§ 2.35 p.m.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the British Railways Board are advised that they have powers to tender for the manufacture of privately owned railway equipment to be used on British Railways or on the railways of any other Board; whether the proposal of the Board to exercise such powers has been vetoed by the Minister of Transport; and, if so, why.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of what advice the British Railways Board have received, but the question of their legal powers is not the issue. The Board have submitted to my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport certain proposals under Section 13(4) of the Transport Act, 1962, for the exercise of their manufacturing powers. My right honourable friend has stated in Parliament that he decided not to approve the proposal by the Board to tender for the manufacture of rolling stock for ownership by private firms because this proposal would not have been in accordance with the Government's policy, which was made clear on several occasions when the Transport Bill was before Parliament. The primary task of the British Railways Board is to provide railway services, and the Government consider that, as hitherto, there is at present no 1124 justification for the nationalised transport undertakings entering the field of manufacture for outside customers.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for not contesting the legality of the request of the Railways Board. I, personally, think they have the powers, and that is not disputed. What is in dispute is the veto of the Minister, which is lawful in itself, by which he is preventing the British Railways Board from competing. May I put this to the Parliamentary Secretary? Here is a great railway undertaking; it is experienced in the manufacture of railway equipment; and all it is asking is the right to tender, in competitive tendering, for contracts in relation to private undertakings using the railways. If it wins the contract on merit, then it wins it; if it loses, it loses it. And it would not tender on a basis that would cause a loss to the Railways undertaking. The Government are in favour of competition, so they constantly say. Why impose a veto against competition on this occasion? Is it not the fact that the veto is imposed for purely dogmatic and doctrinaire purposes, and is that not a confession of the stultifying bankruptcy of the present Administration?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, the broad answer to the noble Lord's question almost throughout is, of course, No, certainly not. But I would say this. I do not think anything that the noble Lord has now asked me justifies adding anything to what I said in my original reply. I think the Government's policy and attitude in this matter have on several occasions been made abundantly clear in both Houses when the Transport Bill was before Parliament, and they have not changed in the slightest.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, will the noble Lord not answer whether this is not dogma? Is it not in response to a doctrinaire view; and is it not the case that it would be good for British Railways to make a modest profit out of something? Those contracts could be worth millions of pounds. Would it not be a good thing if some of the railway workshops had a little more work to do, instead of staffs being ruthlessly reduced? Will the noble Lord deal with these points?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I have already said, No, certainly not, to the noble Lord's first question on the point. I do not quite know for what reason he thinks redundancy will result from this, because in the two workshops that could do this work it is known there will be no redundancy this year. If they are not making wagons they will be engaged on repairs and maintenance; and this is what they are for.
§ EARL ATTLEEMy Lords, may we take it that the Government do not care what happens to towns like Swindon, Crewe and the rest which depend on the railways, and that they are prepared to scrap them in spite of all their talk of the redeployment of industry?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, the noble Earl can take nothing of the kind, because any such action, if it happened, would not affect any of the towns he mentioned. The question, therefore, does not arise and I do not think it was a very worthy one.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, would it not be a little better if the British nation as well as Parliament knew how little consistency there is in this policy regarding the railways? Is t not a fact that the electricity undertakings compete in almost every sphere in retail and wholesale trade? Is that not so, and is it not right that it should be so? Is it really the intention of Her Majesty's Government to go on with the kind of policy they had when they sold out the road transport belonging to the British Transport Commission? They still have had to keep some of them—and they are making a profit to go into the general fund. When will the Government have some consistency about this and treat the people of the country in a decent manner with regard to transport?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I am not going to attempt to deal with the six fresh questions which the noble Earl has just raised, but I will say that the policy of the Government in this matter has been completely consistent throughout.
§ LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGHMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord 1126 whether he suggests there is no likelihood of redundancy because of the Minister's decision? And may I ask him whether there is likely to be redundancy in the Doncaster railway workshop, which has been one of the most enterprising and efficient in the country for a long time?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, the Doncaster works are not involved in this question.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, was the noble Lord correct when he said that the primary duty of the British Railways Board was to run the railways? Would the noble Lord not agree that the duty the Government laid upon Dr. Beeching was to make the railways pay? Are we to take it, therefore, that when the Government and the Minister criticise the judgment of the British Railways Board they are in fact criticising the commercial judgment of Dr. Beeching?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, the noble Lord is not to take anything of the kind. I am well aware, and so is the House, of the duty laid upon the Railways Board in this matter, and when it was being laid upon them it was made perfectly clear that it was not to include manufacturing for outside interests.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, one moment. Are we to take it that a speech by a Minister in a Standing Committee of the House of Commons is to bind the Government for all time? If this was to be done, why was it not done by legislation? If it is left to the discretion of the Minister, why is the Minister's mind made up in advance, well before the application is received? The Government are trying to elevate a minor ministerial speech in a Standing Committee of the House of Commons into Statute Law, and it is nothing of the kind.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I am not doing anything of the kind, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so. I am merely repeating what was stated, not only in the Standing Committee, but also at various stages of the Bill, in another place and in your Lordships' House, to be Government policy. It does not bind the Government for all 1127 time, but so long as the Government remain of the same opinion, their policy will remain the same.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, we are shocked by this display of inconsistency and of animosity towards a nationalised industry belonging to the country. We will raise this in a debate at the earliest possible opportunity. Perhaps we shall start at once with an Unstarred Question.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, of course, it is always open to the noble Earl to ask for a debate or to put down an Unstarred Question on any subject he wishes, but I am very surprised that he should express himself as either shocked or surprised at what I have said, because it is so completely consistent with what has been so often said before.
§ EARL ATTLEEMy Lords, is it not clear that if the Government are pursuing stupid policies like this, it is high time they gave way to another one?
§ LORD CHESHAMNo, my Lords.