The Lords Make the Bill More Workable
Page 48
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
On Report Stage, Various Concessions to Road Transport Operators, Passenger and Goods, were Obtained, One Allowing the B.T.C. Discretion in Acquisition By Our Legal Adviser THE House of Lords Report Stage on the Transport Bill was more like a Report Stage should be. The House of Commons, partly on account of the unsatisfactory nature of the Committee Stage proceedings, partly on account of the recommittal to deal with the important Government amendments, turned its Report Stage into a rehash of the Committee Stage.
The Committee Stage in the Lords having been fairly satisfactory, and there being no recommittal, the Report was largely a matter of Government amendments to carry out undertakings given in Committee, and further discussions where the Government had considered points again but had decided to stick to its guns. Hardly any matter already discussed at length was argued out again.
Further Further Concessions In the result, a variety of small gains was made, affecting goods and passenger transport both directly and indirectly.
Outstanding, on the goods road transport side, was what was called "a let-out clause" added to Clause 39 (originally Clause 40). Under this neiv provision, the Commission may agree not to exercise its statutory duty to acquire undertakings liable to compulsory acquisition.
This obligation may be waived if, having regard to its duty to provide an efficient system of public inland transport under Clause 3 (1), the Commission is of opinion that an exception is expedient by reason of (i) the special character of the undertaking, or (ii) the goods carried or the locality served by the undertaking. Such an agreement may be subject to conditions, and if the conditions be broken, the Commission may proceed to acquire the undertaking.
This provision gives the Commission full discretion whether to acquire or not. If a locality, such as North Scotland, presents difficulties which the Commission does not feel like tackling, it can drive a hard bargain with any " eligible " undertaker in the locality to provide services, with the threat of nationalization hanging over his head if he fails in any part of his bargain. It is a step, although only a small one, in the direction of control without ownership.
The Earl of Selkirk wished to add to the two reasons for making an exception, that the undertaking is a one man business." Viscount Addison, prompted by Viscount Swinton, thought the point was already covered, and the suggestion was withdrawn.
Additions were made to the lists of exempt traffic in Clauses 39 and 52, in accordance with Government undertakings in Committee. They were three: Goods of a special character, which, under statute, must be carried in specially constructed vehicles; the haulage of felled timber from site in a specially constructed vehicle; and the carriage, in a vehicle in which no other goods are being carried for hire or reward, of apparatus or equipment ancillary to the operation of a specially constructed vehicle for the purposes of the transport of exempted loads.
Tried—But Failed
The Opposition brought up again the questions of the carriage of fresh fruit, cut flowers and green vegetables; and bulk transport in tipping vehicles, but without success.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh also criticized the limitation on the timber exemption to carriage from site, and this Viscount Addison promised to consider further.
Before leaving Clause 39, it is necessary to refer to an amendment moved by Lord Beveridge in an endeavour to clarify the definition of "ordinary long-distance carriage" of goods.
The clause is apparently framed on the assumption that a vehicle loads up, is driven for more or less than 40 or 80 miles, whatever limit ma): eventually be fixed, and is then unloaded. In that case it is easy to decide whether such a trip constitutes ordinary long-distance carriage.
But suppose the load is changer on the way—say, on a parcel:, service—what then? Is the us lance to be calculated for each separate parcel! Are those carried beyond the limit long-distanc4 traffic and those under the
short-distance traffic? Or is any journey over the limit long ills. lance so long as some load is carried for hire or reward at ar times on the journey?
Lord Beveridge's amendment was not happily phrased for clarifying the point, and he and Viscount Addison spoke at cross-purposes. The answei to the conundrum was not forth coming.
For what it is worth, my view n that one does have to take the distance for each parcel. Someone is going to have fun working thin one out!
Passenger Transport Passenger transport came in fo, Government amendments, too. Some minor matters were accepted with Opposition 'gratitude and then Viscount Addison wished on the House a substantial addition to Clause 64 (contents of area road transport schemes), framed with the obscurity normal in this Bill.
Even with the assistance of Viscount Addison's remarks, it remains obscure, although, as the Earl of Rothes entirely agreed that the points on compensation which had been discussed were met, he at least has understood it. Apparently there are others, as Viscount Addison said that the amendment is the result of considerable negotiation and discussion.
First, there is a proviso "that a scheme shall not provide for the transfer, otherwise than by agree ment, of part only of an under
taking unless the part to be
transferred includes the whole of so much of the undertaking as relates to the operation of passen ger road transport services." ' This would appear to mean that, so long as (i) some part of an undertaking consisting of several parts, one of which is passenger road transport, is left to the undertaker, and (ii) the whole of the passenger road transport part is to be acquired, the scheme may also provide for compulsory acquisition of some of the other parts.
If an undertaking comprises, say, a passenger road transport business (two buses), a goods road transport system (one lorry) and a garage (one garage), so long as (i) either the lorry or the garage is left to the undertaker, and (ii) both buses are taken, the garage or the lorry (whichever is not left behind) can be compulsorily acquired. But the Commission cannot have the garage and only one bus; it must take all the passenger part to be able to acquire another; and it cannot take it all except by agreement
Who is Right ?
Viscount Addison's interpretation was the converse of this and was that "a man should not be compulsorily deprived of the part which did not relate to transport except by agreement and when he wished it to be done." That would mean that the buses could be taken, but neither garage nor lorry could be compulsorily acquired, which may be more sensible, but is not, with all respect, what the provision says.
There follow two minor points, then a provision for compensation where schemes prohibit or restrict services not provided under the schemes. Compensation is payable in the following circumstances: Where (i) any person was at the date of the Act (not the Scheme) operating passenger road transport services in the area, and (ii) neither the whole nor' part of his undertaking is taken over under the scheme, and (iii) the prohibition or restriction will involve a substantial interference with some transport activity (i.e., any transport activity, not merely the operation of passenger road transport services) which he was carrying on before the date of the Act.
The liability to pay and the amount of compensation are to be determined by the Arbitration Tribunal.
• The Eighth Schedule produced the last division on this phase of the Bill. This was on an amendment that the
inquiry into a scheme under Clause. 63 for co-ordinating passenger services should be held by a person' who is not a servant or officer of the Minister. Moving it, Viscount Swinton said that the inquiry was of a' quasi-judicial nature; and that it must be held by an independent person, the case for the scheme must be proved, and the report published.
Government Defence
The Lord Chancellor, in a characteristic reply, thought it beyond any real doubt that the inquiry was administrative and not quasi-judicial, although that did not mean it was not to be conducted fairly. The Minister had the scheme propounded to him by the Commission, and the objectors objected. It was for the Minister to decide, as a matter of administration, what he thought was the right thing to do.
The amendment was carried, and a further amendment to make publication of the report obligatory "followed the event." A further amendment requiring the Commission to appear at inquiries in support of a scheme and submit to crossexamination also followed. No more of those " New Town" inquiries!
A great number of other amendments was made, and some of them must be referred to, if only briefly.
Lord Morrison gave a Governmental assurance that the Commission did not intend to enter the hire-car business; but would not accept an amendment to Clause 2 designed to cover the point, as it was too wide.
A series of amendments was made to Clause 2, restricting the manufacture of bodies and chassis by the Commission.
Manufacture for experiment or research is unrestricted. Chassis are restricted to approximately the highest number manufactured by the undertakings taken over by the Commission. Bodies for passenger vehicles are restricted to one-fifth of the requirements of the Commission's undertaking, exclusive of London Transport. Bodies for goods vehicles are limited to one-quarter of the requirements of the Commission's undertaking. Major components are confined to the Commission's requirements for the manufacture of chassis, or as replacements for chassis manufactured by the Commission.
Further, the 'Commission is not to purchase vehieles for resale; nor is it to trade in spare parts or do repairs other than to its own vehicles, except for carrying on for not more than three years, pending disposal, a business ancillary to one compulsorily acquired.
In Clause 5 the House decided, on a division, to set up a Scottish Transport Executive to control all transport in Scotland, subject to the Commission.
A word was put in for that largely ignored person, the transport user. A Government amendment to Clause 6 enables the Minister (if he thinks fit) to appoint two additional members
of any consultative committee. Lord Walkden said that this was to provide that the travelling public may possibly be represented.
Extensions in similar terms in Clauses 78 and 79 (dealing with charges schemes) enable bodies of persons providing for hire or reward services similar to those to which the scheme relates, to make representa tions that the charges are unduly low. In other words, if an undertaker who is not nationalized finds that the Commission is proposing to put its charges so low that he cannot carry on, he may object to the charges scheme. It will be interesting to see whether this provision is ever invoked in practice.
Workers' Interests
Finally, it is right to mention that a fair amount of time was spent in discussing the interests of another section of the community which is neglected out of all proportion to its interest in the matter—the workers in the industry. Two points in particular were argued, but the Opposition amendments thereon were lost.
In the first, Lord Gifford argued the case of those not directly employed by an undertaking being taken over, but whose work is, nevertheless, affected as a result. Examples are employees of holding companies, or central insurance or engineering departments dealing with a whole group of undertakings.
Lord Walkden assured the House that every fair and proper case for compensation for loss of employment would be properly covered; but he suspected that directors might Creep in under the wording proposed.
Secondly, Lord Gifford wanted road employees treated on at least the same basis as railway workers. Lord Walkden emphasized the stable, regular and codified position of the railway worker, and the variable and uncertain position of the road worker. The position of road transport operatives would have to be separately considered. He assured Lord Gifford that everything would be done to give fair play and every possible consideration to road transport workers.