LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 23 October 1968)

§ LORD WINTERBOTTOM

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 to the Lords Amendment No. 1. In considering Amendment No. 1, introduced into the Bill on a Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, the House of Commons accepted a further Amendment moved by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport which I suggest preserves the substance of the original Amendment and, indeed, strengthens it. I am convinced that the clause as finally amended will preserve the substance of your Lordships' desire to bring in, at this point of the Bill, a strong reference to users' needs, while at the same time not distorting the prime duty of the National Freight Corporation, which is to provide an integrated road/rail service and to evaluate the efficiency and economy of road and rail, or a mixture of the two, in the light of the particular consignment.

The clause, as now amended, will read: ... it shall be the duty of the Corporation— (a)... 1485 (ii) to secure that, in the provision of those services, goods are carried by rail whenever such carriage is efficient and economic; and in discharging their duty under sub-paragraph (ii) of this paragraph, to have due regard to any indication of the needs of the person for whom the goods in question are to be carried and to the nature of the goods. I hope that your Lordships will accept this Amendment.

§ LORD MERRIVALE

My Lords, as the mover of Amendment No. 1 in Committee, I should like to express my appreciation to Her Majesty's Government for not having completely rejected it in another place. This is no doubt due in part to the fact that verbal support was given to this Amendment by a number of noble Lords on this side of the House. Therefore Her Majesty's Government have had second thoughts on the question of consumer choice in the carriage of goods, though the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said on June 24 last that they supported the intention behind the proposal. I also welcome the support kindly given in the Division Lobby, when there was a two-to-one majority.

The noble Lord went on to say in Committee that if the wording of the sub-paragraph were extended the additional burden placed on the Freight Corporation might have an inhibiting effect on their work. I am glad that Her Majesty's Government no longer feel that to be the case. As I understand the position now, should any person for whom goods are to be carried indicate a preference and draw attention to the nature of the goods, the Freight Corporation will have to pay due regard to that notification. I am not sure that I went all the way with the Minister when he said in another place on October 16 last, at column 414 of Hansard: the vast majority of people are concerned merely with transporting their goods". Further on he said: They do not care what mode of transport their goods go by". I think that the users will care.

In conclusion, I again thank Her Majesty's Government for having agreed that a provision should be written into 1486 Clause 1 of the Bill whereby the user can be assured that each time there is notification of a preference for a mode of transport and notification of a particular type of goods warranting a particular mode of transport, due regard will be paid by the National Freight Corporation to the needs of the user, an the understanding that the needs of the user are paramount. I am grateful to Her Majesty's Government for what they have done.