On a point of order. I do not want to detain the House, but I would like to call attention to the difficulty in which Scottish Members have been placed. We are sitting on the continued Committee stage of the Social Work (Scotland) Bill [Lords] and there are many Members who, to my knowledge, wish to participate in the Transport Bill proceedings this morning.

Is there any machinery whereby a communication between the Floor of the House and the Committee can be maintained, so that Members can follow at a distance the progress of the debate this morning and so determine when to leave the Committee so as to attend the House?

I appreciate the point of the hon. Gentleman. It has been put to me before. I have then made the suggestion that hon. Members must keep in contact with each other. The Chair cannot undertake to help on this very difficult problem.

Further to that point of order. While understanding the position, I wonder whether, as there are a number of suitable places upstairs, it would be possible to put up on pieces of paper an indication of what Amendment has been reached. There are many areas of Scotland specifically affected, and if hon. Members could be informed in this way it would be of great advantage.

That responsibility must lie with hon. Members. I do not think that I can add to the burden of the Chair.

I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 14, line 7, leave out from ' section' to end of line 14 and insert:

' but the Authority and the Executive shall ensure that decisions taken with a view to the establishment of such a system are compatible with—

(i) the town planning and traffic and traffic and parking policies of the councils of constituent areas; and

(ii) the encouragement of safety;

• and that the decisions will be taken within the framework of economic criteria which will enable full comparison to be made between the choices available'.

With this Amendment we reach the nub of the P.T.A. principle, because embodied in the words of the Amendment are included all the issues which have been discussed, and which have to be considered when one is trying to agree about the main purposes of passenger transport authorities. Until last night I had always been mystified by the Minister of State's view of passenger transport authorities, and the work that they were to do in the conurbations. It was only when I heard him explain what he thought they were that I began to understand why he was passionately in favour of them. He was talking of the very wide powers they had for planning, highway, traffic management and over the operation and co-ordination of bus services.

My difficulty was that the powers he was then ascribing to the P.T.A.S are not powers existing in the Bill. All through Committee stage we have been arguing that the Bill would have been a great deal better if these powers had existed. I am worried about the sort of relationship which will exist between the local authorities in whose hands lie the planning powers for virtually all the ancillary areas associated with transport and the passenger transport executive who will be responsible for running the buses.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how the purpose of the executive, as outlined by the Minister of State last night, will be achieved by providing places for the consumption of food and drink, car parks and equipment to repair motor vehicles?

The hon. Member is quite right in drawing attention to this, because these functions are totally irrelevant. This is simply a doctrinal flourish, introduced by the previous Minister for political purposes.

I am also concerned that the powers which the Minister of State ascribed last night to the passenger transport authorities are not in this legislation. I want to read the words which I seek to delete from the Bill. These are the words supposed to define the relationship between the new authority and the existing local authorities who are the planning authorities. The relevant words are that the passenger transport authorities shall have due regard

"… to the contribution to the effective implementation by the councils of constituent areas of town planning and parking policies which can be made by public transport services which through their efficiency and convenience attract persons to use those services rather than other means of transport …"

Those words when analysed are nothing more than a series of platitudes strung together for the sake of giving some semblance of respectability to the objectives of the P.T.A.s. Under a detailed analysis they do not contain a remit to the P.T.A.s which makes any sense at all. The authorities are expected to have due regard only to the plans of the local authorities. On this basis one is not placed in a position where one has to subject oneself to local authority plans. It is possible that there would be situations where local authority plans in all the major land use problems would not be followed by the passenger transport authorities. This makes a nonsense of the planning of our cities for transport purposes.

We turn to the fundamental problem, that we must start with the problem of planning land use. We must deal with the highway and traffic management problems and the problems of the cars before we can decide what to do in the cities. To tackle the problem from the other way, to tinker around with the ownership of buses, is to completely misunderstand the problem. The Minister gave a false impression of our position last night, which is very vital. We have never said that we were against the concept of passenger transport authorities.

I have said clearly, that such authorities, as consultative organisations, co-ordinative bodies, are a vital necessity in the conurbations. We have objected to these proposals because they were not based upon co-ordinating and consultative organisations. We want to remedy these vague words, which do not make any practical sense in terms of a remit to the people who have to carry this out, and in their place we want to substitute words which are clearer in their intentions and in the way in which they will be interpreted.

We want to define the relationship between the authority and its executives and the local authority much more clearly. Our Amendment says:

"… the Authority and the Executive shall ensure that decisions taken with a view to the establishment of such a system"—

a passenger transport system are compatible with—

" (i) the town planning and traffic and traffic parking policies of the councils of constituent areas— "

this is the first point. Secondly, that they are compatible with

" (ii) the encouragement of safety",

which is not a point of difference between us. Our third point is

" that the decisions will be taken within the framework of economic criteria which will enable full comparison to be made between the choices available."

I was surprised that it was necessary for me to draft this Amendment, because the Minister of State gave me a specific assurance in Committee that he would look at the problem. He said:

" I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Tavistock that we need much more cost benefit analysis and undoubtedly one of the major tasks of the P.T.As. will be to improve and refine the analysis on which to base decisions about where money should be invested, comparing the return on investment in a road network with a comparable investment in facilities for public transport, providing new types of car parking facilities, interchange facilities and so on."

The hon. Gentleman also said a little later:

"… we are prepared to reconsider the whole of this wording in respect of the terms of reference of the P.T.As. … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 1st February, 1968; c. 515.]

I was disappointed that he did not think that the Clause needed any redrafting.

When we consider the third point, the question of financial discipline, we come to the greatest area of anxiety about the sort of things that could go on if the strictest terms are not imposed on the P.T.As. This is an area in which vast sums of money will be invested, probably at an increasing rate, particularly as we move into the next decade. It is very easy for investment decisions of the kind that will be made in the conurbations as 1:0 whether they have rigid transit systems, encourage buses by grants, build car parks or roads, to be made on purely subjective grounds by local people who feel that it would be nice to have a ring road, or who think, "Because Manchester has a rapid transit system, we should have one in Liverpool". These considerations can enter into the attitude of any legislature, however sophisticated it may be.

We want to make it absolutely clear to the P.T.A.s that there should be only the strictest criteria as guidelines. We wish to make quite sure that before any major investment takes place in the conurbations there will be the most detailed cost-benefit analysis and that decisions will be reached on the basis that the return from the money invested is the maximum that could be obtained in that area having regard to all the factors involved, whether it is invested in roads, car parking or other things.

This is a vital concept. As Buchanan warned us, as the century draws to a close we shall have to face up to the most massive investment in our cities, on a scale not dreamed of by many people hitherto. There will be the most appalling consequences if we do not get the criteria right before this investment starts. As the investment programme in roads switches, as I believe it will, from the major motorway grid up and down the country to rebuilding city road networks it is vital to understand the criteria on which the decisions should be made.

Although the Minister conceded in Committee that he supports our general ideas, it would be a great deal better if they could be incorporated in the Bill, and then everybody would be quite clear what was intended by, apparently, both sides of the Committee when we discussed the matter. There is no issue between us on political grounds on this matter. The Amendment simply deals with what both sides of the House understands to be the transportation problems involved.

I therefore hope that even at this late stage the Minister will accept our Amendment as a genuine attempt to try to reconcile the planning responsibilities of the divergent bodies and to introduce an atmosphere of economic necessity into the decisions that must be made. That would not prejudice his ideas for the Bill, but would give a clearer remit to those people who will have to have to carry out the Government's plans.

The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) has squeezed every morsel that he could out of his speech by way of explanation. No one would disagree with his objectives, although he and his colleagues have not shown any great enthusiasm for setting up the passenger transport authorities. He said that no hon. Member opposite is against them, but anyone reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings would have great difficulties in seeing that.

By his Amendment the hon. Member is trying to establish that there will be better planning and a better outlook on the part of those responsible for the various local authority functions within the areas of the P.T.A.s. Local authorities are for the first time to be welded into a large area for transport purposes, transport services are to be dovetailed to meet the needs of the people in the area, where previously they have been dealt with—or attempts have been made to deal with them—in a much more piecemeal fashion. We shall have a larger area with greater rating ability and for the first time a passenger transport authority charged with the sole function of operating transport in a way that will suit the needs of the area and not just one local authority.

The hon. Gentleman says in paragraph (i) of the Amendment that he wants decisions to be compatible with

" the town planning and traffic and traffic and parking policies of the councils of constituent areas."

But the P.T.A.s are to be composed in the main of councillors drawn from each of the constituent authorities. Only a small minority—one-seventh—will be nominated by the Minister of Transport. We shall have for the first time a body directly charged with the betterment— perfection, if one likes—of the system of dealing with the transport needs of a much wider area than anything we have had before, on which will be representatives of each of the local authorities within the area.

This representation will be reflected in the executive, the professional people carrying out the P.T.A.'s directives. It is right to assume that the constituent authorities will mould their transport policy according to the needs, wishes and directions of the P.T.A. Therefore, instead of having piecemeal plans to deal with transport needs as we have had in the past we shall have a wider outlook.

The hon. Member brings in the encouragement of safety in paragraph (ii) of the Amendment. Every right hon. and hon. Member through the years, especially in the past decade, has taken an increasing interest in safety matters of all kinds, but particularly safety on the roads, because of the mounting toll of deaths and injuries on them. I served on a local authority, first in a small burgh and then on the county council. We had our road safety provisions and encouragement of safety on a county basis. This was much better than having it on a piecemeal local authority basis, and it has worked very well. There are questions about paid officers and amalgamation of small burghs, but here for the first time we have a high-powered passenger transport authority and among its first duties and responsibilities will be the encouragement of safety provisions.

The fears which the hon. Member has expressed are ill-founded. Although we may not have the protection which all of us would like to see in transport matters, we are moving forward—

I am sure that the hon. Member realises that in the Amendment precisely the same words are included with reference to safety as those in the original Government draft.

The hon. Member must not pull me away from my theme. I am not talking about the actual words. Of course they are the same, but the hon. Member appears to imagine that he will get a better functioning of safety provisions by means of the Amendment. My claim is that safety provisions will be much better because transport as such will have a much larger sweep of power than ever before.

That is because it will be on a wide-ranging basis with a top-powered executive backed by the directions of the passenger transport authorities, composed in the main of local authority delegates, who are bound to make an impact. They will model the provisions to suit the traffic in the area and to meet the needs. They will draft the plans and mobilise the transport. They will do everything possible to meet the end product, the needs of the people residing in the area or coming into or out of the area.

I am a little disturbed about the last words in the Amendment. The hon. Member spent some time explaining that the decision would be taken within the framework of economic criteria which would enable full comparison to be made between the choices available. I am not sure whether he was dealing with the actual provision of services, or whether there will be economic criteria for each service provided by a passenger transport authority.

indicated assent.

I thought that was so, but the hon. Member's hon. Friends do not believe these criteria to be socially necessary for railway services.

The Minister has been inundated with protests when it has been proposed that certain lines should be closed and during the whole period in which the Beeching policy applied. Whenever a railway was to be closed there were all sorts of arguments. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and I have appeared before a transport users' consultative committee to argue for the retention of lines which are socially necessary but which are losing large sums of money.

I am against the passenger transport authority being put into a straitjacket by any decision incorporated in the Bill whereby the authority would not be able to make certain that a service which was losing money would be paid for by a more lucrative service if the one which was losing was socially necessary. The hon. Member for Tavistock said that he wanted each service to pay.

I did not say that I wanted each service to pay. I said that I wanted each service to be costed. We could then make a decision on an economic basis of which service can stay, although many which stayed would stay on social grounds.

I am glad that the hon. Member has said that and I am sorry if I misunderstood him. We are completely agreed that a service should be costed in the same way as the railway workshops are.

As one who has taken an interest in transport matters for years, I am certain that this is a great step forward. I do not say that it is perfection; no one would say that. None of us is satisfied with transport, even though we have been struggling for many years to get our ideas incorporated in legislation and to embody certain criteria in which we believe, but this is a great step forward.

I hope that the House will seriously consider not damping the enthusiasm of those who consider that this is the right way forward and that hon. Members will help rather than obstruct them by cramping their efforts by too many restrictions.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many of us have to go to a Committee which is meeting upstairs. Can you tell me whether special arrangements have been made for ensuring that those who stay here may be told when there is a Division in a Committee upstairs, so that we can carry out our duties in both places?

The hon. Member was not present when I ruled on the same point earlier. The Chair cannot undertake communications between the Committee and the House. Hon. Members must keep in touch with their hon. Friends.

I assure the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) that I would not support this Amendment if I believed that it would result in all passenger transport services being judged solely upon their economic viability. As I read the Amendment, it in no way conflicts with the provisions of Clause 36, which make allowance for the continuation of passenger transport services where they are socially necessary. The hon. Member and I agree that that is one of the most important aspects of the Bill.

This Amendment is of considerable importance. The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) was right when he said that here we come to the nub of all the discussions we have had in the House and in Standing Committee F on the concept and purpose of the passenger transport areas, the authorities and the executives. He was also right when he said that this is not a part issue. As worded, the Amendment does nothing but strengthen the ideas and concept of the passenger transport authority as explained by the Minister of State last night.

The Minister of State told us that the purpose, the one objective which he cherishes, is that the passenger transport authorities shall succeed in properly co-ordinating passenger transport services, relieving congestion, and providing additional safety for users of private and public transport. That is an objective with which all of us are in complete agreement.

The Amendment does not in any way conflict with that idea, or, indeed, that ideal. Instead, it strengthens it. I am anxious that the passenger transport authorities shall work in such a way that they will not only assist local authorities, but will not conflict with the plans and work already carried out by many local authorities to the benefit of local communities and which are vital to the welfare of the areas concerned.

10.30 a.m.

The Amendment states that the decisions which are to be taken by the authorities must be compatible with the town planning and traffic policies of the councils of the constituent areas. Plymouth, for example, is an area which could be dangerous in such an authority if it dominated the surrounding area, represented in constituency terms by the hon. Member for Tavistock, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) and myself.

Hear, hear.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees.

A great amount of work has been carried out in Plymouth during the last 25 years in town planning and the provision of car parking and of passenger transport services. Plymouth has done a first-class job. I assume that it would be the centre of a passenger transport area for the purpose of my argument. If decisions taken so far by the Plymouth Corporation were taken by a P.T.A. comprising representatives also of local councils in surrounding areas, many of the plans which Plymouth Corporation has on the drawing board, and which are entirely commendable, might suffer serious deterioration. That is why I believe it right to spell out that it is essential for the authorities to take account of policies of constituent areas.

There is no conflict between the two sides of the House on the question of safety. The provision in the Clause is right and I am glad that the Amendment is exactly the same in that respect.

We cannot ignore the social criterion of this policy. It is right, in considering a form of public transport, to consider the economic as well as the social advantages. Perhaps we have always tended to emphasise the social advantages—and on this aspect hon. Members opposite and I have been mainly of one mind. But economic advantages must be considered also because in many areas, particularly development areas, the economy depends on the forms of transport available.

I am having an argument at the moment with British Railways about the rundown of a passenger service at a main line station in my constituency because I believe that it will damage the potential development of the area. I believe that people who might otherwise go to the area with light industry may not do so because of the rundown of the rail service. It is right, therefore, that the economic consequences of planning transport areas should be taken into account when the Minister is designating the areas.

This matter goes to the nub of the question of passenger transport authorities. If we are to have them, we are anxious that they should work. Having considered the Amendment carefully, and having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, which did not conflict with the principles set out by the hon. Member for Tavistock, I believe that the Minister of State can only accept it. It does nothing to harm or weaken the Government's intentions. On the contrary, it would strengthen and spell out with greater clarity what is needed if the passenger transport authorities are to be a success. It would do so in a way which would make them far more acceptable to the local authorities. Indeed, if they are not acceptable to the local authorities, they will not work.

Good will is needed on both sides and the Amendment would go a long way to establishing it and making the passenger transport authorities a viable and worth while project.

I think that on both sides we feel sympathy with the objectives of the Amendment. Many of us would share the view of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) that probably there is no real long-term solution to transport problems which does not take account of land use and town planning. Perhaps some of us on this side who voted against Amendment No. 43 last night, dealing with the question of waiting for the outcome of the Royal Commission deliberations, had some sympathy with the point of view put forward then.

My objection to the Amendment is rather narrow. The wording of the Bill and of the Amendment are not so different in substance but, under the Amendment, the passenger transport authorities would be bound by the decisions of local authorities, and one can easily envisage a situation in which local authorities—whose political composition, about which we on this side are a little sensitive at the moment, can change frequently—may be in conflict with their P.T.A.

The Amendment is quite clear, for it says:

"… the Authority and the Executive shall ensure that decisions taken with a view to the establishment of such a system are compatible with …".

Does this really mean that they must be literally compatible, that the courts could possibly find themselves having to adjudicate?

Suppose a local authority does not like the decision of the passenger transport authority covering its area because it seems inconsistent with a town planning decision. Could it go to the courts and ask that the P.T.A. be restrained from carrying out its functions? It seems a rather bizarre suggestion, but, as far as I can see, the passenger transport authorities would undoubtedly have their discretion seriously restrained by the Amendment. I do not believe that anything like that would help these authorities in their functioning nor to create harmony between them and the local authorities.

On the remainder of the Amendment, there is little between the two sides of the House, but I share the misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) about the undue emphasis on economic criteria. Of course, we want operative costing, but, under the last Government, we saw the way in which economic criteria were applied too frequently to the question of the continuance or discontinuance of railway lines. We know that much the same sort of treatment would be reintroduced if another Conservative Minister of Transport were to be given his chance. I suspect that, in those circumstances, the railways would suffer severely from further application of economic instead of the social criteria which I think most hon. Members on this side of the House wish to have taken into consideration.

On the whole, I think that the spirit in which the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) moved the Amendment was conciliatory. When the debate is finished, I hope that he will withdraw the Amendment, because we regard it as one of the more harmonious and constructive suggestions put forward by the other side. I ask him to consider whether he thinks it is practicable for a P.T.A. to be subjected to judicial scrutiny whereby its authority could actually be restrained, ppssibly by a court injunction, because this is the inevitable implication behind the mandatory character of the wording in the Amendment.

I must take issue with the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) in his attitude to economic criteria. While not disagreeing that social criteria are important, nevertheless economic criteria are of crucial importance. I feel that the Amendment may do much to avoid the dangers which the P.T.A. system, as envisaged in the Bill, may well have. This is a feeling strongly felt in the West Midlands where there are great anxieties about this system and where the local authorities of the Midlands—

Would the right hon. Gentleman also agree that even greater anxieties are felt in the West Midlands about the great traffic congestion to which we are subject in Birmingham?

Of course that is important. But the feeling in the West Midlands, particularly now that there is a superior ability in the local authorities, is that they could work out their transport problems in relation to the other planning problems in the area through the West Midlands Planning Authority Conference. Through that body they believe that they could voluntarily achieve the necessary co-ordination of transport in the same way as they have been successful in dealing with other problems.

In the West Midlands anxiety has been focused on economic criteria by reason of the study that has been made of the experience of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Looking at the figures, the population involved is similar to that of the West Midlands conurbation. Therefore, consideration has been given to seeing how the extraordinarily bad history of that authority —after all, in a country normally used to a high standard of industrial efficiency —can be avoided here. For that reason, I support the Amendment. It is important to focus attention from the beginning on the economic criteria.

The recent authoritative article in The Times, which applies very much to the problems in the West Midlands, talking about the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, says:

"The basic cause of the failure was the authority's power to levy the rates of the municipalities to cover deficits and the consequent lack of commercial discipline."

10.45 a.m.

The Amendment addresses itself to the question of establishing the importance of commercial discipline from the inception of these authorities. In the American example, the bus undertakings were transferred without compensation and in a short time the managerial staff was doubled. In one of the cities in this area 10 per cent. of the total household rates goes to meet transport losses. These are not my imaginations, or those of the Tory Research Department about what might happen. This is what has happened in the United States. This article is written by a former lecturer on transport at the College of Business Administration of Boston University. He is not engaged in party political controversies here. He describes facts in America.

I will not weary the House with further details. My point is that it is important to stress the aspect of economic viability and economic criteria at the beginning. I draw particular attention to the concluding words of this writer, who is commenting upon an organisation which, in all probability, was the basis on which the Ministry, in devising this plan, based itself thinking it would find a respectable example from an efficient country, but which we know has not worked well and has already accumulated a deficit of £12½ million in three years.

The writer concludes:

"It is a combination of conceit and prejudice that prevents men—particularly politicians —profiting from the mistakes of others. Let it be clearly stated that we who have lived with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority regard it not as a model to be imitated, but as a warning against rejection of basic commercial and financial disciplines."

The Amendment is designed to correct that danger.

The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) spoke at some length on the experience of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. It may save the time of the House if I inform the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. Thomas Lenthall, upon whose bogus comparisons he based his case, was also in the Manchester area. If it would save the time of the House, I can provide the right hon. Gentleman with a complete answer to the propagandist statements that we heard from Mr. Lenthall.

The right hon. Gentleman also referred to congestion on roads in the West Midlands. There is great congestion, too, on roads in Manchester conurbation. Many of he most enlightened people in the Manchester area are intensely keen to see a solution to the transport problem before the reorganisation of local government. Clearly, for reasons only of party tactics, hon. Gentlemen opposite have been in touch with the Conservative groups on local authorities for the purpose of delaying the solution offered by the Bill.

This is a delaying Amendment and there are a number of others like it. The Manchester conurbation urgently needs the reorganisation and modernisation of its passenger transport. The Town Clerk of Manchester wrote to me on 29th January with a number of constructive suggestions about the Bill, but particularly this part of it. He said:

"I have no doubt that the recommendations of the Committees will be approved by the City Council at their meeting on 7th February, 1968, but as the Bill is now in Committee, I am sending this statement to you now."

He wrote on 8th February:

"The City Council, at their meeting yesterday, did not approve the report of the General and Parliamentary Committee on the Bill, but asked the Committee to give further consideration to the provisions of the Bill."

As there is only an hour before the Guillotine falls, may I ask why we are having these delaying tactics? There are no delaying provisions in this Amendment.

I am addressing myself to the need for a passenger transport authority in a conurbation, part of which I have the honour to represent. If the hon. Gentleman, who crosses swords with me journalistically from time to time, does not like to be reminded of his activities with local Conservative groups in this matter, that is a completely different question.

Order. We must come to the Amendment, which is whether the Authority and the executive shall consult with local authorities on certain economic criteria.

This Amendment delays the possibility of reorganising passenger transport.

Will the hon. Gentleman point to one word in that Amendment which has any reference to delay?

Every word in the Amendment, the whole Amendment deals with it. The Opposition are like the lady who would not say no, but who did not say yes—they do not know whether they are opposed in principle to the P.T.A.s, or whether they are in favour of them. I could go point by point over what the Massachusetts Bay Transport Authority is reputed to have done, but to save the time I will not do so. I hope that the House will proceed as quickly as possible to pass the Bill, which will help my area very considerably.

We have had two important statements this morning. The first was in the second leading article of The Times. As one would expect, this was not uncritical of the Transport Bill, and the ideas put forward in it. Nevertheless, it made plain that those responsible for The Times realise that misrepresentations of the Transport Bill have gone dangerously far and that some correction is required to them.

I come to the second important statement, no less important than that which appeared in The Times. I do not wish to say anything to detract from the importance of what was said by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine). And I would certainly be prepared to withdraw anything which I have said, if it has misrepresented the views of the Opposition. But I had gathered both from the conduct of the Opposition in Committee, and from their campaigns in the country, that not only were they opposed to the machinery now under discussion, and to the duties and functions to be given to the executives, but that they were deeply opposed to the P.T.A. concept. Perhaps I had been misled by the fact that the Opposition on Second Reading put up the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) as one of their main speakers. I am sure that I would not misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman if he said that he was not wedded to the P.T.A. concept.

Order. The hon. Gentleman will apply himself to the Amendment.

We are discussing the very important matter upon which I gave an assurance, quoted by the hon. Member, about the remit to be given to the P.T.A.s and executives. As the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) said, this goes to the heart of the matter, to the aims, objects and functions of the P.T.A.s and the P.T.E.s. It is fair to mention this, because the hon. Member for Tavistock said in this debate in crystal-clear terms, that the Opposition are not opposed to the P.T.A. concept.

Since I agree with him on this, I am most anxious that the P.T.A. concept should not be made into a kind of political football game, which might detract from progress in solving the traffic and transport problems of the great cities. It is very important to be clear on that statement from the Opposition. We are now arguing about the details of the remit. I would remind the House of what we said about the origin of the P.T.A. concept and about what is now contained in this part of the Bill, in paragraphs 8 to 10 of the White Paper on Public Transport and Traffic.

We said there that:

"Local authorities are responsible for the planning of their areas and the development of their local road networks, and they cannot do these jobs effectively unless they also have a broad responsibility for public transport."

That was our starting point.

We went on to say that the transport matters:

"… for which local authorities are to be responsible—the improvement of the local road network, investment in public transport, traffic management measures, the balance between public and private transport—must be focused in an integrated transport plan, which in its turn is related to the general planning for each area."

It is important that there is a consensus on that, because we then came to the next stage of arguing about the machinery of implementation. We went on to say, in paragraph 14:

"… the planning and operation of public transport can only be done intelligently over areas which make sense in transport terms. This means that planning must cover not only a large city or town, but also the area around it from which large numbers of people travel to the centre for work, shopping or pleasure."

It went on to explain that we were in the difficulty of trying to form consortia of local authorities, or an authority with a number of local authorities represented upon it, because there were not, in the country, sufficiently large categories of local government covering wide enough areas to whom one could naturally give this power and function of planning transport policy. If we already had such authorities, through the agreed part of the Royal Commission, we would be in a much better position. The whole of the argument about these authorities arises because they are instruments devised to cover an area wider than that now covered by any local authority. They will receive grants from the State in respect of improvement of bus fleets and so on, and we have to devise a constitution for them.

I gave an assurance in Committee, quoted by the hon. Member for Tavistock. I have thought long and deep about this, and am very much attracted to the Amendment that he has moved. There is not much between us on these matters. Obviously, we agree about the encouragement of safety, about the need for the harmonisation of traffic, parking, and public transport policies, for which we are setting up the P.T.A.s and the P.T.E.s. In Clause 18(l)(j) we place upon the P.T.A. a statutory duty to propose machinery for securing coordination between the policies which it produces, "and the preparation and execution by the councils of constituent areas of any plans and policies of those councils with respect to traffic regulation and parking."

Therefore, it is quite clear all the way along the line that we want to achieve that compatibility. We also want the P.T.A.s and P.T.E.s to consider the economic criteria and to do proper costing. They have to accept financial responsibility, and we are providing in the Bill for certain new criteria because they are akin to local authorities. They will have to be able to do proper costings, from which they will have to work out the economic criteria and to operate across the board in exercising their financial responsibilities.

There is, therefore, not a great deal of difference between us except on the following point, which is the obstacle to acceptance of this Amendment. It has been pointed out to me in all our discussions that we are setting up P.T.A.s on which a number of different local authorities are to be represented who, as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen were pointing out last night, will decide under other hats on their traffic and highway policies, and that these may not necessarily be campatible with each other, at any rate in the early stages in relation to traffic and parking controls, and so on. But if we were to accept the wording proposed in this Amendment it would confront a P.T.A. with an impossible task. If there were such incompatibility, as there might be and as there is today in and around the conurbations, in the policies of the councils of constituent areas, how could the P.T.A. make its public transport policy compatible with the policies of those councils?

It presupposes that we have already achieved harmonisation of traffic and parking policies of all the councils of the constituent areas. I wish we could say that we had done so, but that is not the situation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Lee) quite rightly pointed out, if we were to accept this Amendment, a P.T.A. might be held to be acting ultra vires if, in an area where it made its policy compatible with that of seven other local authorities, that policy was incompatible with that of another constituent local authority, which was pursuing a different policy. Clearly that would be an absurd situation.

It is solely for that reason that I find myself unable to accept this Amendment. But I give the assurance that we are perfectly prepared to think further about this. We appreciate the point that has been made on the vagueness of the wording about having due regard to economy and safety of operation, and so on. We accept the need for the aim of achieving coherence and harmony between policies on public transport and those on traffic and parking. We will think further on this and if there are ways and means whereby we can make the objectives set out in the Bill and the remit to P.T.A.s more effective, then we are perfectly prepared in further stages of the Bill to consider a further Amendment.

In view of the fact that there are 15 debates yet to come, and the Guillotine falls in 40 minutes, I would appeal to the House to pass on to other debates. I believe that the Minister of State, in his last few remarks, exposed the weakness of his whole concept of P.T.A.s. It is all very well for him to mention The Times leader, which pointed out that the two great weaknesses it sees in the Bill are the P.T.A.s as envisaged by this Government and quantity licensing. The objection of The Times to P.T.A.s is similar our ours. The objective of the Government is to operate and to own buses whereas the object of our concept is properly to co-ordinate planning in these matters.

The Minister said it may well be found that local authorities do not agree on planning and parking policies, that this would be one of the difficulties and that, therefore, the Government cannot accept the wording proposed. He is really saying that that is a difficulty which the Government are not going to face in any way, because as yet P.T.A.s have no powers in these spheres, and rightly so. That is why we were wise to suggest

I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 14, line 26, at end insert—

(4A) Each of the councils of constituent areas and each of the following bodies namely, the Authority, the Executive and any subsidiary of the Executive, shall have power to enter into and carry out agreements with one another for the giving of assistance by that council to that body or, as the case may be, by that body to that council by way of making available to the assisted party any services or facilities provided by, or any property of, the assisting party.

It might well be called a mutual assistance Amendment. It is clear, and I think it explains itself. The power might be used, for example, where an authority or executive wishes to garage and service a council's vehicles. I leave it to the House to decide whether it wants any more information.

The next Amendment is Amendment 50, with which we may discuss the following Amendments: No. 61, in page 14, line 38, at end insert:

'but in no case shall vicinity be regarded as extending for more than ten miles outside that area'.

Government Amendment No. 52, Amendment No. 53, in page 15, line 17, at end insert:

'as defined in paragraph (ii) of this subsection'.

Government Amendment No. 101, and Amendment No. 102, in page 33, line 28, leave out 'outside but in the vicinity' and insert 'within ten miles'.

I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 14, line 35, leave out paragraph (ii) and insert—

(ii) to carry passengers by any other form of land transport or by any form of water transport (including in either case hover vehicles) between places in that area or between such places and any place outside that area but within the permitted distance, that is to say, the following distance from the nearest point on the boundary of that area, namely—

(a) in the case of land transport, such distance not exceeding thirty miles as may be specified in the order with respect to that area under section 9(1) of this Act or, if no distance is so specified, the distance of thirty miles;

(b) in the case of water transport, such distance as may be specified as aforesaid;

The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) raised in Committee the question of the definition of the words "the vicinity". He said that he was not thirled—to use a good Scots word—to the idea of 20 miles, but felt that there should be something more specific than the wording in the Bill. Since then we have considered this, as the Minister of State promised.

It will be noticed from the Amendment that we make a distinction between a land transport limit of 30 miles, which we think would meet all foreseeable cases, certainly in the first four P.T.A.s—greater Manchester, West Midlands, Merseyside and Tyneside—and water transport, where we have chosen a different criterion for obvious reasons. I would strongly suggest that the Amendment should be incorporated.

The House will note that Amendment No. 101 has the effect of requiring the executive to review all the railway passenger services serving the area up to the prescribed distance. In what detail they review a service will be a matter for local decision by the executive.

Not only on this Amendment, but on the preceding Amendment, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) keeps obscuring the issue. There are many local decisions to be taken here. This is another example of the kind of thing which we expect P.T.A.s

This matter was discussed in Committee, and it is obvious to me, having listened to what the Minister of State has said, that the gulf between us is extremely wide. We are rapidly drawing to a conclusion of the discussion on the Clause, and, if we discuss a matter on which there is such a wide gap, there will be no prospect of getting agreement later where there is a narrower gap which we may be able to close.

To define a 30-mile limit outside the passenger transport area is preposterous, and I shall advise my hon. Friends to vote against the Amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 15, line 27, leave out paragraph (ix) and insert:

(ix) where an undertaking has been—

(a)transferred to the Executive under subsection (1) of section 17 of this Act; or

(b)wholly or partly resumed by the Executive under subsection (2)(a) of the said section 17; or

(c)acquired by the Executive otherwise than under the said section 17,

• to carry on (but, in a case falling within sub-paragraph (c) of this paragraph, only with the approval of the Authority) any activities which the Executive would not otherwise have power to carry on but which were carried on by that undertaking immediately before the date of that transfer, the date of the disposal which gave rise to that resumption, or the date of that acquisition, as the case may be;

With this Amendment, we are discussing Amendment No. 55, in page 15, line 27, after ' transferred', insert ' from a local authority'.

Members of the Standing Committee will recall the rather long argument that we had about whether the Executive should be allowed to carry on certain activities which were not relevant to its main activities and purposes, but were part of an undertaking transferred to the Executive under the provisions of the Bill. A great deal of the argument centred on the meaning of the word "transferred" and on which undertakings were covered by the Clause. The Amendment is intended to remove any doubt about the meaning of the Clause. It makes clear the distinction between transferred undertakings and acquired undertakings. It was argued in Committee that acquired undertakings could be included in the word "transferred".

The aim of hon. Gentlemen opposite, in Committee, was to secure that, where a Passenger Transport Executive acquired an undertaking, it should not have power to carry on the activity in which the undertaking was engaged if it was not one which the Executive was empowered to carry on, except for the purpose of selling or winding up that part of the undertaking carrying on the supplementary activity.

Where a municipally-owned undertaking is transferred to a P.T.E., it may include certain activities not considered essential to the provision of transport and matters of that kind. Nevertheless, these activities would be carried on by the P.T.E. Making the distinction between transferred and acquired undertakings, the Amendment provides that a Passenger Transport Executive must obtain the approval of the Authority for continuing to carry on any supplementary activity already carried on by an undertaking which it has acquired, either voluntarily or in any other way.

I have no doubt that this will incur a certain amount of criticism from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but what we are doing here is putting the P.T.E.s on all fours with other transport undertakings, such as the National Bus Company, the National Freight Corporation and the Scottish Transport Group, except that they have to have the approval of the Minister of Transport, whereas it is obviously better that a Passenger Transport Executive should have the approval of the Authority, mainly composed of local government representatives, for carrying on these supplementary activities.

The second point is that in Clause 16 there are safeguards against unfair competition. Thirdly, an undertaking taken over must comprise assets required for the Executive's main business, so it must be mainly a transport business. In other words, the other activity, whatever it may be, must be a minor part of the undertaking. The fourth point is that the Executive is empowered only to carry on the activity. It is not empowered to extend it. In other words, it acquires an undertaking mainly composed for transport purposes. If that undertaking happens to have developed some other supplementary activities, the Executive may carry on those supplementary activities with the approval of the P.T.A. That does not mean that it is entitled to try to build up trading empires.

The safeguard is quite clear. It is provided in the Statute that the approval of the Authority is necessary in all cases of acquired undertakings. Notwithstanding the criticism expressed in Committee, I hope that the House will approve of this sensible, clarifying provision.

Now I have heard everything. That is the most remarkable volte face that any Minister has ever been expected to address to this House. The hon. Gentleman's argument on the last point is, "Do not worry. A few examples of private enterprise fall into the hands of the municipal authorities by mistake. This is an incidental to the major acquisition, because those small acquisitions will not be permitted to be extended, year in year out." He is saying that these small trading activities will be maintained at precisely the same level of commercial size as when they were taken over.

Of all the commercial nonsense I have ever heard from a Minister, this is the worst. The idea that we can employ men and assets in a static position for ever is preposterous, and it is ludicrous for the Minister to try to sell us that idea. It is even more preposterous that he should try to sell us this Amendment.

This Amendment came into being as a result of an accidental revelation, brought to the attention of the Committee by me, because the purpose of the original drafting was to give municipal authorities, through the aegis of the passenger transport authorities, the power, if they took over an incidental operation by transfer from the local authorities, to conduct that operation. I pointed out that under another provision of the Bill, passenger transport authorities could acquire outside companies and that the assets of those companies would be transferred.

I said that this meant that the P.T.A.s would be able to conduct a limitless range of activities, quite dissociated from their main business as transport operators. This point took us hours to get across. It took hours for the Minister even to understand the words we were using. So that hon. Members should not think I am exaggerating, I will quote from the Standing Committee Report when I revealed this possibility and the Minister's reply. He said:

"I am sure that the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) is magnificent in making the flesh creep in Tavistock, but in this Committee we have to pay some attention to accuracy and in particular to what is in the Bill."

Later, he repeated and clarified the point. He said:

" It is to do … with things which were in municipal enterprises and which have been started by December of last year. It is limited to that extent. That is the explanation which I give to the Standing Committee on this part of the Clause. It does not raise any question of the Executive being given sweeping powers to go widely into all sorts of activities."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 14th February, 1968; c. 667–70.]

That was what the Minister said, and was Government policy when we discussed this in Committee. Now this Amendment is the precise reverse of what the Minister was saying Government policy was. It spells out that not only are there to be transfers of assets from local authorities, but that, where assets are transferred, as a result of acquisition, the local authorities are permitted to go on conducting those operations regardless. There is no assurance of a transport necessity. The Minister of State said that there were safeguards, and that there would be nothing to worry about because the authorities would not be able to acquire those assets in the first place unless they were assets wholly for the purpose of their business.

11.45 a.m.

The wording of the legislation is not quite as was presented. It says that passenger transport authorities can acquire "by agreement" any undertaking, or part of an undertaking if the assets comprised in the undertaking or part are "wholly or mainly" assets which the executive requires for the purposes of their business. First, it is the executive which decides if the assets are required, and, second, there is cause for concern about the use of the words "wholly or mainly". What will happen is that one will buy bus companies, a majority of whose assets are totally concerned with transport undertakings, but a small part of their assets will, in some way, be de- volved in businesses in no way associated with transport. The Minister of State said clearly in Committee that they would not be empowered to do that, but this Amendment gives them this power. He can dress it up in any way he chooses, but it is a major departure from the policy of the Government as stated in Committee.

This change confirms the worst suspicions of the motives behind this legislation. I can understand hon. Members opposite saying that they want this power to be given to the P.T.A.s—this is a doctrinal difference between the two sides. I accept their sincere right to have those views. What I do question is the situation where legislation is so drafted that those who are responsible for steering it through the House do not understand what it is about, are prepared, throughout the night in Committee to state clearly that it means one thing, using up valuable time, as a result of which 50 Clauses were never discussed, and then come to the House and change their mind and try to tell us that it is a matter of no consequence.

It is a monstrous decision by the Government and I am delighted by one thing only—that it is the Minister who has to come to the House and make quite clear that this change has taken place. I daresay that the Government will use their majority to steamroller this through, but I hope that it lies heavy on their consciences for having treated the House in this monstrous way.

In all the sittings of the Committee, and of the House as a whole on the Bill, I have heard only one speech containing more preposterous nonsense than that which we have just heard, and that was the speech made by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) in Committee. This was the kind of Clause under which, we were told, P.T.A.s would operate oil refineries market gardens—

rose—

I prefer to make my own speech.

On a point of order. I have no wish to prevent the hon. Member from attacking me, but when he is deliberately misquoting me I would ask him to be good enough to quote the passages where I am supposed to have said these things.

That is not a point of order. It is up to the hon. Gentleman to decide whether to give way.

I will just imagine, for the sake of argument, that the hon. Gentleman's argument point had some substance, and I would tell him that he can look anywhere in the proceedings of Standing Committee F and he will find these repeated references.

Where?

The hon. Gentleman spoke about setting up oil refineries and I was glad of this, since he said that I would get one in my constituency. I am surprised to find that when hon. Gentlemen in Committee have been arguing in favour of more safeguards, they should argue against this Amendment, which provides just that. A more continuous state of inconsistency I have yet to see.

We can see why the hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot support that Amendment. They are arguing along the same old lines, about putting something restrictive on the authorities. They want to be quite sure that, in the wide range of operations included under the heading of public passenger transport, private enterprise still has the cream. As long as that is the case they can turn round and say, "We told you so, passenger transport authorities will make a loss."

I support this Amendment, and would sincerely urge the hon. Member for Tavistock to read what he has said in Committee and ask him not to talk such preposterous nonsense.

I shall be very brief, first, because I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to make progress, and second, because, as a member of the Standing Committee considering the Race Relations Bill, I am supposed to be upstairs. I rise because I have a matter that concerns my constituency and because I am provoked by the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend.

In the event of one of the executives taking over an existing transport business that happens on the side to be running an amusement park with dodgems, does the Minister's statement that they may not extend their activities mean that if dodgems go out of fashion, they may not go in for motor boats? That is the kind of question he must answer if he says that authorities, once taken over, will not be able to extend their activities—[An HON. MEMBER: "Read the Bill."] The hon. Gentleman says, "Read the Bill". I have read it. I am also engaged in the Standing Committee which is considering the Race Relations Bill, and one of the difficulties for which the Government are responsible is that hon. Members are required to come here without having been able to do all the work they would wish to do on behalf of their constituents.

It is the Minister's duty to answer the question, and mine to ask it. When he says that executives will not be allowed to extend their activities, will they be asked to make the decision not to seek a profit, not to run those activities in a commercial fashion, because of the undertaking he has given the House? My view is clear. They should hive off all these incidental activities at once, and should not take them over. I do not wish to see public money squandered in the way the Minister described this morning.

If they take over a transport undertaking that is carrying on such an activity with the approval of the passenger transport executive, composed as it is mainly of local authority representatives, they may continue to carry on the supplementary activity. Under other parts of the Bill the executives have powers of acquisition and disposal of property in particular respects, but they are not entitled to go into a business extraneous to the main purposes of their business as a transport undertaking.

The Minister says that they cannot go into a business which is extraneous, but who is to make this judgment? Under paragraph (x) the executive has power to provide for the persons using the services and facilities provided by it

"… such other amenities or facilities as it may appear to the Executive requisite or expedient to provide;"

To take the example of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), it might seem that dodgems are a very good attraction for people using its transport services because its, buses are always late. It might say, "It is expedient for us to have dodgems to amuse passengers while they are waiting for the buses to arrive." Such an argument can justify the provision of almost anything in relation to the main services—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] The hon. Gentleman says, "Oh". What is the matter with this argument? If he will read—

Order. I am required to put the outstanding Govern-