§ 3. Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Transport whether he will give an assurance that he will not assent to any further increase in railway passenger fares until this House has had the opportunity to consider them.
§ Mr. BarnesThe British Transport Commission have not sought my authority for higher railway passenger fares. They have, however, submitted to the Transport Tribunal, for confirmation under Part V of the Transport Act, a draft scheme dealing with all passenger fares on London Transport and on British Railways. If confirmed by the Tribunal, who have invited representative bodies of users to submit their objections or other views on the scheme, it will be brought into force by an Order of the Tribunal and will not require to be approved by Parliament or by me.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterWhatever the technical position may be, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a further increase in passenger fares, coming only a year after the last increase, would have such serious economic repercussions as to be of the greatest public importance? In those circumstances, should not the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will exercise his powers to prevent any such increase unless and until the House has approved it?
§ Mr. BarnesIt is something much more than a technical matter.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterNo.
§ Mr. BarnesThere is the constitutional position. Parliament laid this responsibility clearly on the Tribunal, and removed it from the jurisdiction of the Minister. Surely the hon. Member will appreciate that the procedure for investigation here is much more thorough and complete than that which exists respecting any rise that takes place in the cost of any other services or commodities.
§ Mr. HarrisonDoes my right hon. Friend recognise that the present machinery is so restrictive of railway operations that to add any further restriction would make the position almost intolerable for the adjustment of separate rates for railway fares?
§ Mr. BarnesI do not intend to impose any further restriction. This procedure was very thoroughly considered and debated, and I know of no other service or of any other business concern that is subject to such rigorous price investigation procedure as are the railways in respect of freights and fares.
§ Mr. Peter ThorneycroftOn the constitutional point, having regard to the fact that virtually no questions—of any importance—about the conduct of transport can be asked in the House, and having regard to the recurring increases in fare and freight charges, is the right hon. Gentleman giving further consideration, which he promised, to the suggestion that there should be a full inquiry into the administration and economics of the railways before any further increases are made?
§ Mr. BarnesThat is another matter. The question of an inquiry was debated fully here a few nights ago. I do not agree that Parliament does not have an opportunity to consider these things. During the last two or three years there have been many full dress debates on this subject.
Mr. Leslie HaleWould my right hon. Friend bear in mind that while, by statute, responsibility is laid upon the Tribunal to consider the commercial aspect of the fares, the question—an important question—of whether passenger fares should be subsidised by the State is a matter for consideration of the House?
§ Mr. BarnesI entirely agree, but that hardly arises now. If Parliament wishes at any time to deal with the matter it would not deal with it in the form suggested at the moment.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterDoes the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that his second supplementary answer indicates that railway fares are about the only charges which are not now controlled by Ministers responsible to the House?
§ Mr. HarrisonWhat about the newspapers?