§ 19. Mr. Nallyasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a full statement as to the circumstances under which, between the hours of 4.30 p.m. and 6 p.m. on Monday, 16th June, acting information officers of his Department informed Press representatives that elucidation of the new transport fares was a matter for the British Transport Commission; and why, during the same period, acting information officers of the Transport Commission referred all such representatives to his Department.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydDuring these hours, a large number of general Press inquiries were dealt with by my Department; and the British Transport Commission also referred to us questions of general policy. When asked for specific examples of the affect of the modifications of the Charges Scheme, my Department advised an approach to the British Transport Commission. I am told that many such requests were fully met by the London Transport Executive on their behalf.
§ Mr. NallyWhile appreciating the courtesy and thoroughness of that reply, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to tell us, in view of the fact that at that time, that is, Monday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—who is charged with the coordination of public information and who was, presumably, equally in charge of this matter—whether any consultations took place between the Minister and the right hon. Gentleman to avoid the quite anomalous and infuriating state of affairs which did take place during the hours mentioned in my Question?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThis is a matter of domestic policy between the Minister and my right hon. Friend, and we are fully in touch with each other. The working out of the things involved—in the case of London the consideration of a million separate fares and rates—and the full effect will be best known by people when they find an improvement in the situation later in the year.
§ Mr. BeswickCan the Minister explain why it is that, while the Government, a short time ago, were boasting about the concessions that they would wring from the transport monopoly, they now seem most anxious to disclaim any responsibility for the changes?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI made it plain from the start that we conceived it to be our duty to iron out those disproportionate increases in the original statement of our intentions. That we have wholly discharged.
§ Mr. CallaghanWas not this hide-and-seek business deliberate, to avoid disclosing to the public how little it all amounted to?
§ Sir H. WilliamsIn what part of London are either Cardiff or Bilston situated?
§ Mr. CallaghanMay I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we in Cardiff are concerned because there will be a substantial increase in fares in September?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI might remind the hon. Gentleman that, if the matter bad been left to the late Administration, there would have been no alleviation of any difficulties.
§ Mr. NallyThe Minister, not unreasonably, has pointed out that the question of giving a detailed explanation of how the new scales would operate was, to some extent, the responsibility of the Commission, but would it be right to assume that none of the examples had been properly prepared by his Department before he was to make this statement?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydIt is not for my Department to prepare examples. The Department was in consultation with the Commission, and we laid down certain lines of policy, but the process of working out what the effect would be in individual cases was a matter for the Commission. A large number of queries have been answered, and a greater number still will be answered for the people in the London area by the improved situation later in the year.
§ 20. Mr. Nallyasked the Minister of Transport why, contrary to normal procedure, no copies of the new transport fares made on Monday, 16th June, were made available to the majority of Press Gallery representatives within a reasonable time.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThe usual arrangements were made to give the Press Gallery representatives copies of my statement on fares, but I regret that on this occasion there was a delay of half an hour or so, and I have taken steps to prevent a recurrence.
§ Mr. NallyI am grateful for the Minister's perfectly frank statement, but is he suggesting that it is only coincidence that, on this important and controversial matter, not only does everything seem to have been delayed, but everything seems to have been thoroughly mixed up, even with a co-ordinator?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThe hon. Gentleman has an unduly suspicious mind. If I might briefly explain to the House, I would say that I added a single statement to the answer. That statement was: "I am afraid that this is rather a complicated statement." The effect of that alteration upon a very proper and punctilious gentleman was that it might be regarded as a new statement, so steps were taken to see whether it ought to be retyped.
§ 21. Captain Ryderasked the Minister of Transport why the reductions in London Transport fares cannot be introduced at an earlier date than 31st August.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThirty-first August is the earliest date by which it will be possible for the available qualified staff to complete the examination and adjustment of the fares and rates, numbering over one million, and for the very considerable amount of reprinting involved.
§ Captain RyderWhile appreciating the magnitude of this task, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is imperative that all these alterations should be produced on the same date? Is it not possible for some of the more urgent cases to be dealt with first?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI think that that would still further complicate the situation.
§ Mr. PooleSeeing that when the fares were last increased the staff of London Transport were given a wage increase to compensate them for the trouble of learning the new fares, will the Minister now give them a further increase in wages so that they may learn the revised fares?
§ 25. Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated extra revenue which the Transport Commission will receive from the March fare increases in the London area after the most recent adjustments come into effect.
§ 36. Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport the total additional revenue it is estimated the British Transport Commission will receive in a full year as a result of the fare changes in the London area made on 2nd March as adjusted by the changes to be made on 31st August.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThe amount is £11¼ million in a full year.
§ Mr. BeswickWill the Minister say, first, why he could not give this figure last week when asked; and, secondly, does he not agree that London is being asked to make an unfairly large contribution to the revenue of the Transport Commission?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI like to be quite certain of my figures before I give them to the House. The suggestion in the 1828 second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is quite untrue, and when he reads what will be a Written answer to Question No. 24, which his hon. Friend was not in the House to ask, I do not think he will agree with the other part of his own supplementary.
§ Mr. BeswickWhen the Minister says that he likes to be certain of his figures, does that mean that he passed the statement last week without being certain of what figures were involved?
§ Mr. Ernest DaviesWill not the Minister reconsider his opinion that London is not bearing a disproportionate share of the burden, in view of the fact that the whole of the rest of the country is being asked to pay only £4,500,000 whereas London is being asked to pay £11 million?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThe two territories, London and outside, started rather differently. As the hon. Gentlemen have pressed me for further information on this, I would point out that while, this year, London Passenger Transport receipts by road and rail will meet their necessary working expenses, they will fall short of their proper contribution to the central charges, reserves and the liquidation of past deficiencies by some £6 million.
§ Mr. BeswickDoes not the Minister agree that a further examination of this matter might reveal that they are being asked to bear an unfairly large proportion of the central charges?
§ 30. Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Transport how much would have been saved by the London travelling public had the fares coming into effect on 31st August been charged from 2nd March last.
§ 37. Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport the additional revenue it is estimated the British Transport Commission will receive as a result of the increases made on 2nd March for the period 2nd March to 30th August; and by how much less that amount would have been if the reductions to be made on 31st August had been operative from 2nd March.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI will, with permission, answer Questions Nos. 30 and 37 together.
§ Lieut.-Colonel LiptonOn a point of order. May I have my Question answered separately, Sir, because I do not want to be bogged down with a lot of other figures?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think the hon. and gallant Gentleman should listen to the answer. Then, if he wishes to ask something in supplementation, I will consider it.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThe hon. and gallant Member will have only one more figure and I hope that his mind is capable of absorbing that as well.
The answer to the Questions is: The British Transport Commission estimate that the additional revenue received in London area during the period from 2nd March to 30th August will be about £6¼ million. If the reductions to be made on 31st August had been operative from 2nd March that figure would have been reduced by about £600,000.
§ Lieut.-Colonel LiptonDoes not that answer mean that, compared with the provinces, London is still being grossly penalised to the extent of a very considerable sum which the right hon. Gentleman has not specified because he would not answer my Question separately? Is there to be no redress for this robbing of the purse of Londoners, which has earned for the right hon. Gentleman the description of the Tory Dick Turpin of 1952 from my constituents and many others in London?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydIf the hon. and gallant Member is not clear as to how untrue the implications in his Question are, I ask him to read the Written answer to Question No. 24, which was not asked because his hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) was not here to ask it.
§ Lieut.-Colonel LiptonWould it not simplify matters if the right hon. Gentleman just answered my Question and did not ask me to do rapid sums of arithmetic—additions or subtractions? How much is the figure in reply to Question No. 30?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThe answer I have given is that the figure is £600,000.
§ Mr. GibsonCan we take it that the possible saving to over 10 million people 1830 in the greater London area is £600,000 and is not that a miserable saving after all the hullabaloo?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThe hon. Member will realise that we are dealing with only a comparatively short period. [HON. MEMBERS: "Six months."] Six months, not the whole year. It was not the total sum involved but the disproportionate hardship on individuals that was the basis of my predecessor's action.
§ Sir H. WilliamsWill not some of the money about which the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) is grumbling go to members of the Transport and General Workers' Union?
§ Lieut.-Colonel LiptonTwice as much as was lost in the mail-bag robbery.
§ 35. Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport the total additional revenue it is estimated the British Transport Commission will receive in a full year as a result of the fare changes made outside of the London area on 1st January, 1st May and to be made on 1st September.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThe final effect of these changes outside London is estimated to yield total additional revenue of £4 million in a full year.
§ Mr. DaviesCan the right hon. Gentleman tell us how the Transport Commission expects to be able to meet the expense this year and how he is going to make up any possible deficit which may arise? Has any intimation been given to the Minister of a further application for increases in fares?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThat is quite another matter.
§ 38. Captain Ryderasked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received urging a general inquiry into the working of London Transport; and what consideration he is giving to this possibility.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydRepresentations to this effect were made by the London Passengers' Association. I have carefully considered them, but I am satisfied that there is no good case to adopt their proposals.
§ Captain RyderWill my right hon. Friend bear in mind that despite these assurances there is a widespread feeling that London is being made to pay more than its share towards the central charges fund, that there is no means by which the ordinary person can find out whether that is so or not and that there is a widespread desire for an inquiry of this kind?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI am quite ready to receive representatives from the London Passengers' Association if my hon. and gallant Friend likes, and explain the situation to them.