HL Deb 10 December 1964 vol 262 cc230-8

3.22 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lindgren.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Travel concessions]:

LORD INGLEWOOD moved to add to subsection (1): and any local authority may pay any person operating a public service vehicle undertaking the whole or part of the cost incurred by him in granting travel concessions to qualified persons specified by the authority.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ilford and myself. This is a very simple and straightforward Amendment. It has the support of the Association of Municipal Corporations and, what is much more important, if added to the Bill will substantially improve it. This Bill at present has one great weakness in that it concerns only a part of the country. We have not been told exactly what is the Government's estimate of this part, but I suggest that it is very much less than half of the country as a whole; and no benefit will be brought by the Bill to the areas where the local authorities do not themselves run public service vehicles. We must not forget that on our own doorsteps here no benefit is going to be brought to the people in London; and most country districts, too, where the distances to travel are longer, and therefore the fares that people will be asked to pay are larger, will also derive no benefit. So I would submit that we cannot leave the Bill as it is and continue to talk about equality of opportunity.

There is, naturally, dissatisfaction about this Bill in different parts of the country and I want only to quote the report of one local authority which was considering the Bill's limited nature. In the local Press of Carlisle City the Council was reported to have discussed this Bill, and Mr. W. J. Hunter, Chairman of the Labour Group on the City Council and also Chairman of the Transport Committee, said this: If the provisions of the Bill make these facilities available for municipal transport"— which is, of course, concerned in the concessions under the Bill— then there is no reason why other local authorities should not have the same benefits, especially if some municipal transport systems are being subsidised by the rates. Of course, he is quite right.

The principle underlying this Amendment is not very new, and I do not think that it need arouse so much argument on the other side; such argument, for instance, as: if power is once given to a local authority to contribute to this or any other service, where do we then stop? If that is to be our mentality we shall achieve little or nothing. Of course, some powers to this effect already exist, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, will be able to say something about the application to this question of Section 136 of the Local Government Act, 1948. As there is only one sentence of this section, I hope that I may have permission to read it. It says: A local authority in England or Wales may, with the consent of the Minister given either generally or specially, contribute towards the expenses of any body carrying on activities within the area of that authority, being activities for the purpose of furthering the development of trade, industry or commerce therein, or of giving advice, information or other assistance to persons resident therein, or otherwise for the benefit of that area or those persons.

I should have thought that that section might well cover the point we have been discussing, but if it does not I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, will explain exactly how it fails to do so. I know that the noble Lord has been considering our argument since the Second Reading a week ago. He wrote me a long and helpful letter about some of the points which were raised in that debate, but he did not mention the main point, which, of course, is the purpose of this Amendment. So I am very hopeful that he will agree that the merits of what I propose are very strong.

In amending the Bill to give this power to local authorities there is no need for any great detail. In the course of his speech a week ago the noble Lord, when answering my noble friend Lord Chesham, said: My answer is that if you can help somebody but cannot help everybody, why not help somebody?"—[Official Report, Vol. 261 (No. 17), col. 1234, December 3, 1964.] This is his justification for the drafting of the Bill as we are now considering it, but there is really no reason to set that limit on what we can do under this Bill. It is quite easy to extend the powers and make it a great deal fairer than it is at present. I am not committed to any particular form of words, and would willingly accept the noble Lord's words in substitution for mine; but failing an assurance on that, and failing an assurance that Section 136 of the Local Government Act, which I have quoted, can be used for the purpose, I feel that many noble Lords will be very anxious and will want to see that under this Bill justice is done to all parts of the country. As the Bill is at present before us, that is frankly not the case. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 11, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Inglewood.)

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN)

The Government have every sympathy with those local authorities who desire to see travel concessions given to deserving classes of their citizens but do not operate their own transport. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has said, there are, of course, many places in this category. Indeed, less than one quarter of the buses in the country are run by municipal authorities, and only about one local authority in seventeen has its own transport system. It is partly in the size of the problem that the difficulty lies.

As I tried to explain to your Lordships during the debate on the Second Reading, there is nothing to stop any non-municipal undertaking from giving travel concessions if they so desire, subject to the approval of the licensing authority. But, as I said during that Second Reading debate, it is understandable why they do not do so, or very seldom do so, because they are run as commercial undertakings and have to pay their way. There are very few concessions made by non-municipal undertakings apart from the usual children's and scholars' fares. The Amendment would, therefore, very substantially widen the scope of the Bill and the use that could potentially be made of it, because it would bring in all those local authorities that are at present outside this Bill and also the 1955 Act. This extension would be in a field where the activities of local authorities are customarily limited; that is, in supporting commercial undertakings out of public funds.

It is obvious that the financial effect of the Bill would likewise be greatly altered most certainly beyond what was stated in another place. As it stands, the cost to the Exchequer by way of the rate deficiency grant and the Exchequer equalisation grant, will clearly not be substantial, mainly because these are concessions which are given by the local authority and, in fact, will be used very largely during off-peak hours. But to do what is now asked in the Amendment would alter the whole character of the Bill.

It can be fairly said that the Bill as is stands does no more than restore the legal position of municipal transport undertakings to what most people believed it to be prior to 1954. Before that time many of these undertakings had been giving concessions, in some cases for many years, without let or hindrance. But there is no tradition of concessions on non-municipal transport, and neither the original Bill introduced in another place by Mr. Short, which became, in restricted form, the 1955 Act, nor any of Mr. Short's subsequent Private Member's Bills, nor the present Bill, has sought to facilitate concessions on these non-municipal undertakings. They have had the specific purpose of putting matters right for the municipal undertakings alone.

We do not think that this measure should be inflated beyond its avowed purpose. As it stands, it is a simple and useful measure within the accepted limitations. It will deal with the situation so far as that can be done, without entering into any of these wider issues, and we have brought it forward in the hope of a quick passage. For these reasons, I cannot advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment. As I indicated to your Lordships on Second Reading, we are aware of the wider issues to which I have referred; we shall tear them in mind for the future. Meanwhile, I very much hope that this Bill, useful in itself, will go forward without hindrance on its present basis.

The noble Lord asked me about Section 136 of the 1948 Act. All I can say on this point is that it is a matter for the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but I am informed that, although the powers given by that Statute are in general terms, the use of them is subject to that Minister's consent and in practice it has not to date been given for a purpose of this kind. That was an answer I prepared prior to the debate in anticipation of the point being put to me by the noble Lord. I therefore hope I have persuaded the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment. It is a simple Bill to put matters back as everybody thought they were prior to 1954 and to let local authorities carry on as they could then. That is what we want to do and that is all this Bill is intended to do.

LORD CHESHAM

Of course, I have no means of knowing whether the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has persuaded my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment. The one thing I want to say about it is this. I think I made it perfectly clear on Second Reading that I regarded this Bill as a pretty poor piece of legislation, and why, and I am certainly not going to repeat that argument to-day. But, in my view, to understand exactly why people who travel by municipal transport should be better off than those who travel by some other form of transport beats logical thinking. But I do not want to argue that because, surprisingly enough, having thought the matter over since Second Reading and having listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has said to-day, I feel that we are in a very difficult position.

We certainly do not want to oppose this Bill, although we accept it with a good deal of reservation, as I have already said. I do think there is force in what the noble Lord says—although he did not make much of it; he rather referred to other matters—about the breach of the principle of municipal authorities not supporting a wide range of outside interests. I now think that that is an important point which we should be extremely chary about accepting, and therefore I think we should approach our consideration of this Amendment with the greatest caution.

LORD INGLEWOOD

I had hoped for a more sympathetic reply from the Minister. He said there was nothing to stop bus companies from giving on their own concessions to their passengers. I should have thought there was even less that could stop the Government from giving us this Amendment this afternoon, and although there are admittedly certain wider issues involved I thought that he tended to exaggerate those issues throughout his speech. It is a strange reactionary view, to keep his eyes fixed on some date ten years ago. Surely what we have to think about is the services and opportunities for people in the future. There is nothing holy about any particular arrangement which happened to have evolved by the year 1954. Therefore I hope that even now, at this late hour, he will undertake to look at this matter again. There is still a later stage before we finish with this Bill. I had hoped this afternoon that he would at least hold out some hope to us by saying that he would look at it and see whether he could get over these wider issues. In that case I would have asked permission to withdraw the Amendment, but in the circumstances, in view of a flat refusal I do not think your Lordships would wish me to do that.

VISCOUNT ECCLES

May I support this Amendment? I live in a rural area, and I think other noble Lords will agree that the village bus services are not in a very prosperous condition. One of the main reasons is that the young people have motor-cycles or small cars, and that leaves the old people without a very easy means of getting to their shopping centres. I feel that while this transitional stage is going on, and since not all the people have some kind of transport of their own, we ought to pay attention to the difficulties of the old people. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will look at this Amendment again.

LORD LINDGREN

I will certainly look at it again, but I should make one thing quite clear. We have already looked at it very sympathetically, so far as possible, and I doubt very much indeed whether a further look at it will bring any satisfaction in the direction the noble Lord requires. So far as local authorities are concerned, there are 95 which operate their own municipal bus undertakings. They have off-peak times in which they can allow the old-aged pensioner, the blind person or the disabled person to take up an empty seat on a bus with very little charge. This charge falls on the local rate: and if there is a deficiency it is borne by the local rate; it is part of the municipal service. But if this Amendment were accepted or carried, it would mean that the same concession would be open to people coming under 1,300 other local authorities who do not operate their own buses.

LORD INGLEWOOD

Surely the noble Lord is not suggesting that persons in his qualified classes who live in the areas of the 1,300 local authorities are any less deserving than those who are living in the areas of the 95?

LORD LINDGREN

No; I am not suggesting that at all. If the noble Lord will allow me to finish my argument I shall come back to that point in a moment. It means that this would operate in relation to 1,300 local authorities. The noble Lord would not claim to be a Parliamentary draftsman. Nor would I. It is a skilled profession. I was not going to bring this matter in; but the failure of the noble Lord's Amendment means that it does not apply to the county councils. If this Amendment were carried what happens in relation to a rural district in, say, Westmorland or Cumberland? The authority might agree to make a contribution to a private bus operater, but when a vehicle reached the boundary of the rural district the concession would then not apply. What happens in most rural areas is this. If an old-age pensioner or disabled person in a village wants to go into the market town or into the rural district in order to do some shopping, to see some friends or to go to some social activity, what would happen is what happens now on some municipal transport undertakings—namely, the concession would operate only within the borough, and when the bus came to the boundary of the borough the passengers would have to pay the ordinary fare. So we should have a person obtaining a concession for perhaps two miles and then having to pay the normal fare for six miles. If in fact it was going to apply on a real basis it would be far better for this type of concession to be applied throughout all county councils, rather than in some local authority areas.

I mentioned in the Second Reading debate—I do not want to over-emphasise it now—that rural transport was a problem considered by a Committee set up by the previous Government back in the late' fifties, under the chairmanship of Professor Jack. They presented a Report to the Government indicating what they felt ought to be done to facilitate rural transport in this country. Nothing was done from the time that Report was received until now. In conjunction with a survey of transport generally, we are now looking at the Jack Report, and we hope that we shall be able to make some concession at some later date in regard to rural transport; but that will be on rural transport as a whole.

So far as this Amendment is concerned, certainly I will look at it again. But I want to make it clear that I do not want to mislead the noble Lord into thinking that my agreeing to look at it again carries with it an undertaking to implement the Amendment. We will look at it, but I do not see a great deal of hope of implementing it.

LORD INGLEWOOD

The noble Lord has now said that he will look at the Amendment again. Of course I accept that in the spirit in which he has said it. He will recall that I said that I was not committed to any particular form of words. I appreciate that it is extremely difficult to draft Amendments to satisfy the Parliamentary draftsmen. But perhaps, in the light of what I have just said, the noble Lord will help me between now and the Report stage to draft an Amendment which will in fact be acceptable to the Parliamentary draftsmen. Then we might have an opportunity of considering it, as he has said he will willingly do. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, while the noble Lord is looking at things, will he also look at the date when the Jack Committee reported?

LORD LINDGREN

Yes; I think it was about 1955. So five years have passed without any action being taken on it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.