§ 13. Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for the Environment on what calculations he bases his view that the major proportion of the rail subsidies goes to the better-off sections of the community; and if he will make a statement.
§ Dr. GilbertAs I said in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran) on 4th February, the information was derived from the National Travel Survey of 1973 and the Family Expenditure Survey of 1974.—[Vol. 904, c. 638.]
§ Mr. MoateIs the hon. Gentleman aware that widespread resentment has been caused by these remarks, particularly when very considerable hardship is being caused to many families by these very large increases in rail fares? If it is not to be thought that the Minister is merely indulging in a new form of class warfare, will he please publish full statistics to show exactly where rail subsidies go?
§ Dr. GilbertI am very happy indeed to give the hon. Gentleman as much detail as possible in the consultative document as to precisely where the rail subsidies go. However, the hon. Gentleman's remarks ought to be directed towards his own Front Bench as much as to the Gov- 366 ernment Front Bench, because the Opposition's spokesman on the environment has just remarked that he wants a lot more cut off rail subsidies. The Government have doubled the amount going on rail subsidies in 1975–76 over 1973–74.
§ Mr. Ronald AtkinsIs it not a fact that the major proportion per capita of all the expenditure on the services provided to individuals goes to the better-off members of the community?
§ Dr. GilbertIf I have understood my hon. Friend correctly, the answer is "Yes".
§ Mr. Norman FowlerIs it not a fact, however, that commuters are paying not only above-average fare increases but higher taxes to pay for the rail deficit? Does not the commuter's position show the overriding need for greater efficiency within British Rail and demonstrate that a new effort must be made to tackle the problem of ever-escalating fares?
§ Dr. GilbertMy right hon. Friend and I have made it perfectly clear that we regard the improvement of efficiency and manning procedures in British Rail as a prime priority. What we should like to know from Opposition Members is how they pretend that they would keep fare increases down and yet at the same time reduce subsidies.
§ Mr. CorbettDoes my hon. Friend accept that, particularly in new towns such as that which I represent, Hemel Hempstead, not all constituents are rich and many must travel into London for their work? Will he therefore consider approaching the Chancellor of the Exchequer to seek tax relief on commuter fares, which, if organised properly, would give the greatest relief to those in greatest need?
§ Dr. GilbertI am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take note of my hon. Friend's remarks. However, I have to say to my hon. Friend, with a little recollection of my days at the Treasury, that it does not follow that tax relief gives the greatest benefit to those in greatest need. It gives the greatest benefit to those with the greatest income. However, I take my hon. Friend's point about his constituents who have to travel into London. We have never said that 367 the benefit of the subsidy went exclusively to the better-off members of the community. We have merely said that in certain parts of the country and particularly in respect of certain types of travel the benefit goes predominantly to the better-off.