§ 31 and 52. Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the London Transport Board to coordinate its policy in dealing with property left in its buses with that of British Railways, so that passengers are not required to pay excessive sums in order to regain their lost property;
§ (2) in view of the dissatisfaction arising from the London Transport (Lost Property) Regulations, 1960, following the excessive demands made for the return of lost property when claimed by the owners, and of realistic charges imposed in other forms of public and private transport, if he will review the Regulations with the object of bringing them more into line with modern practice.
§ Mr. Tom FraserThe statutory responsibilities of the London Transport and British Railways Board for lost property are entirely different. I have no evidence that there is any significant volume of dissatisfaction with London Transport's Regulations and the Board assures me that it deals sympathetically with appeals to it when hardship may arise.
§ Mr. DoddsHow much longer is this farce to go on? Is my right hon. Friend aware that an elderly widow who left in a bus her handbag with her life savings of £267 had to give £40, which is the 15 per cent. which the authority is forced to charge, in order to get it back, and that another person who left £930 had to pay £139 12s. 10d.? If they had lost them on the railways it would have cost 4s. up to 48 hours and 8s. after that. Is my right hon. Friend aware that when I made inquiries I was told that the difference is due to the fact that the British Railways Board is allowed to make its own regulations whereas the provisions on the buses are forced on them by the London Transport (Lost Property) Regulations, 1960? Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a farce which the bus crews think is highway robbery?
§ Mr. FraserMy hon. Friend has under lined the fact that the London Transport Board operates under very different regulations from the British Railways Board or bus operators or anyone else in the country. Nobody else, not even the British Railways Board, has any statutory liability to safeguard lost property. London Transport has a statutory responsibility, whereas other operators have not, and it has to undertake considerable cost in protecting lost property which is handed in. The charge imposed by regulations merely meets the cost of the service which the Board gives to the public. The Board makes concessions to people where hardship would perhaps be involved. My hon. Friend mentioned the amount paid by two elderly ladies of £40 and £139. In fact, these fees were reconsidered and the amounts ultimately charged were £5 and £20 respectively.
§ Mr. PowellBut does the right hon. Gentleman think that the sort of scale embodied in these regulations is justified by the obligation placed upon London Transport? Surely this is a matter which ought to be reconsidered. This is a quite unrealistic ratio. The cost of safeguarding property can surely be met without this kind of a scale.
§ Mr. FraserBearing in mind that these regulations were made in 1960 and that very much bad legislation was passed at that time, it would be very improper of me not to undertake to have a look at them. But I stand by what I said: 438 the London Transport Board at present does no more than recoup the cost which it incurs in looking after lost property. The number of complaints is small—about two per thousand of the people who lose property and who ultimately go to London Transport to reclaim it. It is not very usual for elderly ladies to lose sums of £300 and £900 when travelling in buses in this country. My hon. Friend called attention to very exceptional cases.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Shinwell. Question No. 32.
§ Mr. LiptonWhy?
§ Mr. DoddsBecause Mr. Speaker called my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I beg to give notice that, because of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
§ Mr. SpeakerI will accept the notice, but not on the basis that there is anything unsatisfactory about the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).