HC Deb 19 December 1952 vol 509 cc1795-8
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd)

With your permission Mr. Speaker and with that of the House, I should like to make a statement about British Transport Commission passenger fares.

When I announced in the House on 18th November that I proposed to authorise an increase of 5 per cent. in the British Transport Commission's railway freight, dock and canal charges as from 1st December, I said that the Commission had indicated to me that the whole question of passenger fares would be brought under review. I added that it would be open to the Commission to apply to the Transport Tribunal for an alteration of the existing Passenger Charges Scheme and that the earliest date on which such applications could be made were 2nd March next in the case of London and 1st May next in the case of railways outside the London area; these dates being, in each case, 12 months after the coming into force of the London and Provincial sections of the present Scheme.

As the Tribunal had on the Commission's application so recently settled a comprehensive Passenger Charges Scheme, I had assumed that the Commission would seek authority for any increase in the fares governed by that scheme by an application for alteration of the scheme under Section 79 of the Transport Act, 1947, which provides for the minimum interval of 12 months.

Sections 76 and 77 of the Transport Act, however, provide that a new charges scheme may be submitted to the Tribunal and there is no provision for a minimum interval under these Sections. I have now, however, been informed by the Commission that they intend to submit very early in the New Year to the Transport Tribunal a new scheme revoking the existing scheme and providing for increases in the Commission's fares.

I am sorry to have to make a statement like this on the eve of the Recess, but as application may be made before we return I feel the House should be told of it at once.

Mr. Callaghan

I acknowledge the courtesy of the Minister in giving me notice that he was going to make this statement. May I ask him three questions? First, will there be a public inquiry at which objectors can appear? Second, will the application of the Commission cover not only standard fares, but also season tickets, cheap day, early morning, workmen's fares, and all those various types of fares? Will they be brought into the scheme? Third, the Minister has acknowledged that the information he gave previously was incorrect, but he did not tell us why. Did he not consult the British Transport Commission before he gave the House to understand that there would be no such application.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I will do my best to answer those three questions. Of course, there will be an inquiry. The hon. Gentleman knows the 1947 Act very well. It provides for the representatives of users of transport to give evidence before the Tribunal. The precise way in which that evidence is called and sifted is for the Tribunal to consider. As to the form the scheme will take, I, like everyone else, must await the submission of the scheme. I am only giving advance information now—and this will lead to the third question by the hon. Gentleman—because there would have been no opportunity of asking questions until there had been such application.

The Commission have no obligation to consult the Minister, and the Minister has no powers in this field over passenger fares. As the hon. Gentleman knows, when a charges scheme is submitted as in the case of passenger fares, the powers of the Minister fade out. But in the field of freight the Commission have to come to the Minister first, because there is no merchandise charges scheme. That is why I had to make a statement on 18th November.

As to the third point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I answered that in my main statement. As there has been a recent application for a comprehensive passenger charges scheme, I rather took it for granted that the Commission would use the procedure for alteration and not be in a position to use the procedure for a new scheme. I was wrong in that, and it is because of that I have asked permission to make a statement today.

Mr. Callaghan

I understand that there is no obligation on the Commission to consult the Minister, but there is an obligation on the Minister—if he is going to make a statement to the House —to consult the Commission as to their intentions. What I am asking the Minister is whether in fact he did or did not ask the Commission whether they had any intentions in this field before he gave the categorical information on 18th November that they would not be making such application for several months?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

The Commission having approached me as a matter of urgency that they wish to make an application in regard to freight, I granted that at once and made the statement in the House, though it was politically awkward to do so at the very height of the Transport Bill. On the point of whether the Commission would apply under Section 76, 77 or 78, I did not ask the Commission. But they were aware that I was going to make the statement, and they have privately thanked me for the promptitude with which I met their request.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

Is not the statement of my right hon. Friend an additional and, we hope, a final piece of evidence of the fact that higher fares and charges are inseparable from nationalisation? And does not his statement point out the almost desperate need to de-centralise and render competitive the services of the Commission?

Mr. Ernest Davies

Arising out of that supplementary question, is it not a fact that there is danger that this House will be faced with a further statement from the Minister if the present Transport Bill goes through, as a further increase of fares will be inevitable because of the loss of certain profits to the Commission? May I ask the Minister whether it is not the fact that one of the reasons he has had to come to the House at this time is because of the Government's policy of putting up the fuel tax; because of the Government's dearer money policy and because of the Government's Budget policy, which increased the cost of living and led to an increase in wages?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I certainly hope that a result of de-centralisation will be greater competition and reduced costs. But, in fairness to the Commission, I must make it plain that the increases in a full year over which they have no control, steel, fuel and new wage awards, amount to some £32 million, and they had to take proper steps to meet this inevitable increase. The other point the hon. Gentleman made was that the Bill would still further prejudice the Commission. The only part of their activities which is being hived off, the road haulage section, is not at the moment making its proper contribution to their central charges.

Mr. Callaghan

May I ask—

Sir H. Williams

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we having a debate?

Mr. Speaker

No.

Mr. Callaghan

May I ask one final question on these increases? As this application is to be made because the Commission find themselves faced with substantial increases in charges that arise following on the last Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will the Minister represent to the Chancellor that if, when he is preparing his new Budget. he further tampers with the food subsidies, he will be the prime mover in any further fare increases which have to take place next year?

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are getting far away from the Question.