HC Deb 09 December 1949 vol 470 cc2299-308

2.23 p.m.

Mr. Erroll (Altrincham and Sale)

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter of very great importance to those who use the buses of this country. The British Transport Commission, under the powers which have been given to them by the Transport Act, are preparing a number of road passenger area schemes. Two of those have begun to take fairly definite form. I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the nature of these schemes, because it seems highly desirable that they should not proceed further in their present form. Before doing so, I would like to refer to an impression which seems to be growing up both in the Minister's mind and that of his Parliamentary Secretary, that the prototype represented by passenger transport in the London area should be the model for area schemes which are to be put forward in different parts of the country.

The Minister has on a number of occasions referred in rather glowing terms to the efficiency and the success of the London Transport undertaking. Only a matter of some eight days ago, he indicated that before the London transport monopoly was set up, constituent under- takings—the Underground, tubes and buses—were in a state approaching bankruptcy, and it was by forming the monopoly that an efficient transport undertaking had been set up, giving better value to the public and paying its way more satisfactorily. In actual fact, the position has been just the reverse.

We find on examination that the constituent undertakings were doing very well before the monopoly was brought into being. Far from going bankrupt, the London Underground Railways were paying good profits, and, at the same time, the independent bus companies, properly and usefully co-ordinated by the licensing authority of the day, were providing a stimulating, competitive and cheap service alongside the London General Omnibus Company. As regards the tramway undertakings—a great constituent of the complex of London transport—the Minister of Transport has been less than complimentary in recent months. He has suggested that the trams operate at very high loss in the London area, but he has omitted to refer to the fact that they have been deprived of new capital equipment since the war, whereas the buses he quotes as being more profitable have been highly favoured in the provision of new and up-to-date post-war equipment.

I think it worth while referring to the Labour Party's views of the tramway undertakings before amalgamation took place, and I have here a pamphlet published by London Labour Publications Limited, and written by Mr. Herbert Morrison, entitled "The London Traffic Fraud." On the cover there is an attractive little sketch which shows the grasping hand of monopoly wraping itself round one of London's trams, and under the tram is the inscription "Hands off the people's trams."

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge (Bedford)

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the date of the publication?

Mr. Erroll

It is dated 1929. The importance of the date is that in this pamphlet Mr. Herbert Morrison describes the profitability of the tramways undertakings. One of the main sections of the booklet is devoted to proving that the tramways did pay, thereby giving the answer to the disparaging assertions of the present Minister of Transport. It is interesting in passing, although I do not wish to take up the time of the House, to notice the then views of the present Lord President of the Council, because there he refers to the two schemes of amalgamation which were then on foot. One of these schemes was subsequently introduced by a Labour Government. He said that the co-ordination of London Passenger transport pre-supposes a complete monopoly in traffic undertakings. Is the travelling public prepared to face such a monopoly? He goes on to say, The municipal incentive to low fares will be lacking How true and how prophetic his words have been, because Londoners now enjoy the most expensive local transport obtainable anywhere in England over comparable distances and in similar localities. I may have occasion to refer later to this pamphlet which clearly indicates Labour's change of mind in such an important matter. It may be urged that, at any rate, the service was good, but I would also remind the House that the profitability of the undertakings taken over was severely reduced, and the monopoly, with all the benefits of monopoly powers, was in fact never able to pay its full dividend on its C stock which it had undertaken to pay at 5 per cent. and possibly 6 per cent. if conditions had been favourable.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge

The hon. Gentleman made the assertion that the London transport costs from the public point of view were the most costly in England. Has he checked those figures with comparable figures in places like Newcastle, Southampton and Bristol before making such a statement?

Mr. Erroll

Most certainly. In Newcastle a 2d. fare would cost 4d. in London, and in many areas of the country there is still a 1d. bus fare, unchanged since the bus companies came into existence 20 or 30 years ago. The report of the Transport Commission has been less than fair on the question of bus fares. It states that bus fares in the non-metropolitan areas are largely at pre-war levels, when in actual fact bus fares in many cases have not risen since the inception of the bus companies. It must also be remembered that there are many cheap return fares.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge

The point is how far one can travel for a given sum, and not whether the fares have gone up.

Mr. Erroll

I was assuming the hon. Member was intelligent enough to realise that I should choose an equal basis of comparison. I am not adopting the statistical tricks so commonly used by Members opposite. I want to point the moral that while the London Transport Board has had the definite object, which may be right or wrong, of keeping people off the roads and getting them into the tubes, particularly during the rush hours, thereby justifying a particular form of charges, it has resulted in a very expensive form of transport which does not pay, and that therefore amalgamations on these lines are not to be recommended in other parts of the country.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Callaghan)

Does the hon. Member say that it does not pay?

Mr. Erroll

It is obvious that it does not pay, because the charges have to be so much higher than they are in other parts of the country, and higher than they were before amalgamation took place. The fact that the trams are substantial losers, compared with their former profitability, is an example of how expensive co-ordination can be. The costs have risen for all types of undertakings, both inside and outside London.

When the Transport Act was passed, provision was made in Part IV for road passenger transport, and the Commission were given permissive powers, if they thought it desirable, to prepare area schemes. The road executive got busy and published the first of a number of schemes. This first scheme was to apply to the Newcastle area and the north-east coast. It embraced the whole of Northumberland, most of Durham and part of the northern fringe of Yorkshire. The purpose of the scheme was to nationalise all road passenger transport in that area.

At the opening meeting held by the road executive no attempt was made to consult with the local authorities concerned, or the representatives of consumer interests, who were merely invited to discuss the details of the boundaries of the scheme, the scheme itself having to be taken for granted. This initial meeting created considerable hostility in the northern areas concerned, and the Commission has lost ground very considerably in consequence. Those with interests in that part of the country have reason to know that there is now considerable hostility to the development of this road passenger scheme.

Mr. Callaghan

I should like your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on this point. The hon. Member is proceeding to discuss an area scheme which has not yet come to the Minister's notice. It is being prepared by the Transport Commission, and in due course, if such a scheme comes to the notice of the Minister, he will presumably have to prepare an order and lay it before the House, when it will become the subject of special Parliamentary procedure. I wish to ask how far it is in Order to discuss such a scheme.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles)

I presume that the area scheme comes under the Transport Act, but if what the Parliamentary Secretary says is correct, that a provisional order is to follow, then the hon. Member ought to be very careful: otherwise he will be out of Order.

Mr. Chetwynd (Stockton-on-Tees)

I understand that if there are objections to this scheme a local inquiry will have to be held and the Minister will have to act as judge, which is a point that also should be borne in mind.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am not concerned about that. I am concerned with the question of legislation and the provisional order procedure, which the hon. Member must bear in mind.

Mr. Erroll

My intention is to try to persuade the Ministef that such schemes are unnecessary in the best interests of the districts concerned. If he agrees with me, there will be no schemes and no legislation. If I frame my remarks in that way, I think I shall be able to keep within the bounds of Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not think so. The hon. Member must be careful in what he says, or he will be out of Order.

Mr. Erroll

It is surely desirable to look at the general principles that seem to be emerging to ascertain whether they are best calculated to serve the interests of the country and the Minister's duty to the House. We can see from the report of the Transport Commission, with such phrases as "co-ordination and integration," which mean very little, that it is important to ensure that no scheme is put forward on flimsy pretexts.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge

Is it in Order to discuss schemes that are in preparation, and, in regard to which there can be no Government responsibility?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)

I will bear that point in mind. The hon. Member will be out of Order if there is any possibility of legislation arising.

Mr. Callaghan

There is much more than a possibility of legislation arising. Legislation will be necessary in the case of these schemes. It is important, as representing the Minister responsible, that I should reply to any points put by the hon. Member, but because these schemes have not come to the Minister's notice, it would be improper to comment on any proposition which emanates from the Transport Commission and is supposed to be laid before the Minister at a later date. This is essentially a case where the Minister and the House will be involved in legislation, and I do not see that we can discuss the matter on that basis.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That would appear to be so, and unless the hon. Member is able to controvert what the Parliamentary Secretary has said he will be out of Order.

Mr. Erroll

There is no compulsion on the Transport Commission to produce such schemes. All I am pleading for is that no schemes should be prepared. Surely it is within the competence of the Minister to direct the Transport Commission not to proceed with such schemes? If the Minister has no knowledge of such schemes, he must be singularly out of touch with what has been going on in different parts of the country.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Am I correct in assuming that, in view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, any action taken in regard to matters which the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) is discussing can only be action by legislation?

Mr. Callaghan

indicated assent —

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

If that is so, then the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale is out of Order.

Mr. Enroll

But the action I am trying to persuade the Minister to take is to persuade the British Transport Commission not to proceed. I am not asking for legislation; I am asking for the exact reverse—for the permissive power not to be exercised.

Mr. Callaghan

Section 63 (1) of the Transport Act clearly lays upon the Commission the following obligation: … as soon as may be review the passenger road transport services operating in Great Britain with a view to determining the areas with respect to which schemes shall be prepared … My submission is simply this: it is for the Commission to decide whether or not they shall prepare a scheme. The obligation is laid upon them to do that all over the country. I submit that it would be quite contrary to the intention of the Act for the Minister to adopt the hon. Gentleman's proposition and to go to the Commission and say, "You shall not review the areas of the country, although the obligation is laid upon you under Section 63 (1)." In those circumstances I do not see how we can possibly discuss this sort of issue usefully, when the obligation is laid upon the Commission and the initiative under an Act of Parliament rests with the Commission.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale must require legislation if he wishes to alter the onus or obligation. Is not that the basis of the hon. Member's speech?

Mr. Erroll

No. The basis of my remarks, perhaps very clumsily put, is to persuade the Minister to instruct the Transport Commission, by means of a general direction to review the passenger transport services, but not to prepare schemes which, on certain evidence, are shown to be undesirable.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am sorry; I am afraid that will not do. The hon. Member is seeking to put a burden on the Minister which, by law, is laid upon the Transport Commission and, that being so, any such burden could only be altered by law. I am afraid that the hon. Member is, therefore, dealing with a matter which involves legislation. That is a matter which it is not permissible to raise on the Adjourn- ment. Unless he has another submission to make I must call him to Order.

Mr. Erroll

I understand that it would be only a statutory instrument which would be required and it would not involve a new Bill. I have observed that Adjournment Debates have centred round the policy of a Minister to set up a development council, for example, and such a development council could only be set up by a similar Instrument to the Instrument which is now apparently about to rule my Adjournment speech out of Order.

Mr. Chetwynd

Further to that poin; of Order. Is not the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale mixing up two things? What he is seeking to do is to prevent the Commission from taking action which the Transport Act specifically gives them power to take, and the only way in which my hon. Friend could do that would be by seeking to amend the original Act. I do not think there can be any suggestion of that kind on an Adjournment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I gather that is so and that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale does not really dispute that fact.

Mr. Erroll

But I do—indeed I do. Perhaps I might be allowed to continue, so framing my remarks that they quite clearly remain within Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

If that is possible, which I very much doubt, but I have not had the advantage of hearing the hon. Member at any length. I will allow him to proceed to satisfy myself that I am right in the Ruling which I have given.

Mr. Erroll

It is interesting to notice the quick opposition which develops towards any attempt to show the deleterious effect which the operation of the British Transport Commission is having.

Mr. Callaghan

On a point of Order. Surely it is the case that it is the responsibility of any hon. Member, and certainly of the Minister standing at this Box at the time, to draw attention to the proper observance of the Rules of Order? It is not because of the merits of the Debate—I am perfectly prepared to discuss them at any time—but it is because the Minister is not in a position at the moment to discuss this matter, for which, at the moment, he has no responsibility.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That is so and there is no justification for any comment by the hon. Member on that ground.

Mr. Erroll

rose—

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Erroll

I have not been asked by Mr. Deputy-Speaker to withdraw and I see no reason for withdrawing in a matter in which no heat has been engendered. I will shift my ground somewhat to draw attention to the unfortunate consequences of the present development on the North-East Coast, where the intervention of the British Transport Commission is causing a great deal of opposition and is threatening to upset the smooth running of the efficient services in that area. While it is true that if the Commission proceed, there may be matters which will come before the House at some time in the future, the fact is that the present services, which do not fall within the authority of the British Transport Commission but are within the general purview of the Minister, are in fact being very efficiently conducted.

Mr. Callaghan

On a point of Order. I really must ask for your guidance straightaway, Major Milner. The hon. Member is attempting to demonstrate that the existing services are efficient and satisfactory and the only way in which that can be controverted is for me to show, if I can—as clearly I am not entitled to show under the Rules of Order—that an area scheme will improve the services. The hon. Member is making a series of allegations which he knows perfectly well, I submit to you, I cannot refute or reply to under the Rules of Order, because I can only reply to them by referring to an area scheme which is designed to alter the existing arrangements. How in these circumstances, I submit to you, can a relevant discussion be conducted?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

How is the area scheme to be brought forward? By a provisional Order? By what means and by whom is it to be brought before the House?

Mr. Callaghan

By means of an Order in due course laid before the House by the Minister—an Order which, if objection were taken to it, would be dealt with under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, which would involve, in due course, petitions, a Joint Committee of this House and the House of Lords and numerous other machinery arrangements of that sort.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Unless the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale can show me that what the Parliamentary Secretary has just said is incorrect, then these matters are matters for legislation and the subject to which the hon. Member is addressing himself would involve legislation. That being so, unless he can controvert what has been said, I must rule him out of Order and pass to the next business.

Mr. Erroll

I did say that I had shifted my ground and was now dealing with the efficiency of the present services. The Minister has already said that he has no knowledge of any scheme, so I do not see how he could refer to it in any reply he might make about the efficiency of the transport services on the North-East coast. Surely it would be in Order to discuss the present services, for which the Minister is generally responsible, leaving aside altogether, as I am anxious to do, all reference to the area scheme about which—

Mr. Callaghan

Further to that point of Order. That is simply not the case. The hon. Gentleman said quite clearly when he shifted his ground that the proposals of the British Transport Commission were affecting the efficiency of the services there and were making things more difficult. He is basing his case on the fact that what the Commission propose to do is going to make things more difficult in the North-East area.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am afraid I must rule the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale out of Order and I cannot hear him any further. Mr. Fletcher.