§ 33 and 34. Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Transport (1) in coming to a decision on fares and charges what proportion of the central charges of the British Transport Commission he assessed should be borne by freight traffic;
(2) in coming to a decision on fares and charges what proportion of the central charges of the British Transport Commission he assessed should be borne by passenger traffic within the London area; and what proportion by passenger traffic outside the London area.
§ 35 and 36. Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport (1) in arriving at his decisions on increased fares, what he allocated as an appropriate contribution to the central charges of the British Transport Commission from passenger receipts outside London and from passenger receipts within the London area, respectively;
(2) in arriving at his decisions on increased fares, what he allocated as an appropriate contribution to the central charges of the British Transport Commission from goods traffic carried by British Railways.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThe decision about fares was confined entirely to preventing hardships due to disproportionate increases in certain sub-standard fares. It was not based on any assessment by me as to what would be the net revenues—after appropriate deductions for central charges—from fares in the London area, or from railway fares outside, or from railway freight charges.
§ Mr. BeswickIf all this means that the Minister does not know, may I ask him, in relation to Question No. 33, how he was in a position to say so dogmatically that passenger traffic was being carried on the back of freight traffic if he was unable to get the elementary figures necessary to base such an opinion?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI know just as much as the Commission and I am indebted to their annual Reports which point out the difficulty of arriving at any precise apportionment of costs. As for the statement I made, I am again indebted to the Commission, who told me that with regard to fares outside London, the passenger fares will meet specific cost and leave about £7½ million to meet joint expenses, but that those joint expenses come to £70 million. They cannot be precisely allocated, but the Commission are satisfied that the £7½ million is substantially less than passenger fares might appropriately contribute; and inside London they say emphatically that passenger fares will contribute some £6 million less than an appropriate contribution to central charges and provisions.
§ Mr. DaviesIf that is the case, will the Minister now confirm, as passengers outside London do not contribute to central charges, whereas London Transport does contribute, that London is paying more than the rest of the country proportionately?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI do not think that that is altogether true. If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the annual Report of the Commission which has now been published he will see there is a general improvement everywhere except in the London Transport area.
§ Mr. DaviesDoes the Minister agree that that is true so far as 1951 is concerned, but that on the estimates he has given to this House with regard to increased fares London will contribute 1798 more to the central charges, whereas the rest of the country will not contribute anything?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydNot disproportionately more.
§ Mr. BeswickIs not it a fact that outside London passenger traffic is not making any contribution at all, and, in the Minister's own words, within the London area passengers are making a contribution to the central charges? In that case, why does he put a greater increase on London fares?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydAs I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman, if he will look at this year's annual Report—and it is the future we are dealing with—the Corn-mission draw attention to the fact that all the important carrying activities except London Transport are making, or are coming near to making, a reasonable contribution towards the central charges.