CAB129-53 — Page 121

6. In accordance with the suggestion made to the Cabinet on 26th May, Clause 19 (2) (d) of the Bill as previously before the Cabinet has been omitted. The Bill therefore no longer requires charges schemes to provide for preventin the making by the Commission of "unduly low" charges. Instead, a new pi vision has been inserted (Clause 20 (2)) which gives a right of appeal to the Transport Tribunal by any undertaking which considers that the railways are deliberately trying to put it out of existence by uneconomic undercutting.

7. As for the remainder of the former Clause 19, we have had to balance conflicting views. The broad object, as set out in paragraph 14 of the White Paper, is to ensure that greater latitude is given to the Commission so as to enable the railways to quote competitive rates. Representatives of trade and industry attach great importance to the rights they have under existing law to object to special rates. But the Commission would like all restrictions removed and, indeed, to be free from the requirement to prepare charges schemes at all. While we cannot go so far as this, we realise that some of the existing restrictions on competitive quotation by the railways date from a time when circumstances were very different and the railways had almost a monopoly of transport. As now drafted, Clause 19 will, as before, require charges schemes to provide for maximum charges; and will have the effect of enabling charges schemes to relieve the railways of certain existing restrictions on the extent to which charges may be reduced, and of removing the existing rights of traders to object to special rates. Clause 20 (3) will, however, maintain the provisions of the existing law preventing the Commission from giving

undue preference" and requiring them to give

and requiring them to give "equality of treatment.

፡፡

Railway Interests in Road Transport

8. Since the draft Bill was considered by the Cabinet the Transport Policy Committee have made one other alteration of substance. A provision has now been inserted (Clause 17 (6)) enabling the Minister, if he thinks fit, to require the Commission to divest themselves of majority shareholdings in road passenger transport undertakings. These holdings have been greatly increased since nationalisation, so that the Commission now have a virtual monopoly in certain parts of the country, notably Scotland. The new provision will enable the Minister to break the Commission's monopoly, if that should be thought desirable. It is not suggested that the power should be exercised immediately. It will, however, be available against recommendations which may well result from the proposed inquiry into the working of the licensing system for public service vehicles set up under the Road Traffic Act, 1930.

Conclusion

9. Subject to any minor or drafting amendments, I ask my colleagues to approve the draft Bill circulated with this memorandum, and to agree to its presentation in the House of Commons in the week beginning Monday, 7th July.

Great George Street, S.W.1,

1st July, 1952:

L.

Page 121

Page 121

120