HC Deb 01 November 1960 vol 629 cc151-62

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. James Watts (Manchester, Moss Side)

Last month, a party was given by the British Transport Commission to celebrate the electrification of 31 miles of track from Manchester to Crewe. Six hundred people were asked to the luncheon at two hotels and free return transport was provided, some between Crewe and Manchester and some between London and Manchester.

Much criticism has reached me from British Railways superannuitants and many employees who would like a better superannuation system provided before such festivities take place. I have particularly in mind the fact that after forty or more years' service porters receive only 9s. 6d. a week. There were also severe criticisms from people who work on lines around Manchester which the Commission recommends should be shut down, and who do not know the exact details of their future. They were angry that at such a time what they consider an extravagance should take place.

I therefore asked the Minister of Transport what the cost of the luncheon was. My right hon. Friend referred me to the chairman of the Transport Commission. Sir Brian Robertson refused to tell me and said in a letter which I have with me that he did not think that he was called upon to tell me the exact cost of meals and transport. As the Clerks at the Table said that I would be out of order in putting down a Question relating to the day-to-day costs and administration of the Commission, I put in this subject for this Adjournment debate, and I consider myself very lucky in, and I am very grateful for, having won a place in the ballot.

It is thought that 600 meals at two hotels and transport may have cost £5 a head, but I do not know what the cost was, because I have been refused information. If that is right, and the rate of £3,000 for each 30 miles is kept up, we shall spend £18,000 on food and drink by the time electrification reaches London, which is 180 miles from Manchester. In another part of the letter Sir Brian said that the luncheon really amounted to business promotion; but a 30-mile electrification will have no effect on long-distance traffic in either increased speed or decreased cost.

I submit that if this kind of thing is repeated—and there are rumours that another jollification is to take place at Liverpool Street quite soon—before adequate superannuation arrangements are made for railway servants, morale will decrease and discontent will grow. My hope, therefore, is that Sir Brian will press for a subvention which will provide augmentations, if possible, for gratuitants whose grants have been eaten away by inflation and, secondly and for certain, for a funded, and after funding a contributory pension scheme based on years of service and including a life insurance for those who die in the service of the railways before they reach early retirement age, as is common practice in most private firms.

Last week, many right hon. and hon. Members said over and over again that the gaining of the confidence of the staff was essential to the railways. I am sure that that is true and I am sure, too, that only arrangements such as I have suggested will do what is needed.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Bean (Bristol, South-East)

I noticed this subject on the Order Paper for an Adjournment debate, and I took the precaution of making some inquiries, anticipating that the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Watts) would make the sort of complaints that he did make. I made my inquiries of the British Transport Commission, as no doubt the Minister did, and I say quite plainly, but courteously, to the hon. Member for Moss Side that I very much regret that he has raised this matter in this way.

The facts of the case, as the Minister will confirm when he winds up the debate, are that the Manchester to Crewe electrification is the first major electrification which has taken place in this country on a main line service since the war, and if one excludes the Kent line, which was a suburban commuter line using the third rail, it is an aspect of electrification in which this country has some claim to pride in that we have pioneered and developed it ourselves.

When the recent electrification conference took place, delegates coming to this country were much impressed by the work we had done on the line. The electrification was also commended by the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low), and it was his opinion that this electrification should proceed and be carried through, on the ground that once one had begun electrification it was right to carry it out quickly and not allow electrification and steam to run side by side, which is more expensive even than having steam itself.

This was a matter of tremendous importance to the Commission, because it was the first operation of this electrification. The Commission took the course of action, which I have no doubt was right, of seeking to publicise this in the widest way by inviting local figures, the civic authorities, Members of Parliament, the Press, potential customers, and others, to boost the new facilities which would be available when electrification came along.

One of the reasons why there is a changed attitude to the railways today is that people are realising that modernisation is beginning to pay off. When we debated this subject last week I had occasion to draw attention to some of the services which I have been able to use on the way to Bristol, such as the Pullman. At the beginning of the Pullman service to Bristol I was invited by the Commission to go on the train to see how it operated. I declined because I had already planned to go on the Pullman on an ordinary visit to my constituency and, therefore, could not go on that occasion. I have no doubt that it was right for the Transport Commission to draw attention, as any other business firm would, to its success in this new technical sphere.

I made inquiries about the hon. Gentleman's interest in this case. I found that he had declined the invitation. I understood, and if I am wrong no doubt he will correct me, that he declined not on grounds of principle, but on grounds of a prior engagement.

Mr. Watts

I certainly told the Commission that I could not go because of a previous engagement, but I wrote to the Minister on the same day and explained my real reason. I did not write to the Transport Commission and explain my reasons because I thought that it would be very rude. I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman, who was responsible for the whole thing.

Mr. Benn

I think that it would have been courteous, having received the invitation from the Commission—though I am no judge of the hon. Gentleman's actions—to have replied giving the real reason and not some other reason. I am glad to hear that it was the real reason and that the hon. Gentleman did not subsequently come to this decision when he heard what was to happen. He is an experienced businessman. He has business connections in the city he represents. He was treasurer of the Manchester City Conservative Association for many years, so I understand, and he knows as well as anybody that if one is to run a business operation one must be ready to include business promotion as part of one's methods.

One of the complaints against the Transport Commission, repeated by the Minister, is that it has not been operating on business lines. It has been doing all sorts of things which were beneficial to the public, but Which were not economic. If we are to hear time and again from hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Commission should operate on strictly economic lines, it is really too much to complain when it goes in for ordinary promotion which, as we know very well, goes on in every other business in the country. The Commission is less forthcoming in its hospitality than most other major industries in this country.

I can only say that I believe that the arguments about the superannuitants, whose case was raised most movingly by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and by one of my hon. Friends, or the case of railway wages generally, or the case of uneconomic services, have nothing whatever to do with this matter. If it is the argument, as it is, now—the Select Committee has accepted it, as have others—that the Commission should be economic, it is right to close down uneconomic services and, secondly, to boost the economic services, that is to say, the new main line electrification, by any method open to it.

An additional objection to the hon. Member's Adjournment, is that it is in line with much of the needling criticism of the Commission that we have had from hon. Members opposite. The Minister of Transport, at Scarborough, positively discouraged people from using the railways by dredging up an experience he had nine years ago. Some hon. Members opposite want the Commission to run the waterways uneconomically, and now criticise it for the action that we are now debating. Having set up the Commission and appointed a chairman—both of which are responsibilities of the Minister—the question arises whether it is right to needle and criticise them by way of Adjournment debates, and try to run everything by way of Parliamentary pressure.

If there was ever a question which could be left within the discretion of the chairman of the Commission it is the means by which he publicises his new services. In his recent speeches the Minister has been only too ready to criticise the Commission, by imputation. But he can put in a new chairman at any time. He can issue directives demanding this or that. He can do any thing he likes to see that the Commission acts within the framework of and in line with public policy. But if these things are not done, and the Commission is left, as it will be, until the change foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech comes about, the chairman must be given a reasonable amount of independence to get on with the job.

When colonial questions are raised appeals are made by Ministers, who say, "Trust the man on the spot." Those are big questions, but the same principle applies to small details of administration of the kind raised by this debate. Although it is right for any hon. Member with a grievance to be able to raise it on the Adjournment of the House, it is most regrettable that the present vendetta against the Commission should be waged ceaselessly by hon. Members opposite, who must know in their heart of hearts that it is an unjust one.

The Commission requires nothing more now, nine years after the Conservatives came to power, than to know it can get on with its job as best it may, subject only to the overriding authority of the Government. The vast majority of my hon. Friends, and I believe the majority of hon. Members opposite, share my view. Certainly, the previous Minister of Transport took my view. In those circumstances I want to put on record my regret that the Adjournment has been used for this purpose.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Charles Mapp (Oldham, East)

I realise that the Minister has a share in the debate, and I shall not take up more than three or four minutes. I was at the luncheon to which reference has been made. Oldham is as interested in railways, as is Manchester. Until a few months ago I was an officer of the Commission, and I was with many of my friends in the officer rank of the Commission at that luncheon. I can assure the House that there was no feeling that the people there were simply enjoying a good lunch. I would estimate its cost to be about 30s.

I was very glad to welcome those who were my brother officers only a few months ago, and to see how proud they were at what was happening. I was also glad to sit alongside members of the Press and to realise their new appreciation of the work of the Commission. This week-end I was away with salaried staff of British Railways, who certainly do not take the same point of view as the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Watts). I am in intimate contact with the Railway Superannuitants' Association and I can assure him that, however he has got his information, the association does not look upon that event, or other business events which may follow, from that rather sour viewpoint from which the hon. Member has put his case.

I wish to say frankly that I was pleased that the B.T.C. took the opportunity to demonstrate to the commercial and technical world that we in Britain can do things. In doing so it afforded satisfaction to the companies who have carried out these big contracts on the commercial side and to the railway staff generally. I hope that the House is out of sympathy with the fundamental principles which have motivated the hon. Member for Moss Side.

10.16 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay)

In answering, or attempting to answer, the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Watts), I must confess that I find myself in a little difficulty. To begin with, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport carried out the opening ceremony of this new electrified line and was, I understand, the principal guest at the luncheon about which complaint has been made by my hon. Friend. In those circumstances, I think that the House will appreciate that it is a little embarrassing for me to have to stand at this Box on behalf of my right hon. Friend who was the principal guest, and argue with my hon. Friend, or hon. Members opposite, about the cost of the hospitality which my right hon. Friend, among others, received on that occasion. That is my first difficulty.

My second difficulty is this. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side quite appreciates the statutory position of my right hon. Friend in matters of this kind. When it passed the Transport Act, 1947, Parliament laid a clear duty on the British Transport Commission to carry out its affairs from day to day without too much interference by the Government. Nevertheless, I must say, in justification of my hon. Friend, that Parliament also gave the Minister the power to obtain information from the Commission. Therefore, it would be open to my right hon. Friend to seek information from the Commission on matters which he deemed to be of national importance or of some intrinsic value for the purpose of the formulation of policy, or matters of that kind.

I do not complain quite so bitterly as hon. Members opposite have complained about the action of my hon. Friend in raising this subject, because I think he is justifiably slaying that it is the duty of hon. Members of this House, as guardians of the public purse, to inquire into matters, albeit affecting the nationalised industries, which they feel may involve a loss or waste of public money. Having said that, I think I must make absolutely clear to my hon. Friend that I cannot accept some of the things he has said tonight.

I have no information to give to the House about what this luncheon cost, because my right hon. Friend has definitely decided that he does not think in the circumstances that it would be proper for him in the exercise of his statutory power to ask the Commission to provide information. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend knows, in correspondence with him, my right hon. Friend has said that if my hon. Friend wished to seek this information it would be a matter which he should take up with the chairman of the Com mission. I understand from what my hon. Friend has said that in fact correspondence has passed between him and Sir Brian Robertson on this matter; and if Sir Brian is unwilling or unable to give my hon. Friend the information for which he asks I must tell my hon. Friend that I am in no better position. I cannot give any information about this matter.

I think the House appreciates, as was said so clearly by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) that it is a matter which falls within the heading of day-to-day management, which Parliament has expressly excluded from the ambit of the Minister's power in this matter. However, one or two observations might not be amiss from me although I cannot give the House the detailed information for which my hon. Friend asked. I think it is true, as the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East said, that this was something of which the Commission was right to be proud. The Commission had something to publicise and had a good story to tell. Because it is, as the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East said, the first overhead electrified line constructed in this country since the war, it is of particular interest to people living in and around Manchester and Crewe. A number of hon. Members were invited to these celebrations and to the lunch, including the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) and, in all probability, the great majority of their constituents were extremely interested, to say no more, that this big event was happening.

Secondly, I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East—although that may make the House wonder—that in matters of this kind entertainment on a reasonable scale is a normal business practice. Provided it is not so blatent or extensive as to give rise to great public comment or criticism, I see no reason why we should seek to distinguish between entertainment provided by a private industry and that provided by a nationalised industry. Personally, I see no difference between the two.

Finally, I should say this. Whatever feelings there might be on either side of the House about our having more or less interference with the B.T.C. in its day-to-day affairs and overall plans for the future, I think anyone will agree that these particular sorts of matters—whether or not entertainment should be provided, the scale on which it should be provided, how much was spent, how many people were invited, whether they had free travel or not—are matters for the Commission itself and in my personal view not a subject fitted for Parliamentary inquisition or debate of this kind.

After all, the Commission and its members have a very great responsibility to carry. They are all very distinguished people who for a number of years have been working under extremely disheartening circumstances and have been doing the job to the best of their ability. I agree with the hon. Members opposite, as I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) in what he said in the debate last Wednesday, that their job is not helped if they are criticised unnecessarily in this House. They are quite willing to stand up to criticism for matters on which one can justifiably say there is reason for criticism, but I must say to my hon. Friend—I am sorry to have to say this—that I think this is not a subject on which we ought to criticise them in Parliament.

May I say one other thing, which is not directly in point relating to this debate? It is on a point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East last week, and repeated tonight, about the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Minister towards the railways. That was in reference to the speech made by my right hon. Friend at the Scarborough conference of the Conservative Party. What my right hon. Friend said on that occasion was to illustrate the difficulties that he as Minister has in trying to determine national priorities for the various methods of transport. The illustration which has been quoted again tonight and was quoted earlier by the hon. Member was of his experience when he was in private business and preferring to send a piece of machinery by road instead of by rail.

That illustrated something which I said in the debate last Wednesday, that some people will prefer to send goods by road for a number of reasons. I was not present when my right hon. Friend made the statement, but I have read the report of the speech since. It was simply that, in the case of certain types of machinery, there is more certainty that all the parts will arrive at the same time that the contractor wants them. I do not think hon. Members ought to go on criticising my right hon. Friend and suggesting that he has no confidence in the railways simply because of something that happened to him nine years ago. I think that is a little unfair. I urge the hon. Member, who, I know, wants to be fair, to look at the quotation again. If he does so, he will see that my right hon. Friend was not saying anything improper, but was giving his experience and what has been the experience of a great many people.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills (Belfast, North)

I do not wish to enter into the merits or otherwise of this luncheon, but my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Watts) put a question to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary about the cost of the luncheon. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has replied that the Minister of Transport cannot give that information at present and that it is entirely up to the British Transport Commission whether it wishes to give it. I suggest very strongly that although, statutorily, the position is as my hon. Friend has stated it, nevertheless it is unsatisfactory that hon. Members are denied this information and that it is left entirely to the B.T.C. to say either "Yes" or "No" to the question whether it should disclose the information.

Mr. Benn

The reason that the Commission has this power is that Parliament gave it this power when setting up the Commission. It is not the choice of Sir Brian Robertson. It is derived straight from the Statute passed by the House.

Mr. Mills

I fully agree, and I am not criticising that point. We are nevertheless in the unsatisfactory position, and perhaps in the future we should consider whether it should be changed.

I have had a recent example. We have been faced with increased freight rates across the Irish Sea—and the British Transport Commission carries one-third of the freight across the Irish Sea. Northern Ireland has suffered grievously from this increase in transport costs, but when we asked the Commission what profits it makes on the service we were not given the information, although we were given the information about the overall cost. I suggest that the present situation in this respect is unsatisfactory and ought to be reconsidered.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven, minutes past Ten o'clock.