HC Deb 15 March 1961 vol 636 cc1400-13
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the initial steps the Government propose to take in the reorganisation of the British Transport Commission under the proposals recently approved by the House.

In accordance with the new arrangements, Sir Brian Robertson will, with my agreement, retire from the chairmanship of the Commission with effect from 1st June, 1961. The House will, I know, share to the full the Government's warm gratitude to Sir Brian for his outstanding services as Chairman of the Commission since 1953 and for the devotion with which he has carried out his heavy responsibilities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Having regard to the terms of the appointment, the Government intend to take powers in the forthcoming legislation to enable the Commission to pay him, in addition to his superannuation award, a sum of £12,500. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

I have decided to appoint Dr. Richard Beeching as Chairman-designate of the new Railways Board. Dr. Beeching is a Director of Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, and was a member of the Special Advisory Group on the Reorganisation of the Commission. To enable him to take part immediately in the preparatory work which has to be done, I have today appointed him to be a part-time member of the British Transport Commission.

On Sir Brian Robertson's retirement, Dr. Beeching will become a full-time member of the Commission and will also assume the chairmanship until, when the reorganisation comes into effect, he can become the first Chairman of the British Railways Board. I take this opportunity of thanking Imperial Chemical Industries for releasing Dr. Beeching for five years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

I told the House on 30th January last that in view of the special nature of this task of reorganisation it might be necessary, at the start, to bring in a few new people at the top, and that the Government would need to pay regard to the special needs in their search for the best available talent and in considering suitable terms. The Government consider it fortunate that Dr. Beeching is prepared to interrupt his career with the Imperial Chemical Industries for a period of five years to take up this especially challenging task. It would not be right to expect him, in addition, to accept a substantial financial sacrifice, and I have decided, with the agreement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Dr. Beeching shall be paid, from 1st June next, his present remuneration, with I.C.I., which is £24,000 a year.

Hon. Members

Resign.

Mr. Strauss

The Minister is, no doubt, not surprised that his extraordinary announcement has been received with amazement and, indeed, shock—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—by hon. Members on both sides of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how it came about that this announcement first appeared in the Daily Express this morning, before his statement was made to the House?

Will the right hon. Gentleman say on what grounds he sacked Sir Brian Robertson, whom he and his predecessor have constantly praised for his ability and devotion to his work, and has replaced him by someone who, so far as we know, has no transport experience whatever, and at a salary two and a half times that which was paid to Sir Brian Robertson?

Can he tell us, because he has surprisingly failed to do so, what experience Dr. Beeching has had in managing or organising men? Has he any knowledge whatever of the elementary principles of traffic movement? What qualifications, indeed, has he got, not only for being made a member of the Transport Commission, but also for assuming straight away the very responsible position of Chairman of the Commission.

Could the right hon. Gentleman not find anyone in the railway service today with the knowledge, experience and ability to take on this important task? Does he realise that this appointment of someone from outside industry, with no knowledge, as far as we are aware, of the business of running the railways, will have very serious repercussions on the whole of the railway staff, from top to bottom?

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, in view of this appointment and the very high salary to be paid to the Chairman of the Commission, it is the Government's policy to pay similar high salaries to the chairmen of other nationalised industries, which are also of great importance, or is this an exception?

Finally, has the right hon. Gentleman made this appointment, and is he paying this very substantial salary, because of the apparent intention of the Government announced in all the Sunday newspapers, that the new Railway Board, under the chairmanship of Dr. Beeching, will have to carry out the very unpopular task of cutting British Railways services by 20 per cent.?

Mr. Marples

If I may answer all those supplementary questions, I will start at the beginning.

On the right hon. Gentleman's first question, I would say that nothing surprises me about the reactions of this House, and especially those of the party opposite. Secondly, there were many "leaks". The Guardian, this morning, said the new chairman would be Sir Ivan Stedeford, the Daily Express said that it would be Dr. Beeching and some time ago the Daily Mail said that it would be somebody else. It is very difficult indeed to find out why the newspapers make all these guesses, but, as far as the Daily Express article is concerned, I intend to make some inquiry.

The third part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, when he said that he was sacked, did a disservice to Sir Brian Robertson. That is not true. The Transport Commission, under the Government's proposals in the White Paper, is to be replaced by another organisation, and, therefore, his job would, in a very short time, come to an end. To facilitate matters, Sir Brian, as always, was kind enough to say that he would wish to retire at a date convenient for the reorganisation, and I am grateful to him.

The right hon. Gentleman's fourth supplementary question asked why I was paying Dr. Beeching a salary two and a half times as much as that of the present Chairman. All I would say to that is that Dr. Beeching is not coming in to get that sum of money, because he is already getting it now, and that if the nationalised industries are to attract the best managerial talent and skill they have got to pay the rate for the job.

Mr. Callaghan

Does this apply all the way through, down to engine drivers?

Mr. Marples

The hon. Member from his sedentary position, asks whether this applies all the way through to engine drivers. Yes, it does, because it follows the Guillebaud principle by which railwaymen were given wages comparable with outside industry. If railwaymen got that principle awarded to them, why should hon. Members opposite deny it to the managerial side?

The fifth supplementary question put by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) was about Dr. Beeching's career, and whether he was a suitable man for the job. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman takes a look at Dr. Beeching's career, which is absolutely brilliant. He served an apprenticeship on this Special Advisory Group and has saturated himself with railway matters for the past nine months.

Mr. Shinwell

Resign. Get out.

Mr. Marples

The right hon. Gentleman's sixth supplementary question was whether there would be repercussions. I hope that there will not be, and that we shall try to make a really good show of the railways.

The right hon. Gentleman's seventh question was whether there would be other similar high rates of remuneration. There may be one or two other special appointments, but there will be no change in the Government's general policy on salaries of members of the boards of nationalised industries.

I have tried my best to answer all the supplementary questions.

Mr. Gower rose—

Mr. Lipton

Thank the right hon. Gentleman for his replies.

Mr. Gower

Is it not vital that an important nationalised industry like British Railways, which must face tremendous problems in the years ahead, should not be deprived of the services of the best talent available because of the financial stringency which has sometimes applied? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that his references in praise of Sir Brian Robertson should command the support of both sides of the House?

Mr. Marples

The country and the House must face the fact that they cannot expect to get managerial talent unless they pay the same rates as the other sections of business. I see no reason why the railways should be placed at a disadvantage, as compared with other parts of industry, in getting the best managerial skill available.

Mr. Gunter

May I ask the Minister whether his conscience is at ease when he pays his tribute to Sir Brian Robert-son? Whatever he may say, Sir Brian has been dismissed, and it is shameful that a man who has served the nation as soldier and diplomat should have been treated in this manner.

Was not an understanding given us by Sir Brian, when we were in negotiation with him, that he proposed to conduct the affairs of the Commission for another twelve months? Now we understand that in June he is to go. Therefore, does not the Minister understand that some of us, who have fought Sir Brian over the last few years, but who have learned to respect him as a gentleman and as a man of great honour, feel complete contempt for the conduct that he has shown towards Sir Brian?

Mr. Marples rose—

Hon. Members

Resign.

Mr. Marples

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) should have made that show of indignation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, I repeat, show of indignation. Sir Brian has volunteered to do this because he thought that it was in the interests of the reorganisation, and I respect him for it. My conscience is clear, otherwise I would not be able to say this at this Dispatch Box. Sir Brian is responsible for any undertaking he has given, and I am responsible for my undertakings. I am not aware of the undertaking mentioned by the hon. Member. I will look into it closely.

Mr. John Hall

Can my right hon. Friend say how much Dr. Beeching is likely to retain net, after paying tax?

Mr. Marples

I did not want to refer to that, but—

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to that supplementary question, may I ask whether it has not always been our rule that particulars are not given in the House of individual liabilities to taxation?

Mr. Speaker

I think that what the hon. Member has in mind is the practice that such particulars are not given by the Inland Revenue. I do not know of a practice extending to being applicable to the question just asked of the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Silverman

Further to that point of order—

Mr. Grimond

Further to that point of order—

Mr. Nabarro

Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker

I am perfectly willing to hear points of order, but not more than one at a time. Mr. Grimond.

Mr. Grimond

With all respect to your Ruling. Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that any member of the Government, other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, can give particulars of an individual's Income Tax situation?

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that that follows from what I said. It was not my intention.

Mr. Nabarro

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you not aware that any Member of this House may go to the Library of the House and work out the Income Tax and Surtax liability for an income of £24,000? It is a simple calculation.

Mr. Speaker

I doubt whether a question asking me what I am aware of in that matter is a point of order.

Mr. Silverman

Further to that point of order—

Mr. Callaghan

Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Silverman.

Mr. Callaghan

Further to that point of order—

Mr. C. Pannell

My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne is on his feet.

Mr. Speaker

I called the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).

Mr. S. Silverman

In your original Ruling, Mr. Speaker, you agreed that there was a rule that the Inland Revenue Department, which must include the Chancellor of the Exchequer, shall not disclose particulars of taxation in an individual case. If that rule had been obeyed, the Minister of Transport would be in no position to answer the supplementary question addressed to him by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall). He can only know these particulars if he got them from the Inland Revenue. Therefore, to answer that supplementary question would, I submit, be a breach of the rule.

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that that follows at this stage. I could understand, if this gentleman had particular commitments which resulted in his receiving certain allowances, or had a vast family, or if there were some other obscure and magical considerations, that the matter might be different. But I do not know what the Minister is purporting to answer, since he has not yet been allowed to answer. I cannot conceive any of these evils attaching to doing a sum, on a prima facie basis, of what remains prima facie from a gross income which is named.

Mr. Callaghan

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. During discussion on the Finance Bill of 1946 or 1947, I endeavoured to raise the question of the financial affairs of the Duke of Westminster. Viscount Crookshank, then Mr. Harry Crookshank, took great exception to this in speaking from this side of the House. It was ruled by Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown that I was unable to raise the question of the Duke of Westminster's tax liabilities.

Should there not be some consideration before that Ruling is overruled, as seems to be happening today? I can understand your Ruling that a hypothetical case can be discussed, because such cases are included in the tax tables every year, but what is being asked for is the tax liability of Dr. Beeching. It is questions about tax liability to which exception is being taken. The only basis on which I was finally allowed to make my speech about the Duke of Westminster was when I was able to demonstrate that the case had been decided in a court of law.

Mr. Speaker

That is all very attractive. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has the advantage of me, because I did not have the honour to be in the House at the time and, therefore, I do not have these things in mind. I do not propose to over-rule any Ruling about this matter. What I understand to have happened—and I cannot commit myself to verbal accuracy of my recollection of the particular question asked—is that the Minister was asked how much would remain to this gentleman if he had the salary named in the Minister's statement. I cannot think that that is more than doing a sum.

Mr. Shinwell

If the Minister can disclose the amount of Income Tax and Surtax to be paid by any person employed by the Government, will you, Mr. Speaker, permit Questions to be placed on the Order Paper querying the amount of taxation paid by any person employed in the Government service?

Mr. Speaker

I do not desire to rule on a hypothetical situation, which is what that is, but my instinct at the moment is that the answer to the right hon. Gentleman would be, "No".

Mr. John Hall

Further to that point of order. I have placed similar Questions on the Order Paper asking what would be left after taxation on certain salaries paid to public-appointed persons, and there has never been any query about them, Sir.

Mr. Marples

In order not to offend the susceptibilities of any part of the House, perhaps I should say that at present the tax for a married man receiving £24,000 a year would be £17,463 7s. 6d., leaving the married man and his wife with £6,536 12s. 6d.

Mr. Grimond

Is the Minister aware that the only possible comment on his statement is, "What a way to run the railways!"? Can he explain what is meant by his extraordinary announcement that Dr. Beeching is "prepared to interrupt his career"? Are we taking the railways seriously, or are we not? Can we get no one in this country who is prepared to make a career of the railways and to stake his reputation on making them efficient, and to treat the matter with a modicum of seriousness?

Mr. Marples

The hon. Member is not doing himself justice. There are two jobs to be done here—not only running the railways, but reorganising them on the principles laid down by the House when it agreed to the White Paper proposals.

Mr. Popplewell

Is the Minister aware of the dismay which his statement will cause to everyone engaged in the transport industry? Does he not realise that his statement that £24,000 a year is the price which he is prepared to pay to destroy our railway system is a disgrace? Does he not realise that his statement that Dr. Beeching is to be appointed for only a five-year period falls below even what we expect from the Government? Does he not realise that Dr. Beeching's qualifications show no knowledge of the railway industry or of transport and that his nine months' apprenticeship, which the Minister mentioned, was when he was serving as a member of the Stedeford Committee, the publication of whose findings we are still awaiting? Is not this further evidence of the need for those findings to be published?

Does not the Minister realise that his pledge when presenting the White Paper, that there would be opportunities for railwaymen in the higher branches of the service is now completely nullified, and that everyone engaged in the industry who has some knowledge of it will be disappointed and disheartened by the announcement, and that the morale of everyone connected with the industry will deteriorate still further?

Mr. Marples

I cannot accept the assumptions on which that supplementary question was based. The hon. Member said that it was a disgrace to make the appointment for a five-year period, but the appointments of chairmen of the British Transport Commission, made by either party, have been for five-year periods. Secondly, when the career of Dr. Beeching is closely examined, it will be found that he has had an immense experience of organisation, vast, large-scale organisation, in I.C.I. I am sure that he is the right man for the job and I am sure that it will benefit British Railways in future to have managerial quality of this nature.

Mr. C. Osborne

Is my right, hon. Friend aware that the figure of £24,000 a year gross will undoubtedly shock many railway workers? But will he make it clear, in putting over his policy to them, that that sum leaves this man with less than £7,000 a year? Will he also make it clear that if, for £7,000 a year, the railways can be reorganised in such a way that the men's jobs are made safer and better, they will get a good bargain and so will the country?

Mr. Marples

I assure my hon Friend that I will try to get over what the net sum is which any man would receive when getting a gross figure of £24,000 a year. I am sorry that the Opposition should have sought to prevent me from stating the net figure. I assure my hon. Friend that if Dr. Beeching can reorganise the railways, he will do a great service for the country.

Mr. G. Brown

It must be apparent to the Leader of the House that what the Minister of Transport has said has come as a great shock to many hon. Members. It must be equally apparent that the announcement raises wide issues which cannot be avoided by reference to Income Tax, because we still do not know what Dr. Beeching's liability to tax will be, or what expense allowance, if any, is involved. The announcement also raises grave issues for the other boards of nationalised industries and the salaries of their chairmen and members, as it does for the members of the Transport Commission. It also raises grave issues about the Commission's future policy.

In view of the Minister's announcement, and the reaction to it, will the Leader of the House find time in which this remarkable statement of the Minister can be properly debated?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler)

The House knows that its time is fully occupied until Easter, but there are undoubtedly opportunities when the matter can be raised by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, or any other hon. Member. I must leave it to hon. Members to find opportunities to raise this matter on the various occasions which will undoubtedly arise before Easter.

Mr. Brown

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while the Opposition will have opportunities, this is an announcement of Government policy?

This is not a matter of the replacement of one chairman by another, but a whole new attitude and new policy. After all, if the Minister had tried harder, he might have found someone who would get a salary of £48,000 a year. This announcement raises grave issues of policy, and when the Government decide to introduce a new policy it is for them to find time to debate it. The Leader of the House must face his responsibilities and not try to shuffle them off. He must be willing to face the music and provide time for this extraordinary statement to be debated.

Mr. Butler

I have already said that I do not think that the Government will be able to provide time before Easter, but there will be opportunities when the matter can be raised. There is a range of business coming before the House before Easter which will give opportunities for such a debate.

I do not underestimate the importance of the statement made by my right hon. Friend. He has had the particular task of choosing the best man he can, and he has done his best to face what follows from that decision. This, no doubt, has come as a considerable surprise to the House. I therefore expect that there may well be opportunities taken to raise the matter. But I would be wrong to promise a Government day or time which is not at present in my power to afford.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

We cannot debate this now. There is no Question before the House.

Mr. Shinwell

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If hon. Members wish to table a Motion of censure on the Minister of Transport, calling for his resignation, will the Government find time for it to be debated next week?

Mr. Speaker

I cannot make that into a point of order.

Mr. Shinwell

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

I did not think that Chat was a point of order, so there cannot be one further to it.

Mr. Shinwell

Then may I put another point of order, Sir? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not going to be deterred by hon. Members opposite. I have been here too long for that. They are a collection of humbugs.

I put this quite seriously, Mr. Speaker. In a matter of this sort, which is of such vital importance, ought not hon. Members on this side to have the opportunity to put questions either to the Minister concerned or to the Leader of the House? Why should we be prevented at this stage?

Mr. Speaker

Because when Ministerial statements are made I think that there is a duty placed on me to exercise my discretion as to the amount of questioning I may permit when there is no Question before the House. I entertain no hope of being able to remain a popular person in discharging that duty, but, none the less, I have to discharge it. The reason why I was not proposing to allow further questions on this matter is that I thought that point had been reached.

Mr. Paget

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Speaker

We have not yet reached the point for such an application to be made.

Mr. Speir

I welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, but I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Monslow

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister to make a declaration, in relation to this payment of salary, that the same generous treatment will be extended to the employees of the industry when they make wage demands?

Mr. Speaker

That has no appearance of being a point of order. I understand the emotions involved in this, but I wish to renew my expression of hope to the House that we should stop this practice of rising to points of order which are not really points of order.

Mr. Callaghan

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Speir) has given notice that although he welcomes the Minister's statement he will raise the matter at the earliest opportunity. May I ask you whether, as a matter of order, you regard such a Motion, which is not given in the. time-honoured form, as forestalling your decision on any Motion that may be moved—I am not pre-judging that—under Standing Order 9 by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)?

Mr. Speaker

Most certainly not. I regarded the hon. Member's attempted notice as something totally null, void. and ineffective.

Later—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) wanted to address me. I think that the moment has arrived.

Mr. Paget

Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask for leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Speaker

May I be allowed, without discourtesy, to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman? The view I take of my duty is that I am precluded from acceding to any such application by paragraph 8 of Standing Order No. 16 this day. That being my view, I should not detain the hon. and learned Gentleman to address me about it.

Mr. Paget

I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker. However, I make this submission to you. If you grant my request it cannot be operative today, because of the business today, and tomorrow becomes the first opportunity. The effect of my application, if it be granted, is that it will be operative tomorrow and not today.

Mr. Speaker

Yes. I understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman is putting to me. I think the fair way of indicating it is to say that I do not share his view. But what I say is without prejudice to his trying out his chances tomorrow, if that be convenient, about which I give him no encouragement and speak without prejudice to the interests of either of us.