HC Deb 16 June 1952 vol 502 cc780-6
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd)

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the British Transport Commission's fares. I am afraid that this statement is inevitably rather complicated.

On 28th April the House approved a Motion upholding the decision that disproportionate increases should not be applied to certain passenger charges outside the London area and agreeing that means should be sought of applying the same principle, as far as practicable, to rail and omnibus fares already introduced within the London area.

Discussions have taken place with the British Transport Commission, and I am now able to announce that the following modifications will be made in the increased passenger charges which were brought into force in the London area on 2nd March and those which it was proposed to bring into force outside that area on 1st May.

Each sub-standard charge will be increased only by the same amount as a standard charge of the same value, in the following cases:

Ordinary and early morning fares and season ticket rates on London Transport.

Workmen's and early morning fares, and season ticket rates, other than those for Traders' Season Tickets, on British Railways.

This will involve the restoration of the stages in operation prior to 2nd March on the road services of London Transport. In those cases where workmen's tickets are now available up to 8.30 a.m. or later, early morning tickets will be available up to 8.30 a.m. The issue of shift workers' tickets will be resumed in the London area on the basis in force immediately prior to 2nd March, and continued outside that area on the existing basis.

Under the Commission's Passenger Charges Scheme in relation to British Railways, ordinary fares on the basis of 1.75d. per mile have replaced ordinary fares on the basis of 2.44d. per mile and monthly return fares on the basis of 1.79d. per mile. In spite of this, there is still a number of sub-standard ordinary fares on British Railways. These will be increased by only 20 per cent. in the circumstances in which the Passenger Charges Scheme provides for a limitation of 42 per cent.

Concession fares which were on a general basis of one-half ordinary fare, will be continued on a general basis of three-quarters of the new and reduced ordinary fare. Those which were on a general basis of two-thirds of the ordinary fare, will be replaced by the reduced ordinary fare. In both cases, the increase in the general basis will be less than 10 per cent. The discount on Bulk Travel fares will cease. Fares for members of the Forces and Mercantile Marine and their wives and children are the subject of separate consideration.

The resultant loss of revenue through all these changes is estimated to be about £1,240,000 in the London area and £660,000 outside that area, a total of £1,900,000 in a full year. It is hoped to bring the modified charges into force in the London area on Sunday, 31st August and outside that area on the following day. The work involved will be very considerable, and I am sure the House will be grateful to the Commission and its staff for their efforts in making these dates possible.

Mr. Callaghan

The subject is certainly complicated. May I ask the Minister if this would be an accurate summary of what he has said: First, that in London there is to be a small saving for the travelling public of £1,200,000 out of the £13 million increase that they are paying? Secondly, that in the provinces there is to be a further actual increase in fares on 1st September of about £1,500,000, but that instead of the total increased contribution being £5 million, the increased contribution from the provinces will be altogether £4.4 million; and, summing it up, that as a result of this hullabaloo the Government are now extorting altogether a further charge of £16 million instead of the £18 million that was conceded by the Transport Tribunal?

If that is a fair summary of the position, may I ask the Minister how the Commission will make up the loss of £2 million that the Government's actions have resulted in; and secondly what legislation, if any, would be required as a result of the decision to go back on certain London increases that have already been made?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I shall attempt to answer that question as best I can. I shall deal with the last point first. No legislation will be necessary. As to the hon. Gentleman's calculations, this is an exceedingly complicated subject and I think hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, had much better read the figures that I gave. But this I can most certainly say: the decision that I am now announcing to the House carries out to the full the recommendations made by the House of Commons on 28th April, and the disproportionate increases to which attention was then drawn are now being eliminated.

As to the way in which these extra charges will be met out of the revenue of the Commission, the Commission has agreed to carry out the wishes of this House, but not unnaturally they do not welcome the loss of revenue involved. There was, however, a Question on the Paper today which I would have answered had it been reached, in reply to which I would have announced that the accounts of the Commission will be available after Questions in the Vote Office of the House of Commons.

Members will see that the turnover of the Commission is some £600 million a year, and though the sum involved in these very important modifications is a formidable one, it is not so formidable in the light of that large overall figure. But I must, of course, remind the House, that now, as for many years past, passengers in London and outside are really travelling on the backs of the nation's freight charges.

Captain Ryder

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this attempt by the Government to achieve some modification of these very severe increases in transport fares will be much appreciated in the London area, more particularly as the Government were so severely criticised by the Front Bench opposite for intervening in this matter? May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will bear this in mind and try to arrange control of London Transport to ensure some permanent protection for London travelling public that will not need repeated interventions by the Government?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I should like to thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for what he has said. But for the action of my predecessor a very great and disproportionate hardship would have been imposed on a large proportion of the London and provincial travelling public.

Mr. Callaghan

As the Minister could not answer some of the other questions in regard to the figures, may I ask the simple question whether there is to be an actual increase in fares in the provinces on 1st September next?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

Of course there is; but the whole point of the Motion in the House of Commons was to make it quite plain that disproportionate increases could not be tolerated, and that matter the Government has seen to and fulfilled to the letter.

Mr. Ernest Davies

The Minister quite rightly says that this is a complicated matter; but certain figures do emerge. Would not he agree that as far as the total increase is concerned, the country as a whole is to bear £4½million, of which £3 million has already been imposed, and that London has to bear an increase of £11¾ million? That means that London is paying a larger increase than the rest of the country, to the extent of some £7¼ million. Does not he consider that London's share is disproportionate, and may I further ask him whether there is any danger that, as a result of the saving of this £2 million, there will be a deterioration in the services in the London area?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I certainly do not agree in the least with the last point of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am quite ready to answer, on any future occasions, any questions arising after hon. Members have had the chance of reading this very complicated statement. I think hon. Members should read it carefully, because one of the questions put by the hon. Gentleman shows how dangerous it is to draw general conclusions of that kind. In London fares have been remarkably and disproportionately low for a long time, and that is the reason for some part of the statement I have made.

Mr. Beswick

Cannot the Minister please answer one question? Is it the fact that London passenger travellers will be expected to pay £11.8 million more as a result of these changes? Secondly, as the Minister has described these increases as a grave and gross hardship, and as they will be inflicted for a period of five months, would the Minister now answer Question No. 75 which asks what arrangements will be made to repay to London passengers the excess amount collected over this period of five months?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

If the hon. Gentleman will carefully read the statement I have made he will see that the Commission will get £1.4 million from outside London and will lose £1.24 million of what they had expected to get from inside London. This makes it all the more important to come to a speedy solution, both in the interests of all travellers and of the Commission itself.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one result of what has been speciously called a hullabaloo is that for the first time a Minister has been able to come here and announce what are to be the rates and fares in this gigantic transport monopoly, and will that situation continue to persist until the railways and the road services have been effectively de-centralised?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I would remind my noble Friend that the role of the Minister in this matter was to see that gross anomalies did not persist. I think it is most important that I should not go beyond that perfectly proper line.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton

Is the Minister aware that his statement means that for a period of six months the gross anomalies to which he has referred have been imposed on the London travelling public and that for the period of six months, at the rate of over £20,000 a week, the London travelling public has been mulcted as a result of the Government's vacillation in this matter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman I can say that those anomalies are exclusively the result of legislation for.which his party were responsible.

Mr. H. Morrison

As the Government have engaged in this matter of fares for the purpose of political manoeuvring in connection with the local government elections, will the Minister give us an undertaking that if they are going to manoeuvre again in connection with the next local government election—if they are still in office—we shall be given notice of what is to be the manoeuvre before the election takes place?

Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. There is no Question before the House.