HL Deb 25 July 1969 vol 304 cc1195-7

[Nos. 1 and 2.] Clause 6, page 6, leave out lines 24 to 33 and insert—

  1. '(a) to carry passengers by stage carriage or express carriage on any road within Greater London, and with the consent of the Minister on any road outside Greater London, but the Minister shall not give his consent under this paragraph unless satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances which make it desirable that the Executive should carry passengers by stage carriage or express carriage on a particular route outside Greater London;
  2. (b) to carry passengers by contract carriage on roads within Greater London, and where the passengers consist of a pleasure party of persons employed by the Council, with or without their families or friends, within a radius of 100 miles from Charing Cross;
(bb) to carry passengers by any form of rail or water transport (including hovercraft) within, to or from Greater London and, so far as is requisite in connection with the exercise of their powers under this paragraph, between places outside Greater London.

Clause 6, page 6, line 35, leave out ("or (b)") and insert ("(b) or (bb)").

The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:—

Because these amendments would place a limitation on the operating powers of the London Transport Executive which is unacceptable and which is unreasonable having regard to the provision already made by the Bill to ensure that those powers are not abused.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to which the Commons have disagreed. The House will remember that on Committee we had a full debate on this matter and that noble Lords opposite expressed their fears that under this clause the new Authority would be able to operate willy-nilly throughout the country. We sought to show noble Lords opposite that their fears would not come about. The House of Commons have now agreed with the views that were expressed by me in this matter and I hope that the House will not insist on its Amendments.

Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Shepherd.)

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, notification that this stage of the Bill would be taken this morning reached this side of the House only yesterday evening. It is for that reason that my noble friend Lord Nugent, who has been dealing with this Bill on this side of the House, is not present today. We also appreciate on this side the desire of the Government and the Greater London Council to pass this Bill into law as rapidly as possible. Any ineptitude of mine in commenting on the Commons Reasons must be increased by the fact that I was unable to read them until a quarter of an hour ago.

The effect of these Amendments was to maintain the traditional balance between London Transport and the other operators which the Bill seeks to upset. The Amendment was drafted with the knowledge that London Transport has not to any extent operated contract services for many years; but the new L.T.E. is going to have a complete monopoly within the Greater London Council area and the Amendments would have protected from this strong monopoly competition other operators in the wide areas opened up to London Transport under this Bill.

Bearing the Commons Reason in mind, certainly there is a safeguard in Clause 12; but this will allow the Minister to intervene only if he sees the result of unfair trading. We on this side take the view that is not in any way as effective as was the Amendment. However, time will tell whether the safeguards for private operators are going to be effective. I trust in particular that the Minister's powers under Clause 12 will not in fact be needed.

On Question, Motion agreed to.