RAILWAY PASSENGER SERVICES (Hansard, 16 December 1948)

§ Mr. William Shepherd (Bucklow)
I wish to deal with another matter which involves grievance on a scale even more considerable than that of war damage claims. I want to raise tonight the issue of railway fares. I believe that almost everybody in this country, except the Minister of Transport and the Parliamentary Secretary, is dissatisfied with the situation. They alone are happy that fares should be at their present level and they alone are trying to convince the majority of people that there has been a rise of only 55 per cent, since 1938. I hope, in the short time available to me, to show what nonsense that is and to try to prise open the iron curtain of Westminister that has descended upon railway activities.
It is, surely, more than remarkable that before we owned the railways ourselves we could ask the Minister why the 2.30 was ten minutes late, but that since this priceless possession has come to us we cannot ask questions of any moment about railways and have no idea of how they are faring. Two things we do know: that the service to the public has not improved and that the bureaucratic methods of the Civil Service are being introduced into the railway system. Already the familiar sight of offices of regional boards appears in our provincial cities. Soon, I suppose, they will be staffed by hordes of officials who were not found necessary in a more enlightened form of administration. The fossilising of the railway system has, at any rate, started, even if it is, as yet, by no means complete.
It is true that railways are not doing quite as well as civil aviation. Last year civil aviation lost about £10 million, whereas the railway companies lost only £4 million. But the railways, of course, seem anxious to catch up with civil aviation, and 1502 we are informed by some authorities that the prospective loss for the operating year 1948 will be very much more substantial—in the neighbourhood of about £20 million. Why is there this serious drop in railway receipts and this apparent large-scale loss? The answer is that there has been a sensational drop in passenger traffic on the railways. This has occurred before. It occurred in the early thirties, but, then the railway companies took reasonable and energetic steps to restore the volume of traffic.
Today, however, those steps are not being taken. The Socialist remedy is being applied. That remedy is to make the consumer pay more. The railway executive, apparently at the instigation of the Minister, is waiting for bus and coach fares to be raised so that the position shall be remedied. No attempt, or very little attempt, is being made, as I think I can show, to attract a return of traffic to the railways. There is just this reliance upon the consumer being punished by higher coach and bus fares so that ultimately he will be driven back to the railways.
What is the position about railway passenger traffic now compared with prewar? In 1947 the traffic was approximately 100 million less than in 1938 and 1938 was not a good year by a long way. But in 1948, if present expectations are fulfilled, the passenger traffic on the railways will be 200 million less than in the poor year of 1938. We see a sensational drop in the amount of passenger traffic on British railways. Those figures do not tell the whole story, because I believe it is still the policy of the railways, in issuing these figures, to calculate a season ticket at the rate of about 600 journeys in a year. With the advent of the five day week, it is more than likely that that calculation is not really effective and they are, in fact, putting down to the season ticket more journeys than are applicable.

§ Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke)
To what does the hon. Member attribute it?

§ Mr. Shepherd
I was going to ask why this drop took place in railway traffic and why the losses are mounting? It is because railway fares are too dear and the people will not pay the excessive prices which the railways now ask. It is true that people may have the money, but, are they going to pay twice as much, 1503 or half as much again, as they have to pay to ride in comfort in motor buses? I think not. This problem arose in the "bad old days" of private enterprise and the "bad old ways" of private enterprise were utilised in order to rectify it. The methods used were very simple and could be used today if the Minister allowed that to be done. The methods used were simply to encourage people by all kind of preferential tickets. We had a whole spate of cheap day tickets, football tickets, hikers' tickets, circular tours, evening tours and all kinds of devices to get the passenger traffic back. I think it true to say that, in the main, the railway companies succeeded in their efforts, but this is not the view taken today by the Railway Executive.

§ Mr. Collick (Birkenhead, West)
Does not the hon. Member appreciate that in those days the railway companies had the rolling stock and the engines to do those things? He must be aware that that is not the position today.

§ Mr. Shepherd
I hope in a short time to show that it is the position today. At the moment the only policy which apparently animates the Railway Executive, or inspires the Minister, is to hammer the passenger at the ticket office, and I think that quite wrong, although I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary—what is the good of Socialism unless you can put up the cost a bit?
I wish to deal with what I must call the great illusion. The master illusionist, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, made great play on this a short time ago in this House. He told us a wonderful story, which the Parliamentary Secretary has been repeating and which his right hon. Friend has used on many occasions. He told us that we ought to be grateful to the railways, particularly the nationalised railways, because railway fares are only 55 per cent. above 1938 and, say these wizards of statistics, the average level of most commodities is very much greater. This, of course, is quite untrue. It is untrue for two reasons. The ratio of cheap fares to standard fares today is not a quarter what it was. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give the exact ratio because I cannot find it, but it is probably not a quarter of what it was in 1938. There is no basis of comparison 1504 by standard fares against standard fares in 1938. In 1938 a substantial amount of the passenger traffic on the railways was on preferential fares, and it is not true to say that the actual price paid per mile by the passenger today is anything like 55 per cent. above the figure of 1938.
Secondly, an increase of 55 per cent. over 1938 does not represent anything like the increase in cheap fares. I wonder why the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister have not troubled to acquaint themselves with the cost of cheap fares now as compared with 1938? Let me quote one or two examples near to my own constituency. Let us take the day excursion from Manchester to Blackpool, which is very popular. In pre-war days it used to cost 5s. 3d.; it now costs 10s. 1d., not a 55 per cent. but a 92 per cent. increase. I take the instance of the day excursion from Manchester to London, which in 1938 used to cost 16s. 3d., and today costs 37s. 6d., a total increase of 130 per cent. Then let me take the shorter journeys, which are very critical so far as the railways are concerned. The pre-war cost from Manchester to Wilmslow was ls. 2d.; today it costs 2s. 5d., which is a 107 per cent. increase. I could go on, quoting hundreds of examples.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan)
What did the hon. Member say was the Manchester to London fare?

§ Mr. Shepherd
Pre-war 16s. 3d. and now 37s. 6d. Those are the day excursion rates. As I say, I could quote many examples—but there is not the time nor is there the necessity—to show how the present rates of fares have increased by much more than 55 per cent. I hope that we shall not hear from the Parliamentary Secretary, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or the Minister of Transport any more of this nonsense of a 55 per cent. increase in railway fares over 1938, because obviously it is completely untrue.
I say that the refusal of the Railway Executive properly to institute cheap facilities is ruining their business, and ruining it much more than is apparent on 1505 the surface. The railway companies ought to be doing much more business today than in 1938 because there is an enormous restriction upon petrol. Thousands of people, indeed hundreds of thousands, who would normally travel by road now have to go by train. In the ordinary course of events that should have put up the number of passenger journeys per year by many millions, but it has not done so.
It means, on the other hand, that there are many millions of people more who are not able to use the railways because prices are too high. With holidays with pay, higher wages and full employment it ought to be reasonable to expect that traffic would be heavier than in 1938, but in fact traffic is decreasing. Holiday traffic is going down. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the House why it is that in 1938 we had 40,000 special excursion trains and in 1948 just 1,000. The summer mileage on the railways, that is, in the months of July, August and September, was five million weekly in 1938. It has gone down in 1948, in the days of holidays with pay and full employment, to three million.
These are really most serious figures. So far as I can see, all that is now being done is to wait pathetically for bus and coach fares to be increased in the hope that passengers will be driven back to the railways. That is no solution, nor is the excuse for it what the hon. Member for West Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) suggested when he interrupted me.

§ Mr. Shepherd
I believe the hon. Member for West Birkenhead is associated with a railway town, and I have lived in one for a long time, so I know something about it. There is now no really serious shortage of locomotives. It is true that the railway companies say they are 5,000 carriages short, but that really is an awful lot of nonsense.

§ Mr. Collick
Would the hon. Gentleman give the authority on which he makes that statement?

§ Mr. Shepherd
I say it as a matter of fact which the hon. Member can confirm at any depot like Crewe or Swindon. There is now no serious shortage of locomotives, and I say that there is no serious shortage of carriages. If the hon. Gentleman cares to work out the number of passengers carried and the number of journeys made before 1938, and the amount of carriages available for those journeys, he will see for himself that there is no shortage of carriages at the present time.

§ Mr. Collick
Rubbish.

§ Mr. Shepherd
This is the kind of story with which, under the protection of a State monopoly, the Minister and the Railway Executive are apparently trying to bamboozle the public. The real fact is that they have locomotives and carriages available if these were properly used, and lack of locomotives and rolling stock is not the real reason for the decline in the number of people travelling. I am going to suggest that the real solution is to get back to the "bad old methods" of private enterprise—

§ Mr. David Jones (The Hartlepools)
And 40s. a week.

§ Mr. Shepherd
—and encourage the people to use the railways. The method by which to do this is not to drive them with the big stick of increasing fares on buses and coaches—because it is quite certain the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend are going to do this very shortly, and come to this House and tell us about it. That is not the method by which the traffic ought to be brought back to the railways. It ought to be brought back by reinstituting conditions which existed before the war. I am certain that if the Minister would do that we should get a revival of the use of the railways. But if he continues in this present policy we shall get fewer and fewer people using them.
We on this side of the House, while we do not like a policy of nationalisation and are convinced that it will not succeed in any sphere, are anxious that so important an asset to the nation as the railways shall be preserved. We look with great concern on the deterioration of a business asset which should be of great importance to the country. Therefore, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary 1507 will be able to say that he is awfully sorry for having told the people of this country that railway fares have gone up 55 per cent. when in fact they have not, and that he is prepared to turn over a new leaf and instruct the Railway Executive to institute a policy of preferential tickets, and encourage people to use the rails by the proper and well authenticated methods of private enterprise.

§ Squadron-Leader Kinghorn (Great Yarmouth)
I wish to speak for a few moments as the only Member on this side of the House representing a first-class seaside resort. It is obvious that matters affecting the railway are important to my town. Some of the statements made tonight can be countered from this side of the House. The hon. Member talks about the bad state of the railways and that there has been no improvement since nationalisation, which is patently absurd.

§ Mr. Shepherd
I really cannot allow that to be said. I did not for one moment say that there had been no improvements since the nationalisation of the railways. In certain respects they have tried continuously to get back to their pre-war position, and even nationalisation has not been able effectively to interfere with that.

§ Squadron-Leader Kinghorn
I made a note of what the hon. Gentleman said and it was to the effect that there was no improvement in service. I am a constant passenger on the worst part of the railway, which is that east of the Pennines going to the East Coast and serving the district where I live, and also where I have to work in my constituency. I have mentioned before in this House the dreadful state in which private enterprise left that part of the world.
There has been some improvement; there is no doubt about that. I spend most of the week on trains and I have noticed certain improvements. One can get the best tea on the railway system of this country on the Yarmouth line. I know very few places where they serve a toasted tea cake as well as they do there. I am not saying that that applies to dinners. In a certain part of the railway system, especially on the Pullman 1508 cars, there are some very good meals served and one hears from people constantly travelling on the main lines that the improvement in the catering facilities has been very great indeed, especially since Lord Inman took over. We should know, because we are the experts in this country for testing those facilities.
There has been a great deal of good work. I saw it as an outsider, in places like Doncaster, where tremendous work has been put in on new rolling stock for the railways. There is some very fine rolling stock on the passenger lines at the moment. I saw some, very well upholstered, clean carriages with the mirrors back—I suppose the G.I.'s cannot touch them now because they are so far away. But there are not enough locomotives; anybody who knows about the railways appreciates that. Anybody knows we have not yet reached pre-war standards, not because conditions have changed but because we have not caught up the leeway. We are catching up the leeway, as anyone can see if he talks at Doncaster with the experts. I have one grumble. In our kind of life there is an uncertainty about the time one can arrive in response to a three-line whip in this place, if one is travelling from the North.

§ Mr. D. Jones
Start early.

§ Squadron-Leader Kinghorn
One may not be able to start early. There may be another three-line whip in one's division. I wish there could be more certainty about the time of arrival in the great termini of London. The other day I myself almost failed to arrive in time. I travelled on the Queen of Scots. I just managed to reach here. The engine just reached the platform and then went wrong. I was in the first carriage. What happened to the rest I do not know because I was in a hurry to get here to vote for the Government in order to prolong their life as long as possible.
On certain days of the week it seems to me that during last year a lot of passenger space has been wasted. There are trains running in which we see one person in one compartment where there is room for another five. It is as if the assumption is that the travelling public still existed which we had during the war years and just after the war. There were people like ourselves in the Services, snatching a "crafty 48," as we used to 1509 call it, nipping off to get home early, to spend a couple of nights at home, and then nipping back. We put ourselves, like the odd sardine in a tin, standing all the way. We were prepared to do it and we did it. Thousands of people stationed in this country did it. But obviously that traffic has fallen off to a large extent. Some people in the Forces cannot afford to use their 48-hours leaves to the extent to which they did during the war. They cannot take the 48 hours leave at the rate they have to pay up to, say, Yorkshire. I think something should be done in this connection so that some of these people could have cheap travelling facilities.
There is a train which leaves Norwich on Saturday afternoons. Sometimes I finish early in my constituency, and, if I manage to make it, I come to Liverpool Street by that train, take a taxi to King's Cross and possibly get home that night. I have sometimes noticed that the dining car attendants on that train come along to persuade one to take a meal. They pile the plate up and ask again and again if one has had enough turnips or potatoes, because perhaps there are only two or three people using the dining car that afternoon. It seems to be a slack part of the week on that line, but we use the same space; as far as I know the engine uses the same amount of coal and there is certainly the same amount of rolling stock travelling to Liverpool Street. I have noticed the same sort of thing on certain Sundays, in other parts of the country.
Before the war many of us made very full use of the cheap facilities available on the railways. The railways offered 5s. trips from cities like Leeds, in the centre of England, on which one could go west to Blackpool on one coast, or east to Scarborough on the other coast. Our railway stations were absolutely buzzing with activity on those Sundays. It may be too much to expect that to come back just now, because it may need rolling stock, but my observation, which can be borne out by other hon. Members who travel around on political work at the weekends, is that we have reached the time when we could make more use—not in the way we did before the war—of rolling stock than we are doing. I know something has been done, because I have taken part in Debates in this House to encourage 1510 the use of space which could and should be used. We had one Debate in this House during last year, urging that space should be used that is not being used now.
This matter will interest my constituency very much, more especially after the winter, when we have the warmer weather again. We shall not have petrol in the same quantities as in 1939, and we shall rely on the railways to bring people to Great Yarmouth. Therefore, it will interest and affect Great Yarmouth very much if we can get better facilities and cheaper space than we have yet got on the railways. This interests not only Yarmouth but other towns similarly situated on the coast. It is a vital matter for us, and I hope we shall get some word of cheer from the Parliamentary Secretary.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan)
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) performed a very valuable service in the very first sentence of his remarks. He brought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) to his feet to recant one of the wild and more extravagant statements he made.

§ Mr. W. Shepherd
I did not make that statement.

§ Mr. Callaghan
The hon. Gentleman has not heard what statement I am about to attribute to him, so he cannot say he did not make it.

§ Mr. Shepherd
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Great Yarmouth attributed something to me I did not say.

§ Mr. Callaghan
I wrote down the hon. Gentleman's words, and HANSARD tomorrow will bear me out. His words were, "Service to the public has not improved." Is that the hon. Gentleman's case or does he wish to withdraw?

§ Mr. Shepherd
I was speaking then—and surely the Parliamentary Secretary ought to know this—about the facilities for cheap tickets for the public.

§ Mr. Callaghan
That is, at least, a partial recantation, if not the wholesale recantation I had hoped to hear. The 1511 hon. Gentleman is not claiming that the nationalised service to the public has deteriorated.

§ Mr. Shepherd
I did not say so.

§ Mr. Callaghan
The hon. Gentleman did not say so. At least, we can go in that direction part of the way together. I am going to be able to carry the hon. Gentleman with me much further by telling him in terms of punctuality just what percentage of trains arrive on time, from which he can see how, to that extent, the service to the public has improved. It is no good the hon. Gentleman wagging his head at me, because he has got to hear these figures.

§ Mr. Shepherd
I have not queried them.

§ Mr. Callaghan
The percentage of express passenger trains arriving on time or up to five minutes late in the four weeks ended the 4th October, 1947, was 52.9 per cent. In the four weeks ending 2nd October, 1948, precisely a year later, the percentage was 65.3. That shows a substantial improvement in service to the public. I should like to quote the figures of other passenger trains. In the corresponding period in 1947—

§ Mr. Shepherd
I asked about the cheap fares.

§ Mr. Callaghan
I shall come to cheap fares in due time. The hon. Gentleman has to hear about this improvement first. As for the other passenger trains, arriving on time or up to five minutes late, in the four weeks ended the 4th October, 1947, the percentage was 86.7 per cent. In the four weeks ending 2nd October last, that had risen to 91.6 per cent.
I leave that point because I have many inaccuracies with which to tax the hon. Gentleman, and I shall not have time to deal with them all if I do not at once proceed. The next one was this. He told the House that the loss on the railways last year was only £4,000,000.

§ Mr. Shepherd
It was an approximate figure.

§ Mr. Callaghan
An approximate figure. Well, if the hon. Gentleman turns to Cmd. Paper 7399, "Government Control of Railways," he will see there that the actual total loss on the railways last year 1512 —and I say it with regret—including the fixed annual sum payable by the Government to the controlled undertakings—that is rent—was nearly £60 million.

§ Mr. Shepherd
Does that include London Passenger Transport?

§ Mr. Callaghan
London does not make a lot of difference to this figure. It does not make much difference between £4 million and £60 million. I am not going to make any accurate forecast of what the financial situation on the railways will be at the end of this year, but I say to the hon. Gentleman he can go back to his constituents and say that the loss will not be anything like as big as it was last year. His third inaccuracy is that he says that we shall come to the House some day and announce an increased schedule of fares. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman followed the operation of the Transport Bill through this House, but if he did, then he is just being misleading or, if on the other hand, it is ignorance on his part, then I am glad to have the opportunity to correct him.

§ Mr. Shepherd
I said that he would come to this House to indicate an increase in bus and coach fares, not railway fares.

§ Mr. Callaghan
The hon. Gentleman can read what he said in HANSARD tomorrow. If he desires to correct it in HANSARD he can; I shall not complain. I think it worth while getting on record tonight the actual procedure which the Transport Act lays down. The Minister will not have power under the Transport Act to come to this House and announce an increase in railway fares. There is a fixed procedure under Part V of the Transport Act which will have to be followed out before any upward alteration in fares can be made.
The British Transport Commission is charged under Part V of the Transport Act with the duty of reviewing the fare schedules in the country. Having made their review, they may then go to the Transport Tribunal which, as the House knows, is an independent body set up by statute, taking their proposals to them, and the Transport Tribunal may then hold, and, indeed, will hold, public hearings at which all interests who use the railways will be entitled to make 1513 their observations upon the proposals that the British Transport Commission will make. At that stage, I am quite sure that there will be considerable debate; at any rate, if the situation which arose in 1921 is repeated there will be considerable debate. On the last occasion when the railways went in this way to the Transport Tribunal, the debate lasted for seven years, and all public interests were heard during the course of that time. I have a feeling that they will be able to do it a little more quickly now.
The essential point is that the Minister will not now increase fares. The British Transport Commission has laid upon them the duty of proving their case. If they want to increase fares, and if they feel that it is necessary to increase fares, they have to do it in public before the Tribunal, with all the opposition fully represented, and they have to sustain their case in that way before any increase can be conceded. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not make this point again either in relation—

§ Mr. Shepherd
I have not made it, so the hon. Gentleman need not worry about my making it again.

§ Mr. Callaghan
In that case, the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell his constituents what is the right procedure. He says that the Socialist policy is to make the consumer pay more; that our only policy is to hammer the passenger; that the railway companies used to go out for cheap fare tickets and now they do nothing of the sort.
I should like, with the permission of the House, to read some of the fare facilities which have been introduced since 1st January last: cheap day tickets have been considerably extended. Day-outings for parties with a minimum of eight adults have been extended to every day of the week by ordinary, relief or special trains, by prior arrangement; day-outings for juveniles up to 18 years of age with a minimum of eight juveniles extended to every day of the week; guaranteed day excursions with a minimum of 300 adults; advertised day excursions by ordinary, relief or special train at single fare for the double journey; circular tours; half day and evening excursions by ordinary or special trains at less than single fare for the double journey; cheap facilities for sports clubs. On 1st January 1514 next, walking tour tickets will be introduced at single fare for the double journey, so that for example those in this House who like hiking and, I believe, there are a number who do, will be able to go to one station, do their walk across country and come back from another station. Another facility will be introduced for rambling and cycling organisations, who will be able to get touring tickets at one-third less than the point to point single fare cost.
I have hurried over that list of facilities which have been made available during the last 12 months, or are about to be made available; but because I have hurried over it I hope its significance will not be lost sight of. Let me translate it into terms of statistics. By the end of November something like three million passengers had been carried at excursion fares on 7,000—not 1,000 as the hon. Gentleman said, but 7,000—special trains during this year.

§ Mr. Shepherd
I said several thousand.

§ Mr. Callaghan
The gross receipts are of the order of £1 million in that particular field.

§ Mr. Shepherd
I, of course, realise that certain cheap fares have been instituted, but will the hon. Gentleman now tell us the percentage of journeys today at cheap fares, excluding monthly returns, as compared with 1938?

§ Mr. Callaghan
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I should prefer to make my speech in my own way. I am coming to that point in a moment. If he wants the statistics they are all here, published for everybody to see, in "Transport Statistics" every month. They are available to him. I want to continue for a moment on his point that the railways are not going out after business, because it is such unutterable nonsense. In 1947—and it is here in this publication—up to 3rd October approximately 27 million people travelled by cheap-day tickets. I am not pretending to give the odd hundreds of thousands. Since 1st January, when the railways came under public ownership and control, that figure has increased from 27 million to 59 million this year.

§ Mr. Shepherd
What about the prewar comparison?

§ Mr. Callaghan
The hon. Member may not like these statistics, but there they are for the world to read. All I am saying is: if he contends that the railways are not going out after business, how does he explain the fact that the number of people travelling by excursions and week-end cheap fare facilities under the arrangements I have outlined, has more than doubled since 1st January last when the railways came under public ownership? That, surely, is a fair point to make, and I hope the hon. Gentleman has got it. He is inaccurate in this, as in most other things.
Out of a mass of fares that he might have chosen, he told the House that the Manchester to London excursion fare today is 37s. 3d. Well, by a coincidence that happens to be one of the fares I have got here, and in one of the organs of public opinion I find, quite by coincidence, a number of special excursions from London; there are many fares outlined, and according to this, there was an excursion run last Sunday from Euston to Manchester for 23s. 0d. Well, that is not 37s. 3d.; it is 14s. 3d. less.

§ Mr. Shepherd
What about day excursions?

§ Mr. Callaghan
I am quoting an actual day excursion run last Sunday; and I shall give some more.

§ Mr. Shepherd
rose—

§ Mr. Callaghan
I shall not allow the hon. Gentleman to interrupt any more. He has interrupted several times. I am giving him what is no doubt a series of unpalatable facts. I can quote some more excursions. One could go from London to Birmingham for 15s. return, or next Sunday to Swindon for 10s. return; next Sunday, those who want to go to Rugby can do so for 10s. 3d. return, or to Bournemouth for 12s. return. And if the hon. Gentleman thinks that the railways are not competing with the buses, let me tell him that the return fare to Bournemouth on the buses is not 12s. but 17s. 6d.

§ Mr. Shepherd
What about 1938?

§ Mr. Callaghan
The hon. Gentleman really must not keep up this running commentary. I did not interrupt him in this way and I am now trying to give 1516 him some facts so that he can go back to his constituents and tell them the real truth.
I have brought down with me a number of illustrations of the important main line fares which demonstrate just how the increase of 55 per cent. has been made up—and they are important fares. On the route from London to Edinburgh, Waverley, the monthly return fare in 1939 was 69s. 4d., today it is 107s. 6d.; Glasgow 70s. 4d. in 1939, today 109s.; London to Exeter, 30s. 2d. in 1939, today 46s. 9d. And so I can go all through these fares. Southampton Central, 13s. 11d. in 1939, 21s. 7d. in 1948.
They are all 55 per cent. up, and anyone taking a return journey from London to Edinburgh on a monthly return ticket gets his ticket at 55 per cent. above the pre-war figure. I was very interested when I turned up the fares for 1928. It is really most significant. I certainly had no knowledge about this until I looked up the figures. In point of fact, the fares we are paying in 1948 are only about 10 per cent. above the 1928 level. There was, of course, a substantial drop in the fares between 1928 and 1938 owing to the fierce road competition that went on, but we all know the results of road competition during the 1930's, and it is partially in order to ensure that our national transport system as a whole is not rendered bankrupt now that nationalisation has been introduced. Perhaps the hon. Member thinks it is amusing to have our national transport system bankrupt, but I do not think so, and I am sure the country does not think so.
If his point is that railway fares ought to be decreased, let me say straight away that the Railway Executive share that desire to the full. Their basis of procedure is to reduce fares, if they can be reasonably certain of securing additional revenue from the reduced fares. In other words, their desire is, and this is surely the right approach, to improve facilities; by securing a larger number of passengers they can reduce fares and at the same time offer improved facilities to the public. That is the basis on which they are proceeding. The only limitation at the present time—and if I had the time I would give the statistics—is the shortage of carriages. Anyone who travels in the summer months and goes to the main 1517 London termini, or tries to go to Blackpool, is aware of the very severe limitation on carriages, and that is the time when excursions are mostly run. As and when they can get hold of rolling stock, the Railway Executive will extend these facilities.
I think I have said sufficient tonight to indicate that the railways really have gone out after this business in a big way. I am bound to say that, far from accepting the criticisms of the hon. Member, I congratulate the Railway Executive on what they have managed to do during the last 12 months in the face of very great difficulty. I think that they have been extremely enterprising. The hon. Member talked about the increase in bureaucratic control, but he advances no arguments to support that; he cannot find them. What I have been interested to see has been the way the chief regional officers, who are certainly new creations under the nationalised system, in the provinces and in Scotland have had devolved on them a considerable measure 1518 of responsiblity in the question of cheap fares. A great deal of discretion is left to a chief officer in a region as to the cheap-fare excursions he will run. He does not have to refer back to someone at St. Marylebone Station. If the hon. Member is to claim that a chief regional officer has been suffering from interference, he will not get much support from his Scottish colleagues, who are very glad that Scotland has a chief regional officer, and that he is able to take decisions of that sort and adjust local services to local needs in the way that he has. I have no apology to make on behalf of the Railway Executive tonight. They are going about their job in a businesslike way. They are going after new business, and as for the figures the hon. Member has quoted, I can only say that they are most inaccurate and, where they are not inaccurate, they are misleading.