HC Deb 26 January 1955 vol 536 cc154-5
55. Mr. Ernest Davies

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what undertakings he has given to the British Transport Commission that any deficit arising from implementation of the findings of the court of inquiry into the railway dispute will be met by the Government; and how he proposes to meet it.

62. Mr. Osborne

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will establish an independent inquiry into the efficiency, redundancy, and restrictive labour practices in the British Railways, in view of the Government initiative in the matter of railway wages.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I would ask the hon. Members to await the forthcoming debate on the railway situation.

Mr. Davies

Will the Minister answer the straightforward Question which I put down? Did the Government give any undertaking to the Commission that the deficit which would arise as a result of the wage increase would be made up? We are anxious to know whether the Government take responsibility for meeting the Commission's deficit. Surely it is a question to which the Minister can give us the answer. The whole country is concerned about the matter.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

It is, as the hon. Gentleman says, a very important matter, and I suggest it is one much better dealt with at proper length in debate rather than by question and answer.

Mr. Davies

Did not the Government, by implication, accept the responsibility when they accepted the Interim Report, because the acceptance of the Report made it clear that there would be a deficit? Otherwise, would the Chairman of the Commission have stated that where the money was to come from was none of his business?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I really think that the supplementary question strengthens my view that this is the sort of matter which would be much better thrashed out at length in debate.

Mr. H. Morrison

Can the Minister say whether his answer means that the Government, in the light of what was said by the Minister of Labour, are in something of a muddle? Would it be the case that when the Commission agreed to the concessions the Government were consulted and were a party to the decision? If so, were not the Government themselves, being a party to the decision, if they were, clear as to how the deficit was to be met? Surely these matters were present in the mind of the Government at the time, and, therefore, ought not the right hon. Gentleman to be in a position to tell the House this now?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

It is not a question of ideas that were present at the particular time. It is a question of how best these matters are discussed in the interests of this great industry and the House. The right hon. Gentleman's own experience must indicate that they are much better thrashed out in the normal Parliamentary manner of debate.

Mr. Morrison

Surely there is also room for Parliamentary debate at the right time. The Government must have known what was happening at the time and had ideas on how the problem was to be met and how the consequences of the settlement were to be faced, unless the Government say they have no idea how they were to be solved. If they knew how the matter was going to be solved, the Minister should perform his Parliamentary duty and tell the House.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The Government's ideas and approach to this subject are perfectly clear, and were perfectly clear at the material time. That will become apparent when a full and proper opportunity arises to deploy the Government's case.