HC Deb 11 November 1964 vol 701 cc1011-3
27. Mr. Channon

asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has for taking steps to reduce the deficit of British Railways.

Mr. Tom Fraser

Under the terms of the Transport Act, 1962, the statutory duty to improve the railways' financial position rests with the British Railways Board, not with the Minister. In considering with the Board its plans for the future, within the framework of the transport needs of the country as a whole, I shall have very much in mind the contribution those plans will make to reduction of the deficit.

Mr. Channon

Will not the Minister agree that it is most important, both in the interests of the taxpayer and in the interests of rail travellers themselves, that British Railways should, at least, be given the chance to pay their way, and would not the best chance of keeping fares steady, as suggested by the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), be given if British Railways did pay their way? Will he, therefore, devote a greater part of his attention to this matter rather than spend so much time on trying to increase the deficit instead of reducing it?

Mr. Fraser

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the many supplementary questions put from his side of the House today to both my hon. Friend and myself, he would have understood that a great many of his right hon. and hon. Friends appreciate that one cannot in the foreseeable future make the railways pay. I do not think that one can.

Mr. Hay

The matter goes a little further than that. Is the Minister aware that, under Section 22 of the Transport Act, 1962, a statutory obligation is laid upon the Railways Board, within the first five years after vesting date, so to balance its accounts as to equate its income and expenditure? Will he say to what extent his recent statement of policy and the holding up of closures will affect that statutory obligation laid upon the Railways Board by this House?

Mr. Fraser

Also by the 1962 Act power was given to the Minister of Transport to consider railway closures proposed by the Railways Board. Although Parliament was foolishly invited to write in those provisions about ensuring that the Railways Board should make the railways pay, it also took care to give the Minister authority to reach decisions which would make it impossible for the Railways Board to pay its way. It is now widely recognised, I think, that the 1962 Act was in many respects a very foolish Act.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker

Will my right hon. Friend give urgent consideration to the electrification of main lines, which would cut operating costs to two-thirds those of diesel working and would also save £60 million worth of imported oil?

Mr. Fraser

The decision on whether electrification will be proceeded with is one of management, for the Railways Board, and I am well aware that the Board is all the time considering the capital costs of electrification together with the operating costs of the alternatives which are used at present. I do not want to hold out any hope that I shall require the Railways Board to engage in a considerably increased capital expenditure programme in the near future.

Mr. Powell

When the Minister describes as foolish the statutory duty laid upon the Railways Board by the 1962 Act, has he forgotten that the same obligation was imposed by the 1947 Act? Is he seriously telling the House that his Government do not expect it to be possible in the foreseeable future?

Mr. Fraser

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, notwithstanding the provisions about the Railways Board under the 1962 Act or the British Transport Commission under the 1947 Act paying their way, under the Government of which he was a member—a quite outstanding member, if I may say so—the Railways Board had a deficit of up to about £160 million a year. I have not said today that particular provisions of the 1962 Act were exceedingly foolish. What I was saying was that the Act as a whole, the whole conception of the Act, was foolish in the extreme, as is evidenced by the kind of representations which I am receiving from all parts of the House urging me to do things which I cannot do because of the limitations imposed by the Act.

Mr. Shinwell

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the fact that in the last 13 years of Tory Governments we have had several successive Transport Ministers, not a single one, with the full support of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, was able to demonstrate how the railways would pay?

Mr. Fraser

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Galbraith

Is not one of the best ways to reduce the deficit on the railways to get the liner trains moving? What will the right hon. Gentleman do to get the unions to withdraw their objections to the liner trains?

Mr. Fraser

I think that that is really another question. But the liner trains are on the way, and I am not going to do anything to stop them being introduced by the Railways Board. I am most anxious that they should be introduced.

Mr. Galbraith

But what is the right hon. Gentleman going to do to help their introduction?

Mr. Channon

Mr. Speaker, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.