Battle of the Bill rages on
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
GOVERNMENT REJECTS 57 VARIETIES OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS
from our political correspondent • The Government, as forecast in CM last week, vigorously opposed all major changes to the Transport Bill, carried in the House of Lords, when the Peers' amendments were considered in the Commons on Wednesday and yesterday (Thursday). The debate is to be resumed on Monday.
Before the battle began it was made known that the Government proposed to reject outright all but three of 60 amendments covering 20 main provisions of the Bill, on the grounds that they would constitute unacceptable changes in or breaches of the Government's policy.
The main Lords' amendments in this category were those which would prevent transfer of Freightliner business to the National Freight Corporation, delay the setting up of PTAs and the introduction of quantity licensing, and deprive the boards responsible for nationalized transport of their powers to provide ancillary services to outside customers.
But the Government was ready to go some way towards meeting Opposition wishes on reframing the terms of reference for the National Freight Corporation and making provision for increasing the normal fiveyear maximum period for quality licensing.
In the Lords
from our parliamentary correspondent.
• A great deal of preparation will be needed before some parts of Transport Bill can be implemented—and before the details are worked out and brought into effect the Transport Minister will have further consultations with the various interested parties.
This promise was made by Government spokesman Lord Beswick when the Lords finally approved the Bill this week, after nearly 90 hours of discussion and a passing over of 250 amendments.
Lord Beswick refuted fears that the Government was trying to impose an unwanted solution to our transport problems upon a reluctant country and a reluctant transport industry. The Bill had not been dreamed up in a vacuum, he said. It was a practical blueprint for a new pattern of organization and regulation in the transport world which would best meet the needs of this country for the next few years.
The chief Opposition spokesman, Lord Nugent, said that the increased costs flowing from the Bill—£100m or £200m a year according to the Government or Opposition view—was a very substantial amount which would work its way through the economy to higher prices in shops and in exports over the next year or so.
Lord Nugent was critical of the parts of the Bill dealing with transport managers. This was a good scheme, he said, but astonishingly lacking in preparation.
Lord Nugent maintained that there was an absolute obligation to get tachographs fitted before introducing shorter driving hours. He felt that shortening hours without this elementary safeguard would be sheer cynicism.
Urging the Government to think again about the appointed day for introducing quantity licensing, Lord Nugent said he felt this scheme could do British Railways nothing but harm. Sooner or later it was bound to be swept off the Statute Book and when that happened BR would lose any advantage it might have got out of it and at the same time would have lost something which mattered more—the goodwill of all its best customers.
For the Liberals Lord Beaumont of Whitley said that though his Party welcomed quantity licensing in principle, it objected to the Government contention that bureaucracy must decide whether or not it was cheaper, faster and more convenient to carry goods by road or rail. That was to treat businessmen as fOols or knaves, or both, and was an unfortunate symptom of the attitude of the Government on this matter.
In the Commons
• The National Freight Corporation will not have to refer to the needs of the customer and the nature of his goods when deciding that a consignment should go by rail—unless the customer himself gives any indication of his wishes.
This change in the Transport Bill was made when the Commons this week debated the Lords' changes in the measure. The Upper House had altered the Bill so that it laid on the Corporation the duty of securing that goods went by rail wherever this was sufficient and economic by reference to the needs of the consignor and the nature of the goods.
Mr. Richard Marsh wanted the words "by reference to" taken out and in their place a longer phrase which included the words "to have due regard to any indication of". This was accepted by the Commons by 263 votes to 204.
Mr. Marsh said this was one of 20 substantial Lords' amendments which the Government would oppose during the threeday debate due to end on Monday. The purpose of the Lords' amendments was clear—that the Corporation should respect the needs of the customer. That was an objective with which he felt himself in sympathy but the amendment went far farther because it placed a specific requirement on the Corporation in all cases and left no room for it to take other considerations into account. It was, said Mr. Marsh, never intended to place on the NFC the burden of trying to find out the intention of the customer in circumstances where he did not feel strongly enough to express a preference.
Resisting the Government's suggestion, Opposition spokesman Mr. Edward Taylor asked who would decide what was meant by efficiency and economy—was it simply going to be the NFC itself? The insertion of the words "any indication or would release the Corporation from considering the needs of the customer and his special problem unless specific matters were brought to its attention.
Mr. Marsh should not have rushed in and added more words which might bring more confusion and detract from the principle the Lords were trying to introduce.
For the Liberals Mr. Peter Bessell said that the customer was best equipped to choose the form of transport for his goods. If the Lords' amendment had been accepted it would have gone a long way toward removing the fears caused by this section of the Bill.