HC Deb 21 April 1952 vol 499 cc37-45
The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill)

The need for fare increases has arisen from advances in working costs incurred mainly during the administration of the previous Government. The increases were authorised by the Transport Tribunal as prescribed in the Transport Act, 1947, after they had received from the British Transport Commission a draft Passenger Charges scheme and held a public inquiry.

The scheme, with modifications, was confirmed by the Tribunal on 27th February, and, by order of the Tribunal, came into force in London four days later on 2nd March. Until the scheme came into operation, it was not possible to measure the full effects of the use which the British Transport Commission had made of its discretionary powers under the scheme.

My hon. Friend the Minister of Transport did, however, on 11th March, refer to the Central Transport Consultative Committee alterations in London of fare stages and fares in relation to them. The Committee have submitted their report; they accept the need for these increases and make no complaint of the manner in which the Transport Commission has exercised its discretionary powers. But, for reasons which will appear from what I have to say later, the Government are themselves considering whether any action should be taken in respect of the disproportionate increases in sub-standard fares in London.

Outside London the scheme does not come into force until 1st May. The Government were, therefore, able to inform themselves more precisely of the effect of these proposed increases, and as a result they decided that some further delay must be imposed in order that these proposals could be more fully considered in relation to the general scheme of transport reform which they have in hand. They were particularly concerned at certain exceptionally severe changes in the cost of workmen's tickets and season tickets; and they also considered that some of the proposed changes in concession fares ought not to be imposed upon the public without Parliamentary discussion.

For instance, an increase of 40 per cent. was to be made in the following cases of concession fares: anglers, commercial travellers, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Mercantile Marine—going on leave—children at training schools and ships, shipwrecked mariners, entertainers and music hall artistes, agricultural workers (return fare), visitors to children at approved schools, and poor children on holiday sponsored by voluntary bodies. These examples are not of major financial consequence, but they raise issues which in our opinion should not be settled without the attention of the Government of the day and of the House of Commons to which they are responsible.

As a result of our consideration of all these matters, the Minister of Transport felt it his duty on 15th April to give a direction to the British Transport Commission, as a result of which the increases which the Commission proposed to make under the scheme have been suspended, though certain reductions required by the scheme will come into force on 1st May. The Minister proposes to seek the views of the Consultative Committee on the question of railway fares outside London, and naturally before reaching a full and final decision he must await their report.

Nevertheless, this whole question requires the urgent attention of Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons has arranged that next Monday will be devoted to a full discussion of all its aspects, and I trust this will be in accordance with the wishes of the House.

Mr. Herbert Morrison

I am sure we are all very glad to see the Prime Minister here, notwithstanding his recent cold, and we are happy that he is entirely recovered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] But we are sorry that the Prime Minister has had to take over the duties of the Minister of Transport in this way, including the duty of answering 11 Questions. If the offer of a debate next Monday had not been made, we were proposing to move the Adjournment of the House, with your consent, Mr. Speaker, to draw attention to this matter, but as we are to have a debate next Monday for the whole day, that will serve as an adequate substitute.

I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Minister of Transport, in the House, on 17th March, having explained the procedure, said: This is the procedure laid down in the Transport Act and I am advised that it would not be proper for me to issue directions such as those to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1951; Vol. 497, c. 1919.] Could the right hon. Gentleman say what has happened in the meantime to make what was improper then proper now? Is it anything other than the county council elections?

May I also ask the Prime Minister whether he proposes to lay a White Paper setting out the legal position and the philosophy of the matter as Her Majesty's Government see it; and whether, in the circumstances now apparent, since he has had to take over the supervision of the Ministry of Transport, he proposes also to dispense with the services of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power?

The Prime Minister

The House will note the characteristic chivalrous touch at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's question. We are going to have a debate on Monday next, and I think all these points can be much better ventilated then than they can by Question and answer across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Ernest Davies

At the beginning of his statement the right hon. Gentleman said that under the late administration the costs of the operation of transport had increased substantially, and he indicated that that was the reason for the rise in fares and charges. Is he not aware that if it had not been for the co-ordination and integration of transport, as has been pointed out by the British Transport Commission in its Report, the fares and the charges would have had to be increased considerably further? Secondly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give to the House the assurance that if any adjustments follow from the report of the Consultative Committee, London will be treated on an equality with the rest of the country?

The Prime Minister

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will have the good fortune to catch your eye on Monday, Mr. Speaker. If he does, I am sure he will be sorry that he is giving so much of his speech away beforehand.

Mr. Davies

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you are aware, I had two Questions on the Order Paper this afternoon. I protested at the time at the refusal of the Minister of Transport to answer those Questions. I have now followed up with supplementary questions which are directly relevant to the Questions I have on the Paper. May I therefore have an answer?

The Prime Minister

The procedure of Question and answer is superseded by a full day's debate.

Mr. H. Morrison

Surely my hon. Friend is on a sound point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), is in the same position. There is a whole bunch of Questions on the Order Paper to the Minister of Transport, which he has not answered. He said that the Prime Minister would make a statement. The Prime Minister has made it. I understand that there were 11 Questions on the paper. Surely it is disregarding the rights of the House of Commons and insulting to the House, when the Prime Minister has taken over these 11 Questions, that he is flatly refusing to answer any supplementaries on them.

The Prime Minister

I am offering the House the very great and full advantage of a debate on the whole subject. This in no way derogates from the duty of answering Questions, but I thought that on the whole it would be in the general interest if these Questions, instead of being answered specifically today, were reserved for the debate.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether there would be a White Paper. I need hardly say that the Government have been studying the whole of this question long and carefully. [Laughter.] I hoped that might have to be repeated. The Government have, as I have said, been long and carefully studying this question. We have a White Paper in preparation and the entire structure of the future legislation is also considerably advanced.

However, I am not yet sure whether the White Paper should be included in the debate we are to have on Monday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, it would be difficult to include it if it has not been published before the debate. We shall do our utmost to inform the House fully upon this matter. May I say that the more this question of transport in its present condition after nationalisation becomes the subject of intensive Parliamentary discussion and of public notice, the better we shall be pleased?

Mr. Attlee

Is not the Prime Minister introducing an entirely new practice into this House in suggesting that, because there is to be a future debate, Ministers should be excused from answering Questions? In my experience there have always been numbers of Questions put to Ministers in anticipation of bringing out the points to be raised in debate. Surely it would be a bad thing for someone to say that because we have a debate on, say, the Army Estimates a fortnight hence, he will not answer any Questions?

The Prime Minister

I gladly concede the Parliamentary principle invoked by the Leader of the Opposition. I only thought that on this occasion it would be more in accordance with the wishes of the House—the answers were of a limited and negative character [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—to have a general statement and the promise of an opportunity of a full debate.

Captain Ryder

Since I originally asked the Government to intervene under Section 4 of this Act, we have had this important Government statement and this has only created a highly anomalous position in the London area. If we are to wait until Monday for it to be debated, that anomaly will only be continued. May I ask the Prime Minister to give his most urgent attention to the position of London at the present time?

The Prime Minister

I am certainly giving, and the other Members of the Government concerned are giving, their close attention to the question of London. I see that the Leader of the victorious Socialist Party in London is also giving his attention to it, since he is very much concerned about the rise in fares resulting from the administration of the party opposite.

Mr. Jay

As one of those who were denied an answer to an earlier Question by the Minister of Transport, may I ask the Prime Minister, if it is his intention to denationalise road transport, and as he is also restraining the Transport Commission from raising fares, is it the policy of the Government to subsidise the Transport Commission, or is it not? Secondly—

The Prime Minister

That is a big question.

Mr. Jay

Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he and the Minister of Transport had read the report from the Central Consultative Committee, which had been in their hands for five or six days, when they decided last Tuesday to refer the subject to them?

The Prime Minister

Yes, I have read the report—

Mr. Jay

But had the right hon. Gentleman done so last Tuesday, when the decision was made?

The Prime Minister

Oh, yes, I am sure I had. As to the very much larger question of whether rail services should be subsidised, that overlooks the fact that for the last three or four years they have been subsidised—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They have been subsidised, in fact if not in form, by accumulating a deficit which grows year by year, which deficit is presented only as a matter of book-keeping. It is really a part of the national finances. However, the question of the railways and how they should be enabled to become self-supporting and in proper and true relation with an ever-growing road transport service, is one which might well be ventilated in the debate promised for next Monday.

Mr. E. Fletcher

May I ask the Prime Minister if he will bear in mind that fares in London have increased, and if justice is to be done to the travelling public of London compared with the rest of the community, ought not something to be done immediately about the London situation?

The Prime Minister

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are anxious to do our utmost to protect Londoners, as far as it is possible within the law or within our finances, from the evil consequences they are suffering from the hands of his party.

Sir W. Smithers

May I ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that all these details are beside the point? The rise in fares and in the cost of living are entirely due to six years of Socialist philosophy in action, and that the only way to put an end to it all is to denationalise or decentralise the nationalised industries?

The Prime Minister

My hon. Friend will, I am sure, have ample opportunities—

Sir W. Smithers

No, I shall not.

The Prime Minister

—of giving vent to his feelings and testifying by actions, which are louder than words, not only in the debate but in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell

In view of the deliberate attempt to prevent the British Transport Commission—and particularly the Railway Executive—from paying its way, would the Prime Minister say how he proposes to assist the Commission to do so? Would he also say, in view of his previous observation, whether he proposes to cancel the accrued arrears of the Transport Commission?

The Prime Minister

All that will fit very well into the debate.

Mr. H. Morrison

May I ask a point on procedure? Could the Prime Minister say whether the Government propose to put down a Motion as a basis for the debate on Monday?

The Prime Minister

I am ashamed to admit that no final decision has yet been taken on that point. However, it would seem to me convenient if we framed a Motion in such a way as—[An HON. MEMBER: "To blame us."]—to enable the party opposite, who are so resolute for the increases in fares, to give a vote in the Lobby when the occasion comes.

Mr. Morrison

Of course, that is a complete misrepresentation. Could the Prime Minister say whether he will take charge of the debate or will the Minister of Transport have something to say?

The Prime Minister

I think it is usual for Governments to have the right and option of decision as to how they will dispose of their speakers in particular debates. I have been led to take a great interest in this question, but I think I would prefer to reserve any decision upon this subject until I see how things go.

Mr. Beswiek

May I get this point clear? Are we to understand that next Monday a definite statement will be made about the policy with regard to the fare increases in the London area; and if by next Monday no policy has been formulated can not we go back to the previous position and put the London passenger on a par with the passenger in the Provinces?

The Prime Minister

I think there ought to be a Motion, and that Motion would be moved, and the speech moving it would give rise to a reply—in fact the debate would proceed in very much the ordinary manner.

Mr. John Rankin

On a point of order. In view of the large number of Questions which the Prime Minister has dodged, and in view of the fact that he has suggested that so many topics could be raised next Monday, will he consider giving two days to the debate?

The Prime Minister

I think that question should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Paget.

Miss Irene Ward

What about this side?

Hon. Members

Oh!

Mr. Speaker

I have observed the hon. Lady. Mr. Paget.

Mr. R. T. Paget

In the Downing Street statement there is the statement: If the commission have not discretion under any existing scheme to carry out the direction, they have the duty under Section 85 to make any necessary application. … Is not it clear that under the scheme approved by the Transport Tribunal on 27th February they have no discretion at all; that they are obliged in law to charge the rates decided by the tribunal on 1st May, and that the standstill order issued is quite illegal and shall we have some legislation to put that right?

The Prime Minister

Nothing could be better than for the hon. and learned Gentleman to unfold his case in the debate on Monday. I hope I shall not be doing him any injustice if I tell him that my expert information is that he is wrong on both points.

Miss Ward

In order to refresh our memories, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he will kindly announce the date on which the British Transport Commission applied to the independent tribunal for power to increase the fares?

The Prime Minister

I am told it was the spring of last year.

Miss Ward

Before the General Election.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

On a point of order. Having addressed two Questions to the Minister of Transport, and as those two questions have not been answered by the Prime Minister, may I ask whether it would be in order if I put down those two Questions again to the Prime Minister for another day later on this week, in the hope they will be answered and so save time now?

Mr. Speaker

It might be a very convenient course.