TRAVEL CONCESSIONS BILL (Hansard, 15 December 1964)

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN)

My Lords, may I, first of all, apologise to the noble Lord and to the House for the procedural slip which I made last Thursday. I promised to take away the noble Lord's Amendment and to consider the proposals he had made in conjunction with my right honourable friend. And then, through lack of experience (it is as well to admit it), I moved "that the Report be received", with the result that the Report stage was concluded. But that slip is not as disastrous in this House as it would have been when both of us were in another place, because the Amendment can come before the House again. As promised, I have had this matter reconsidered in the Department by my right honourable friend, in conjunction with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government who are vitally concerned. I am afraid that the noble Lord's hopes ran a little too high, for I must resist the Amendment on this occasion as well.

The reasons have already been given on Second Reading and during the Committee stage, but for the benefit of the House I will repeat them. The first is that this Bill as printed and accepted by another place is a simple Bill; it is limited in scope to restore a position which was thought to exist before 1954. It gives permissive powers to 95 local authorities who run their own municipal transport undertakings. The proposed Amendment would extend that concession to all county boroughs, to all urban district councils, to all rural district councils, and, by the second Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, to all county councils also. It would mean applying it to some 1,300 county boroughs and county districts and 60 county councils; and, if it were applied to Scotland, to 200 town councils and 30 county councils—all in areas not served by municipal transport.

Operating within those areas there are 1,100 private bus companies, large and small, and then, of course, in addition there is perhaps the largest bus operator of all, the London Transport Board. The second Amendment on the Order Paper would extend the financial implications arising from the Bill far beyond what was stated in another place when the Bill was given its Second Reading, went 369 through its Committee stage and then received its Third Reading. The other place were informed that under the Bill as it passed the cost falling upon the Exchequer through the rate-deficiency grant or the Exchequer equalisation grant would be very small indeed. These Amendments would increase that cost out of all recognition.

There is the further point, which was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, during the Committee stage last Thursday. Acceptance of the Amendments would create a major departure from the general principle restricting local authorities from applying their rate resources and resources from Government grant to support commercial undertakings. Over and above that, the Amendments would produce administrative difficulties, as one can immediately see when one takes into account that nearly 2,000 local authorities and 1,100 bus undertakings might be involved.

Therefore, to put it briefly, the Amendments are not acceptable, first, on grounds of principle; secondly, on the ground that they would greatly increase costs; and thirdly, on the ground that the implications have not been fully thought out. The only result, if these Amendments were pressed, would be to delay a simple, restricted Bill, which will be immediately useful, and a Bill which the Opposition, though they have expressed their reservations, have not opposed. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, recognising that we have looked it his points further will now withdraw his Amendments in order that the Bill can be given its Third Reading and be put on the Statute Book.

LORD INGLEWOOD

My Lords, of course, I accept the noble Lord's apology in regard to what happened on Report stage; I entirely understand. The noble Lord said that the implications of the Amendment had not been fully thought out. I think that that really applies to the Bill itself: that the implications of the Bill, when it was originally drafted, had not been fully thought out, bearing in mind that these concessions can be enjoyed only by people who happen to live in one of the 95 local authority areas referred to. None the less, because the noble Lord has been good enough to look at this matter again and has given us a further explanation, I will not press the 370 matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.