HC Deb 04 May 1950 vol 474 cc2049-58

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Delargv.]

11.1 p.m.

Mr. John Hay (Henley)

This House is always sympathetic to the claims of Service men and women, and tonight I wish to draw attention to the discontinuance, at the instance of Regional Transport Commissioners, of certain motor-coach facilities for serving men and women who have wished in the past to make use of them for the purpose of travelling to their homes when they had weekend leave. The Minister of Transport has had a rather busy week and I shall be as moderate as I possibly can. I can assure him that his ordeal of Monday night will not be repeated.

Those who are caused by reason of their service to live away from home want the quickest and the cheapest method of travelling they can get and also one which gives them the most time at home. Accordingly, over the course of the past few years those who have been stationed away from home have, from time to time, arranged to charter private motor coaches to take them from their station to the nearest large town, often London, from which they can get more easily and quickly to their homes. This method of travel has given considerable advantages. The coaches have been able to leave when required, and the travelling has been extremely comfortable. The fares have been in many cases substantially cheaper than those by rail, and of course the coaches are far more speedy in some cases, and certainly are more reliable than the trains often are.

This being the situation, some little time ago—I have been unable to trace exactly when—the Regional Transport Commissioners, for whom the Minister of Transport admits he is responsible, apparently in consultation with the Service Departments decreed that this type of service should be brought to an end and alternative arrangements made for the transport and travel of these men and women by rail instead. The reason given —and I am not going to dispute it—was that it would save a considerable amount of petrol.

I want to give the House an example of how this particular arrangement has affected one Service establishment especially, of which I have personal knowledge since it is in my constituency. It is the Royal Naval Air Station at Culham in Oxfordshire, which is between two and three miles from Abingdon. It is manned mainly from the Medway towns and Southend

Formerly they used each weekend a motor coach which they chartered by private arrangement without intervention by their officers or the Admiralty. On Saturdays the men get weekend leave from about lunch-time. They took the coach when they were ready and went direct to Victoria Station, which took them about one and half hours. Thence they went by train, most of them to Chatham. On Sunday nights the coach waited for the train leaving Chatham at 10.54 p.m. and arriving at Victoria Station at midnight. The coach was always waiting when the train arrived from Chatham.

Another point is the question of cost. When the men travelled by coach the return fare was a modest 8s. 6d. There was the fuel consumption on that journey. The right hon Gentleman. answering a Question by me on 24th April, said that the amount used each weekend in driving this motor coach to London and bringing these men back the following day was 22 gallons. I realise that that figure cannot be treated in isolation, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, but I am going to say something more later about the fuel position.

These men are now forced to use the train. There is a small railway station at Culham, on the direct line from the Midlands to London, and a train now stops specially at 12.55 p.m. on Saturdays, but often this train is late in arriving at Culham, and often it is late in arriving in London, and consequently these men miss the connections they need to get to their homes. There is the further point that the train does not go to Victoria but to Paddington, and the men have to make their way across London.

I am told that nine times out of ten the train is so overcrowded when it arrives at Culham that they have to stand in the corridors, which is in great contrast to the almost luxurious ease with which they used to travel in the motor coach, a not inconsiderable point after a hard week's duty. On the Sunday these men have to catch a train from Chatham to Victoria, which again is often late—the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is an unsatisfactory line in many ways—and have again to make their way from Victoria to Paddington. The result is that they have to catch, not the 10.54 p.m. train they used to catch, but the 9.54, because they have to be certain of having time to get across London to catch the train from Paddington at 12.55 a.m. to get back to Culham.

I have given this case in some detail because I want to explain to the Minister and to the House, in as temperate a way as I can, the great difficulty these men are in. They find that they have far less time at home than they used to have, they have considerable inconvenience in travelling, and in addition, as against the former fare of 8s. 6d., they have to pay 1 ls., which is half a day's pay to most of them. When we are asking men to join the Forces and trying to give them every inducement we can, it is surely wrong that such hindrances as this should be put in their way.

There is also a Royal Air Force station at Abingdon. The men there have also travelled direct by coach to London, but now they have to go by coach to Didcot, some 30 minutes journey away, and from there they have to go by rail to Paddington, and that journey takes about an hour and a quarter. Formerly, they were able to do the whole journey in less time, and they travelled at a cheaper fare and in comfort.

I am told that in the Southern Command area there are nine camps where this restriction has been put into force. Sixteen motor-coach proprietors who formerly carried the traffic have been instructed that they are to discontinue, and others have been requested to stop, and have complied. I have asked a number of questions on this point; and I got the answer from the Minister that it is simply to save petrol. He puts it like this: the coach goes from Culham to London and returns empty on the Saturday, and similarly on the Sunday it travels empty to London and brings its load back. Putting it on one basis, one may say that the restriction saves 11 gallons, the amount consumed running empty; on the other basis, the right hon. Gentleman may say that 22 gallons are saved.

Is this really worth while, when the hardship is great? If I choose, I can go to any motor-coach proprietor and charter a coach to go anywhere I like every weekend, and so far as I know, there is no law, regulation or rule to prevent me. Last weekend the Metropolis was inundated with motor-coach parties from the Midlands and the North to see the F.A. Cup Final. I should be the last person to say people should not be able to travel by motor coach to see a Cup Final, but I cannot see why there should be a distinction between the ordinary civilian who wishes to travel to a sporting event and Service men, who have great difficulty in making their views known because they are subject to discipline and it is often difficult for them to ventilate their grievances.

The last series of Questions I put to the right hon. Gentleman on this subject were on 24th April, and on the following day the Ministry made a statement to the effect that the 12½ per cent. cut in fuel which had been imposed two years ago upon motor-coach proprietors and companies was to be restored. The statement said: The 12½½ per cent. cut in the fuel ration for buses and coaches used on excursions and tours and private party work is to be restored in full from 1st June. I ask the Minister: why not now restore this service? If it is possible to give this 12½ per cent. back to the motor-coach proprietors, surely it should be possible to give this great convenience to these Service men in camps up and down the country. I hope the Minister will reconsider the position, because it is obvious that the petrol supply situation must be easier, otherwise it would be impossible for him to announce the restoration of that cut I hope he will think again about this whole scheme and that he will be able to announce some relaxation. I assure him that this is causing a great deal of unrest and discontent among Service men. These men go out and talk to their friends and relatives and naturally a bad reputation is soon spread around.

I have not put this matter on the basis on which it might have been put—namely, that the intention behind this restriction is to drive the traveller towards the railways. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) directed a Question to the Minister on this point on 3rd June last, the right hon. Gentleman gave the assurance that this was not so, and I accept it wholeheartedly; but if we are certain there is more fuel available, and yet the right hon. Gentleman still says the services cannot be restored, then, with the best will in the world, I should be irresistibly driven to the conclusion that fuel saving is not the only reason. But I am certain the Minister will reconsider this matter sympathetically. I hope that in the light of the arguments I have had the opportunity of deploying, he will tell us tonight that he will look at the whole scheme and restore these much-needed services to these men.

11.14 p.m.

Captain Ryder (Merton and Morden)

I intervene for a few moments to do my best to put before the House the position of naval ratings in a matter such as this. There has been a slight change towards those who have remained in the Fighting Services after the fighting has stopped. It is only a slight change, and maybe it is a natural change of feeling, but it is none the less significant. During the war it was entirely different. Every priority was afforded. The separations and sacrifices were a common bond in a common cause. But when peace intervenes, rations are cut, cigarettes are put up in price, customs and privileges are tightened up, and now we have this withdrawal of travel concessions.

I feel that some may say " As we now have conscripts, let each man take his lot, as his turn comes round," but I hope that that will not be the feeling of the House. It certainly does not apply in any way to the long-service Regular rating. For him there is no question of waiting just 18 months. He has probably served his time through the war. He is probably a married man, and home shore service has a very special significance in his service career. It is a period to which he has looked forward when he might hope to be united, or re-united, with his family. He has probably served for 2½ years on some foreign station before he comes home. What other section of the community has to put up with these long periods of separation? He has, perhaps, his foreign service leave, and he has to do another 2½ years overseas. Then perhaps his turn comes for home shore service.

When it comes to a question of weekend leave during this period of home shore service, I feel that we are talking about something which people who have not been exiled from their homeland for these long periods will not understand exactly. They will not realise what his feelings are. I can say that he attaches the greatest importance to seeing as much as he possibly can of his family. It is a most vital and important matter. In this House, where personal and human affairs, I feel, strike a latent sympathy which often extends well outside the confines of party boundaries, I believe it will be appreciated that these matters affect different people in different ways. They may strike a cruel blow. The bonds of matrimony are sometimes frail, and if a man for some reason is unable to go home when he is perhaps expected, or needed, it may be a very sad and 'tragic thing. These matters, I feel, are sometimes overlooked by those who have not been in the position of naval ratings serving long-service engagements.

I should therefore like the Minister to consider very seriously some of the real implications which lie behind a man's weekend leave when he is on home shore service. As my hon. Friend has explained, travel concessions really do play an important part in this matter. I was not a little concerned by the reply which I received when I asked the Minister, in a supplementary question, whether this matter had been referred to the Admiralty. In the lives of these men, this weekend leave is a very important affair. I ask the Minister to realise that there is probably no other section 'of the community in which men are called to face such long periods of separation from their families. Those periods of separation may be equalled perhaps, but I do not think they are exceeded, in the case of men serving in the Merchant Navy. I ask the Minister, therefore, to look upon this as rather a special case.

11.20 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes)

I want to assure the hon. and gallant Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder) that when a special case is submitted, although it applies to all Service men, ' nevertheless the special circumstances of the Royal Navy and of those who go to sea are bound to make a special appeal to me. I will pick that up in the general course of my remarks, but I give him that assurance. I was very pleased that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) raised this subject this evening, and that he accepted my statement the other day, when this matter was raised in Questions, that I was satisfied that the regional transport commissioners, in carrying out their duties, were not influenced with any desire to push traffic on to the railways.

It is necessary, from time to time, to emphasise that the licensing authorities hold an independent and quasi-judicial position; and it would be wrong if we ever allowed views to gain currency that they could be influenced in any way at all. I, as Minister, never influence their decision, and it is only when matters arising from their decisions come to me, through the machinery of appeal, that I can interfere. I agree that any policies which flow from any circumstances such as those which we have had to meet after the war, and which impose restrictions on or are taken as discriminating between the Services, need to be reviewed from time to time. Therefore, I welcome the interest which has been shown by hon. Members in forcing this matter to the front to compel its review in order that we may make sure that the original purpose behind any restriction of this kind still retains its original force; and, if circumstances have changed, that it should be looked at again in the light of those new circumstances.

This problem has a developing history. It started in 1947, as the railway services and the ordinary express coach services began to come back more fully. That coincided with the need for the severest economy in the use of petrol. Then another factor intervened. Under Section 25 of the Road Traffic Act of 1934, passengers cannot be carried at separate fares without a road service licence unless certain conditions are complied with; and one of those conditions is that the journey must not include persons who travel frequently or as a matter of routine on the particular journey concerned. While many of these things have been relaxed, the licensing laws were being stiffened as time passed. So, there was a combination of circumstances which led to a general integration of licensing authorities; they were to be more careful in these matters, and they were to secure the utmost economy. Private party operators, who had their own petrol supplies restricted, began to have some doubt as to their legal position in this matter.

It has followed, under those general directions, that economy must be secured wherever possible on journeys of this kind, and it has led to a large degree of cooperation between the movement officers of the Services, the regional transport commissioners, and the operators themselves. As the express services have been started again, many of these decisions have not benefited the railways because the traffic has been diverted to the express coach services. That is the position which has developed over the period 1947 to 1949.

The movement of week-end troops, of course, is a very considerable transport operation and that is why I emphasised, in reply to the Question of the hon. Member, that we could not look at Culham or Abingdon as a single operation when all the regional transport commissioners and officers throughout the country are operating a general policy. I must emphasise that I have found that Service movement officers have been of very considerable assistance. They have co-operated very closely with the regional transport commissioners. We all agree that as a rule they are not the type of persons who would agree to any change in matters of this kind if it were likely to cause serious hardship or disability to Service personnel as a whole.

In the main, the majority of these rearrangements have taken place on a give-and-take principle. I do not deny for a moment that perhaps many of the station officers would have preferred the old arrangements to continue. But hon. Members know what it is when a general direction is given. Although, possibly, people would like to keep to their old arrangements, there is a desire to fall in generally with the situation. However, as the hon. Member pointed out, one of the recent changes has been that I have been able to restore the 12½ per cent. cut to coach operators generally and they move, in my Department, with any alterations made in the allocations of the private motorists.

Because of this restoration, which has eased the position generally with regard tc, services of that kind, I feel the time has come when I should again look at this problem. Hon. Members opposite will appreciate that with any method of transport that has been operating throughout the country and which applies to a great variety of conditions, it is very difficult to find any two camps whose conditions are exactly the same. It would not be possible for me to give any undertaking tonight that I would make any changes, because I would have to discuss them with, and get the experiences of, the regional transport commissioners, and so on. But the whole of my sympathy and understanding is to do the best I can in the circumstances in discharging my responsibility, and I will review the problem to see whether any easement can be given.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft (Monmouth)

In the one minute left, I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the undertaking he has given to look afresh at the problem of the leave travel of Service men. Both my hon. Friends have put forward a formidable case, in language of the utmost moderation upon the subject. The specific instances which they have quoted are, in the knowledge of most hon. Members, widespread throughout the country. I hope that the review will be as expeditious as may be, because I feel quite confident that if the right hon. Gentleman will state his own view upon this subject to the Transport Commissioners there will be no doubt that the benefits of this review will be acted on at an early date, to the advantage of the Service men concerned.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.