. As the noble Lord explained to us, private bus companies have power to operate similar concessions, or virtually what concessions they like, provided they go through the proper procedure to the Transport Tribunal or the licensing authorities. He is perfectly right about that. He was also right when he said that, on the whole, with all the goodwill that they have and with a desire to do so, on the margins upon which they operate and the amount of unremunerative services they are running it is doubtful whether they will 1223 be in a position to contemplate doing it on anything like a really helpful scale. If the decision has been taken, as I gather it has, that there is not to be power for a local authority to help the private companies in the same way that they can the municipal undertakings, it seems to me somewhat unfair in its application towards those whom it is intended to help.
I think, to put it mildly, that it is at least open to some discussion, if not argument, whether the Government have got right the categories of people to benefit within the measure. I do not for a moment raise any dispute about the classes who are included; but I could not help wondering whether council members on duty are necessarily more specially deserving—and "specially deserving" was the phrase used by the right honourable gentleman the Minister in another place—than widows or some other classes of people, who may perhaps be in receipt of National Assistance but who do not fall within the scale of the Bill. In referring to that matter, there is one question I should like to ask the noble Lord which he might be good enough to reply to when he comes to wind up. It relates to the question of councillors on duty. I am not trying to catch the noble Lord out in any way; I just want the information. I am a little worried about the inclusion of this "specially deserving case" because I had thought that members of councils travelling on duty are entitled to charge their transport expenses in any event.
§ LORD LINDGRENMy Lords, I think I can answer the noble Lord immediately. There is a restriction placed on the distance between their home and the place of the meeting, and equally whether they are inside or outside the area of the authority where the meeting is held. If a councillor in an urban district has travelled to a meeting within his own district, he cannot charge. If he is going to a meeting outside, he can charge.
§ LORD CHESHAMI am most grateful to the noble Lord. I have not even had to wait until his winding-up speech; he has answered the query. But, although his answer is perfectly genuine and correct, it does not do much to dispel from my mind the doubt that I mentioned 1224 before asking the question. I had always thought, and believed that your Lordships thought—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, must feel much the same, because he addressed himself at some length to this point—that a national responsibility to those less fortunate and less active was to create, for them and the general classes which are described in the Bill a level over the whole country which would enable them to take their own place in our society; and, having created that level for them, that they should then be free to utilise the benefit they rightly received in whatever way they thought fit.
It seems to me that there is some element of unfairness here between those who care to travel about, and those who do not care to travel about or are not able to travel about very well, in that the purchasing power is operated between the two in a way that does not seem to be quite equitable. It is with pleasure that I note that the Government have announced the increases in benefit which the noble Lord mentioned. It was to achieve this level throughout the country that they rightly did so. But I should much have preferred, if there is to be an element of what, for want of a better term, I will call a "transport subsidy," that that should be included as an element in those increases to take care of this particular problem, rather than to have this somewhat piecemeal and, to my mind, inequitable measure. I think that if the Government had thought a little longer and worked the thing right through to its conclusion; if they had worked out all the implications, which I am not sure has been done; and if they had consulted with the appropriate organisations and associations rather more (I have yet to hear that they did so consult), they would have done this, which is good in principle, in a better and fairer way. We all applaud the underlying principle and spirit behind the Bill to help people who are deserving of such help, and so we accept the Bill, but as a method of successfully achieving that object, this Bill leaves a good deal to be desired.
§ 4.40 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOODMy Lords, as this is the first time I have addressed your Lordships' House, I hope that I can rely on your traditional indulgence, but I must admit that it is not the first 1225 time I have made a maiden speech in this Chamber. Nor is it the first time I have considered this Bill, or something very like it, because the subject has been pressed for several years in another place.
We have just heard the background to this Bill, and I think we should all agree that the state of the law is not satisfactory, and has not been satisfactory for some time. It is easy to say that, but much less easy to see what the next step should be, II is fairly simple to resolve some of the apparent anomalies and create others at the same time. That is precisely what this Bill risks doing, I do not want to seem over-critical this afternoon, and I certainly recognise the great credit due to the Government Chief Whip in another place for his perseverance in this matter. He has been very fortunate, in that he has done what many a private Member always hopes to do: he has been able to sell his Bill, lock, stock and barrel, to the Government. I was never one who felt that the need for legislation in this field was so pressing, but, since the Government have introduced a Bill, we ought to examine it closely to see whether it is as fair as it can reasonably be made. It appears to me that for a Government Bill the drawing is extraordinarily narrow.
Let us examine who can benefit under this Bill. Who are the fortunate few? Well, they have to live in one of the 95 (I think that is the number) areas where transport is municipally run secondly, the responsible authority has to decide that it will operate a scheme under this Bill am: thirdly, the person concerned must fall not only in one of the classes listed in the Schedule but one of the classes for whom the relevant local authority proposes to authorise various concessionary fares. There are a great many other people who are equally deserving but for whom the Bill is going to do nothing.
I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, for clarification on one important point. There has been some misunderstanding over the existing powers of a local authority and those which are to be given under this Bill. Is a local authority, where it operates public service vehicles, already empowered to give concessionary figures 1226 generally at off-peak times? That question was put to the Minister of Transport in another place and, off the cuff, he said "No". But I am not sure whether in fact he is right, provided that there is no distinction in the decision of the authority between different classes of ratepayers, and provided that it can show some practical or commercial reason. I think it is a relevant matter in these circumstances, and I hope that the Minister in his reply can clear it up.
We all appreciate that the decision of the Court in 1954 left a number of local authorities seriously put out: they wanted their power or discretion back. They succeeded in getting this in part under the 1955 Act, which was a sort of compromise. Looking back on the matter, I am not sure whether it would not have been better to accept the situation, rather than to have sought legislation. There was no uniformity and I do not think that the principle is really a very good one, as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has explained. There is very little support to-day for social welfare based on concessions. In fact, we try to achieve it by other means. Therefore, the proposals in this Bill reflect, in a way, the tobacco-token concession, only in some ways less satisfactory. For with the tobacco-token concession every smoker got some benefit: it did not matter who owned the tobacconist's shop in his area. But under this Bill it matters who owns the transport in his area before the old person, or other person who falls within the qualifying classes, is able to draw any benefit.
May I return to the question of transport which is not run by the local authority? There has been reference to London, which is the biggest example. But there are also rather different circumstances in the rural areas which have not yet been mentioned. Some might say, "The companies ought to fall in line with local authorities—they are surely big enough, and must be making profits." That may be true in some cases, but certainly not in all, and indeed not so if we consider the country districts, where often the bus operators work in a small way, with very few vehicles, and face increasing difficulties. The chief difficulty is that an ever-larger number of 1227 their former customers are now travelling in their own private transport. However little these concessions might cost, I doubt whether many of these smaller country operators have any profitable routes against which they could balance a concession of this sort and have any means of absorbing the extra cost. Hence, I fear that this Bill can do very little, if anything, to help those people who fall in these qualifying classes and who live in the more remote areas, areas where distances involved are longer and where fares are larger.
I therefore ask the Government whether they will not themselves table an Amendment so that it may be possible for a local authority to contribute towards the cost of any scheme of concessionary fares operated by arrangement, where they do not themselves own or run the public transport. Frankly, I was not convinced by the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, who brushed aside the possibility of extending the Bill in this way.
If we take a closer look at the qualified persons who might benefit, we find there is one change in the Schedule originally printed in the 1955 Act, resulting from a proposed future change in the school-leaving age. I appreciate that it is difficult to know where to draw the line in a case like this, but it seems strange that those on National Assistance should be omitted entirely. The circumstances of people drawing National Assistance vary greatly, but I should have thought that there must be some people who would be equally deserving as those who are already listed in the Schedules to the Bill.
There has been no mention yet as to the cost of any of these concessions. I should be surprised if in any case it amounted to a very large sum, but we are entitled to be given some indication of the cost of these concessions when they are operated in a typical area. I consider that the Bill ought to have made some provision for the local authorities which operate such concessionary schemes to make public, at the end of the year, some sort of annual report and accounts so that all concerned could see the result. We do not want any repetition of the Birmingham case, where, no 1228 doubt, exaggerated ideas were going round as to what the cost of such concessions might be. In such circumstances it is surely better that all should know what the actual costs are. I should have thought that a sentence or two could be included in the Bill to clear up that point. I should like to think, too, that the Government will advise local authorities before they come to decisions on such schemes. Some proper estimates should be made of the cost of running the scheme, and perhaps setting out the loss or benefit involved; in other words, some proper prior estimates. We do not want the decisions taken simply from kindness of heart.
I have ventured to make a number of suggestions as to how the Bill can be improved. I cannot believe that the Government and the original author of the Bill will not welcome them. At present the Bill is too much "hit or miss" to rank as good legislation. I am not suggesting that we should impose any system of concessionary travel on any local authority or transport undertaking, but we should put all local authorities in the country in the same position. They should all have an equal chance of considering such schemes if they think them appropriate in their areas. To my mind, nothing less than this would seem to be acceptable.
§ 4.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, in rising to welcome the Second Reading of this Bill. I am also very happy to be able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, on a most professional maiden speech. It must be quite obvious to all your Lordships that he has addressed many other bodies, and of course the other House, on a great many occasions, and he is extremely expert at the art of making a speech. Therefore he need have absolutely no fear in addressing this House either on this occasion, when of course he receives some special consideration, or on any other occasion whatever on which he cares to address the House.
In welcoming this Bill, I should like, first of all, to make some remarks about the attitude which coloured almost the whole of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. We often hear arguments of precisely this nature in this House. I am glad to say that they almost always 1229 come from the Conservative side. I personally have never understood the argument that because something is not all-inclusive we should therefore not do it. It is the argument for not giving to the poor because you cannot enrich every single one of them. It is the argument for not giving to one person who is needy, because some other person who is needy does not happen to be within the reach of your arm. This is an argument which I personally am never going to tolerate, and which I hope no other Member of this House will tolerate.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, may I just interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, because one thing I am afraid I cannot tolerate, either, is that he should say I put forward any argument of that sort at all? I did not say that because it was not equally distributed it should not be done. I said that it should be done but in some other way. I hope the noble Lord will bear that in mind and be fair to me in his speech.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, I think I listened to the noble Lord's speech very carefully, and the argument of the noble Lord and, indeed, of his Government when they were considering this matter, when it came before us as a Private Bill, was that this should not be done because it was not all-inclusive. The whole argument at that time for not doing it was that we were providing benefits to some persons only and we were not providing benefits to some other persons. I think we should do whatever we can, and any argument that we should not give some benefit because it is not as widely spread as we should wish, is an argument which should never be tolerated.
In any case, this Bill permits us to allow local authorities, if they wish, to hand certain benefits to certain people who would very much welcome them and whom we should like to receive those benefits. I am very happy, too, to see that this is a permissive Bill. It does not force anything down anybody's throat. It permits local authorities, if they wish, and if they are in a position to do so because of ownership of local transport, to hand these benefits to these people. I am very glad of the permissiveness of this, because I think that we should leave something to local democracy. Why should not these 1230 various municipalities be allowed to make up their own minds as to what they want to do? Have they all to be rubber stamps of Whitehall, or may they not choose in their own councils what level of benefits they hand to various people? Let us have more of this local democracy and let them have something which they can chew on in their council chambers. That we are able to give them a freer hand is a great move forward.
What is more, this little Bill will to some extent benefit municipal transport by enabling them to spread the carriage of the people in their boroughs over a broader period. We all know that every transport body of any kind has to provide itself with vehicles to cover its peak periods, and of course the authority works far more efficiently if it can get some part of its peak load off into the other periods of its working. Surely it is very much to the benefit of a municipality if it can get many of these people who do not necessarily need to travel at peak periods to travel at other periods by allowing them benefits if they do so.
Many of the people on this list are not people who are forced to travel at peak periods. The retired people can often travel out of peak hours; school children often do not travel at peak hours; and for the blind, the disabled and so on, it is considerably to their advantage if they do not travel at peak hours, when there is a great rush of people getting on and off a bus. It does not help anybody, either the normal peak-hour travellers or the blind or the disabled or the bus organisation itself, if everybody has to travel together. It is a great advantage if these rather less active members of the community can travel at a time when they can get on and off a bus at their leisure. As we all know, if a bus is forced to stop even for an extra second or two at each stop over the period of its run, it can be quite considerably delayed. The fact that we can make it possible for municipalities to arrange that some of these less active people can travel at times when they can have more leisure in getting on and off these buses is surely of great advantage.
Therefore, my Lords, I welcome this little Bill. If we can spread it any further I shall be glad to hear arguments in favour of doing so. If, unfortunately, 1231 that cannot be done, we may well bewail that fact, but, nevertheless, let us welcome the fact that something can be done. Therefore let us welcome this Bill.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ LORD AMULREEMy Lords, before I make two not very big points on this Bill, I should like, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches, to join with the noble Viscount who has just spoken in offering congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, upon his maiden speech. Like the noble Viscount, we hope we shall hear him speak a great many times in the future.
This is a Bill with which I have a great deal of sympathy, as I am sure most of us in this House have, but there are two points which I am a little doubtful about. I was rather sorry the noble Lord did not look further into the future, because what I should like to see is the pensioner—the old lady of 60 and the old man of 65—having enough money in his or her pocket not to need travel concessions, even though I think they may quite well need them at the present time. One would like to think that this is possibly going to be a temporary measure, and that one day it will not be necessary because at one time we did not like the great deal of talk there was about the evils of relief in kind, and yet it seems to me almost as if we are getting back to that now.
Another reason why I do not like the idea of making special concessions to the aged is that in all the work I have done for the old people I have always tried to keep them as part of the general living community, and not to segregate them into some kind of separate group, so that when you become 60 you do not suddenly become somebody quite different from when you were 59 and 11 months. Therefore, although, as I say, I do not object to this Bill at all, I should have liked us to look to the future when these concessions will not be be necessary.
There is one minor point, not of great importance, about councillors. I agree very much that councillors, when they are travelling on duty, should travel for nothing, but I should rather like to see it done by means of their filling in an expense account, rather than their being 1232 given a concession if they bring a little brass disc out of their pocket to show who they are, or something of that kind. That would seem to me a more satisfactory way of doing it. These are the only two points I should like to make, and apart from them, I welcome this Bill.
§ LORD BRECONMy Lords, I would ask one question of the noble Lord. He made a statement about councillors and how they drew their expenses. I have always understood that members of a local authority attending to local authority business charged their travelling expenses to that authority.
§ LORD LINDGRENNo.
§ LORD BRECONI have myself been a member of a county council for many years. I have not drawn these expenses, but other members of the council do draw their travelling allowances plus a subsistence allowance as well. I think it would be only fair, as my noble friend has said, for a councillor to charge his travelling expenses to the local authority for attending all meetings of the council, but he should not be allowed to have a free bus ride if he wants to go round the whole of his ward seeing the members in his area. I say this because in a rural area such as that in which I live a member of the county council can travel ten miles, without getting any help or assistance, if he wants to see someone who is in need of his help. I hope this concession will be only for councillors actually attending council meetings and council business, and not for any other purpose.
§ 5.6 p.m.
§ LORD LINDGRENMy Lords, may I first of all join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, on his maiden speech? Those of us who have been privileged to sit with him in another place know of the quality of his work in the other place, and we are delighted that we have him here and that he is going to join us in our debates. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in replying to my courtesies, said he was still going to be rough with me. My Lords, I do not mind that at all. In fact, on the occasion of the first speech I made in this House the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, took me to task for using House of Commons tactics here, and said that the longer I was here the 1233 less vicious I should become. I perhaps miss the "rough stuff" of the other place, but if the noble Lord wants it then perhaps we can indulge in it here.
I am not at all surprised that the noble Lord should be surprised that this Government should carry out its Election pledges. How different from the previous Government! Our first action, so far as this pledge is concerned, has been to help those who are least able to help themselves. As my noble friend Lord Mitchison will remember, the first action of the Tory Government in 1951 was to help the brewers. They amended the New Towns Act, 1946, to give authority to the brewers to develop the public houses in the New Towns as free houses. The first action of the Tory Government was, of course, for their friends the brewers—to give them back their opportunity to make more profits in the New Towns. Our first action has been to help the aged, the infirm and the schoolchildren. I prefer a Party which keeps its Election pledges—and the Tory Party did not even mention in their Election speeches their proposed amendment of the New Towns Act, 1946, to give the brewers their concessions back. I prefer our action.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me, but I do not want him to get it wrong, either. I do not think I detracted in the slightest from acknowledging the help the Government have begun to give already. I merely said that this particular part of it was being done in the wrong way; and I do not think I really deserved to incur these endless quotations from Transport House pamphlets from about 1927 that the noble Lord is heaping on my head.
§ LORD LINDGRENThere is a lot of difference between 1927 and 1951. I am talking about the first action of the Tory Government in 1951. The noble Lord took my noble friend Lord St. Davids to task, too.
§ LORD CHESHAMHe misquoted me. That is why.
§ LORD LINDGRENThe only argument the noble Lord has put forward is that, because we cannot give everybody everything they want, we should give nobody anything.
§ LORD CHESHAMNo.
§ LORD LINDGRENReally, the argument of the noble Lord has been that this concession is to the aged, that it applies only in certain areas; and he asks: why do it piecemeal? My answer is that if you can help somebody but cannot help everybody, why should you not help somebody? Then, the noble Lord was equally inconsistent when he said, "Why do you make this power permissive? Some local authorities will use the powers given them and others will not". I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, would have been more informed in regard to local government activities. My Lords, 90 per cent. of the local government legislation of this country is permissive It starts off, "The local authority may". There are very few Acts of Parliament which start off, "The local authority shall"—and that is why, all over this country, we have a varying system of local government with the standard of services varying from area to area.
One may disagree with this. One may say that there ought to be higher standards. I agree that in a national service such as education there is a control by the Central Government as to minimum standards, but in most local government activity it is permissive. The noble Lord objects to a local authority being able to give a concession to an old-age pensioner on a bus, and yet local authorities are able to give concessions now. There is the opportunity for local authorities, if they so want, to contribute to "Darby and Joan" clubs. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, is shaking his head, but he objects to this Bill because it does not apply to everybody.
§ LORD CHESHAMIt could.
§ LORD LINDGRENSo far as local government legislation is concerned, it is possible for a local authority to make grants towards "Darby and Joan" clubs. Not every local authority does it. But would the noble Lord stop those local authorities that do it and so prevent those old people who can go to "Darby and Joan" clubs from being able to go?
It is equally true that the local authority can make contributions to organisations such as the W.V.S., who do wonderful work with their Meals on Wheels service. Many old-age pensioners, 1235 particularly men, would never get a square meal if it were not for the W.V.S. and the Meals on Wheels service; but again, not every local authority operates it. Is the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, going to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, and her W.V.S. organisation to desist from their Meals on Wheels service because not everybody has the benefit of it? If the noble Lord is not prepared to stop "Darby and Joan" clubs or, the Meals on Wheels service, why does he want to stop the local authority that is prepared to make a concession to its aged?
§ LORD CHESHAMI do not.
§ LORD LINDGRENThen what is the argument about? All the noble Lord says is: "I do not welcome this Bill but I do not oppose it, so we will do nothing."
LORD REAMy Lords, may I intervene as a non-combatant? Some of us understood the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, to say that he thought this was a good Bill, but that he could conceive of a better.
§ LORD LINDGRENMy Lords, he dare not say that, because the last Government did nothing. That is what he wants now.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, if I may put the record straight, I said it was a bad Bill to do something that was good in principle.
§ LORD LINDGRENThe noble Lord said it was a bad Bill because it did not distribute equally the benefits arising from it. There is no general social service which is uniform in its application, and therefore I would suggest that any failing was on the part of the last Government for doing nothing during its lifetime. I might suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who became so eloquent about rural transport and the cost of bus services in rural areas, that he consult with the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. The former Administration knew about this problem during their 13 years of government. They even set up the Jack Committee, and when they got Professor Jack's Report they put it in a cupboard; and 1236 nothing has been done about rural transport.
§ LORD CHESHAMNonsense!
§ LORD LINDGRENWe are only just taking the Report out to do something about it. So all I have to say is that this is a Bill, I will agree, that only does a little for some people. I have gone through life doing what I could for anybody I could whenever I could. If I could only get half a loaf for someone, then I got that half. Reference has been made to councillors, that they should not ride on buses. Even the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, objects to councillors having rides in buses.
§ LORD AMULREEMy Lords, on the contrary, I said I thought that councillors should be able to be refunded for any fares they spent when travelling on municipal transport. I said they should be refunded for everything.
§ LORD LINDGRENThe present law is that councillors cannot claim their fares within their own areas except where they travel over three miles. I never knew that noble Lords objected to railway directors, who used to have a golden pass and were able to travel anywhere. They had never done a job on the railways. All they did was to attend board meetings, yet they had concessionary fares, which were, in fact, free. My Lords, I think I have answered all the points except—
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh, Oh!
§ LORD LINDGRENWell, if any noble Lord wants any more answers I am prepared to give them. I think I have answered all points except the one with regard to cost. Of course the cost is very little, but it must vary. If you are going to apply this in a comparatively small borough, and then apply it in Manchester or in Birmingham, the difference in cost to the local authorities must vary. There will be a slight Exchequer contribution, because, as noble Lords know, the Government make a small grant to the local authorities in regard to the General Fund.
I am asked whether the local authorities approve the Bill. Yes, my Lords, they approve this Bill, but of course most of the municipal corporations and the urban district councils would have liked some extra concessions, in order that the local authorities should have the power to 1237 make a contribution to the non-municipal undertakings. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said that he objected to the fact that the Bill does not give the local authorities the right, if they so desire, to make a contribution to the non-municipal undertakings. If they were allowed that, and did not take it, the situation would be worse than it is now. The claim he made earlier was that only 95 local authorities who run their own municipal transport undertakings could benefit by this.
My Lords, I know that a Second Reading will be given to this Bill. I think it is a good Bill because it does good to a good number of people. Later, I hope, there will be the opportunity to give the same advantage to other people.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)My Lords, the noble Lord has sat down.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, with the greatest possible respect, I should like to use this formula to add one more question. All I was going to ask is, if it should be necessary, that the noble Lord will accept my apologies if in the course of my speech I did not make my arguments clear to his side of the House—although noble Lords on this side of the House seemed to have understood it—and whether, in that case, he will be so good as to read my speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In this case I think he would not have said the things that he did say.
§ LORD LINDGRENCertainly, my Lords, I read all the speeches.
§ LORD LINDGRENMy Lords, that is one of the burdens of office.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.