HC Deb 06 December 1966 vol 737 cc1285-92

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball (Gainsborough)

All hon. Members on this side of the House would wish to hasten this Bill on to the Statute Book. After all, we are now faced with the real onslaught of winter, particularly in a constituency like mine, in rural Lincolnshire, where people are perpetually complaining about the inadequacy of public transport.

I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will answer the question that was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), during the Second Reading debate, when he asked the hon. Gentleman about his calculation. This Clause allows for the repayment in the financial year of £1.1 million to the bus companies. As I understand, and from our calculations, by 31st March, 1967, the bus companies will have paid out £2,443,000—just over £2⅓million—and they will receive in return £1.1 million. So there is a deficit on this Clause of £1,300,000, or £1¼million. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confirm this, because payment is, in fact, a quarter of a year in arrears. That is very important.

We are constantly told that the Government are pushed for time and that they find it difficult to get legislation through. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are continually wedded to the principles "All right, we will take away for six months, and then we will give it back". That seems to be the Socialist Government's principle in a big way, and it is a principle which has affected the rural bus operators very seriously. When we consider the effect of this Clause, and add to it something like the Selective Employment Tax, the bus operators are already giving the Government a loan of about £8 million.

On the basis of giving the tax and getting back the same amount, during that time they have loaned the Government £8 million, on which I estimate the interest to be in the region of £700,000. That is in addition to the deficit to which my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester referred on Second Reading which adds a considerable burden on rural bus operators. Add the investment allowances of over £2.8 million in a year and we find there is a very heavy burden placed on rural bus operators.

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put rural bus companies back into the position in which they were in 1964, under a Conservative Government, then all of us would like to see a greater rebate than is available in the Bill. In saying that, we on this side of the Committee would certainly wish to hasten the Bill on to the Statute Book. However, we feel that this Clause does too little not soon enough and at great expense to the rural bus operators.

Mr. Peter Bessell (Bodmin)

I have no wish to delay the Committee. I should merely like to say, on my own behalf and on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, that we give a very cordial welcome to the provisions contained in the Bill. I know from my own experience in a large and scattered constituency that the plight of the rural bus operators is very serious. I realise only too well the difficulties they have in maintaining their services to the public. The Bill will go a considerable distance towards assisting them to maintain efficient and effective operations in the rural areas. It does not go as far as we would wish, but I hope that the Government will later be able to introduce additional measures to give further assistance to rural bus operators. Meanwhile, I am sure that the Bill has the blessing of all hon. Members.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St.Edmunds)

The Minister will recall that during the Second Reading debate, and in our discussion of the Money Resolution, a number of questions were put to him which, I have no doubt, he intends to answer this evening. For his convenience I would refresh his mind on the two or three things about which I asked him for an answer at this stage or on Report.

The first question relates to the precise sum of money to be rebated. There was some question whether it was to be £1.1 million or £1.25 million. Secondly, I asked him how soon the bus operators could expect to start getting their money back. The operators in my constituency are right up against it. Some of them have withdrawn routes, but I hope to be able to twist their arms a little to get them to restore some routes on the grounds that the money the right hon. Gentleman has pledged will soon be forthcoming.

My third question related to the procedure by which they will be able to obtain rebate. I have looked up in the Finance Act of, I think, 1961—when this rebate was first outlined—the type of form operators must complete to get the money back. I hope that for the convenience of the operators and of the House the Minister will say precisely how application should be made.

My last point concerned the view held very strongly on this side that although the Bill is welcomed in other respects, it does not go far enough. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that it will be possible for owners and operators—not necessarily stage operators—who carry school children to have rebated the charges that have been placed——

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving)

The hon. Gentleman's first three questions were perfectly in order. His present question would be in order on Second Reading, but not on the Question. That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Griffiths

I am afraid, Mr. Irving, that at this hour my mental alertness is insufficient to show me the way round your Ruling, so I had better sit down.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler)

May I first welcome the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) to our discussions. I gladly give the answers which I promised to give at this stage. The position is that the Government are continuing the policy of discriminating in favour of public transport operators which they started in 1964 to ensure that any increase in fuel duty would not be imposed on stage operators. That means that on the basis of the Budget of 1964 we are, at the moment, annually rebating the sum of £4½ million to the public stage operators of transport, in respect of the 6d. per gallon Budget increase.

Let me now lay out the arithmetic quite clearly; and I will be glad to answer questions on it because there are some complicated calculations, as was apparent last week. In July, the surcharge on the fuel duty was imposed. The cost per annum of rebating to the stage operators of public transport the 3.9d. per gallon which was involved would be £2.9 million. That is the annual cost and it is what we are concerned with in the Clause.

As the surcharge was payable from 21st July, the reckonable period during the year up to the end of the financial year—that is, the end of March, 1967—is 36 weeks. This works out for this year at a rebate, in addition to the sum I have mentioned for the 6d. per gallon for the emergency Budget in the autumn of 1964, of an additional £2 million. That is roughly the global sum.

A lesser sum is provided for in the Bill, for the following reasons. I will read this out very carefully, because I want to be completely accurate, for the sake of the record. The grants to operators are paid for fixed 12-week periods on the basis of claims made on definite forms. The fixed 12-week periods in this financial year—that is, in relation to the surcharge made in July, 1966—end on 9th October, 1966, 1st January, 1967, and 26th March, 1967.

Claims for the period ending 26th March, 1967, are not likely to be submitted in this financial year—that is obvious—or to be settled. Thus, the claims requiring payment in this financial year, we calculate, will be, not for the 36 weeks which are involved, but for the 24 weeks from 21st July, 1966, to 1st January, 1967. That, in fact—I am sorry to bemuse hon. Members—would amount to £1.33 million.

We come now to a further qualification, On the basis of our experience of rebating the 6d. per gallon which was added to the fuel duty in the autumn of 1964, we know that some operators are a little late in submitting their claims, and, therefore, that the realistic estimate of what we will pay in this financial year will be about £¼ million less than the £1.33 million which we recognise will be due to operators. That is how we arrive at the £1.1 million.

Let me be quite clear. The Clause enables the Government to repay in full the surcharge on the duty; and, therefore, if the operators prove to be more efficient and expeditious in the submission of their claims, we would expect by the end of this financial year to have paid claims amounting to £1.33 million in the fashion I have explained. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, on a realistic appreciation of what has happened up to now in the delayed submission of certain claims, gives £1.1 million as the total of claims which we think we shall have to meet in this financial year up to next April; but all the other claims will be met in the next financial year, so that the whole of the surcharge will be rebated to public transport operators. I therefore assure the Committee that all those claims will be met as soon as they are submitted.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Swingler

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Everybody appreciates that we want to pass the Bill through the House as quickly as possible, and that the sooner we do so the sooner we shall benefit the operators of public transport whom the Government wish to discriminate in favour of. Therefore, all the reasons for the Bill having been explained to the House, I hope that the House will give it a Third Reading very rapidly.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

I wish to place on record my own gratitude to the Minister and to his civil servants who are producing so expeditiously the very complicated but, to me, quite comprehensive explanation of the apparent discrepancies to which we drew attention the other night. I am entirely satisfied by the explanation which the hon. Gentleman has placed before the House, and I am very glad that he has done so.

Mr. Kimball

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his welcome, but I cannot let him get away with the remarks he has just made about "discriminating in favour of." We feel very strongly on this side of the House that while we are very grateful for the measures that he has taken the Government have already discriminated heavily against the rural bus operators. I was very glad to hear him say, at the conclusion of the debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, admit that the mathematics of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) were dead right on this issue and that we have accounted for the missing £1.345 million.

I used to partake, and still do so regularly, in agricultural debates. I should have thought that the reasons the money will be outsanding when the operators complete their claims on 26th March is simply that many of them work so hard that it is very difficult for them to sit down in the evening and fill in the mass of forms that now arrive from the Government. Many work so hard that until the end of the year they probably do not realise exactly how much the delay in filling in the forms is costing them.

The main point I wish to make on Third Reading is that taking money away from people and expecting them to claim it back when interest rates are as high as they are is extremely expensive for ordinary people. It is one more burden the Government are inflicting on them.

All the same, I welcome the Bill and hope that we shall shortly begin to benefit from it.

Mr. Swingler

I appreciate the demand of hon. Members opposite for a much higher standard in relation to public transport than that to which they have previously been accustomed. I am very glad to represent a Government which, for the first time, has discriminated under the tax system in favour of public transport.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.