HC Deb 01 February 1978 vol 943 cc431-3
3. Mr. Crouch

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had from commuters following the latest round of increases in rail fares.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers)

As explained to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on 25th January, I have received one petition and about 90 letters since the increase was announced in November 1977.

Mr. Crouch

Does the move by British Rail to raise fares by 16½ per cent. not worry the Secretary of State at all? Has he no regard for the views of the Price Commission, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and even the Prime Minister on this departure from the 10 per cent. rule?

Mr. Rodgers

I am very concerned about rising rail fares, as every reasonable man must be. I am sorry that fares in London and the South-East have gone up more than in other parts of the country. We have discussed this matter often in the House. The real problem is that of making sure that fares do not rise at a time when the House does not want the subsidy to rise, either. Also, the hon. Member must consider the case for comfort and convenience in services which the Chairman of British Rail is anxious to improve if he can.

Mr. Ovenden

Does my right hon. Friend not find the attitude of some Conservative Back Benchers somewhat opportunist, in view of the speech of the Shadow Chancellor in Chatham on Friday night, when he told commuters that they could expect no hand-outs from a future Conservative Government? Many of us who represent commuter constituencies are far happier with this Government's commitment to the continuation of subsidies than we are with claims of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) that subsidies are not necessary. If the subsidies are abolished, how much can we expect fares to increase?

Mr. Rodgers

My hon. Friend is right to note the speech made by the right hon and learned Member, who speaks on these matters more frankly than do many of his Conservative colleagues. The House will also recall that in voting against the Second Reading of the Transport Bill only 10 days ago, the Opposition cast a vote against continuing the rail subsidy for the next year. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may not like it, but there is a great deal of ambivalence in their attitude.

Mr. Pattie

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present situation is difficult for commuters, such as those in my constituency, because they are having to pay higher fares for a reduced service, since many of their trains have been reduced in length and this is causing serious overcrowding in peak periods?

Mr. Rodgers

I agree that there is a problem, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the difficulty experienced by commuters and the extent to which they are committed in respect of where they live in the travel-to-work areas. I do not minimise that consideration, but I must point out that there are no easy answers. It appears that some Conservative Members are anxious to have it both ways, namely, to keep fares down and to cut the subsidy.

Mr. Stan Crowther

Does my right hon. Friend agree that at the heart of the commuter problem is the fact that too many people work too far from where they live? Will he have words with the Secretary of State for the Environment with a view to reversing the new policy of the Location of Offices Bureau and restoring the old policy of dispersing office employment from central London?

Mr. Rodgers

I am not sure that I can make the promise that my hon. Friend seeks, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will note that point. It is true that many of our travel problems have arisen because major planning decisions made over the years have not taken account of the cost and time spent in travelling.

Mr. Norman Fowler

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what worries corn-minters is not the Opposition's stand on the totally inadequate Transport Bill but the fact that in the last three years commuters have experienced the biggest series of rail fare increases in history? Will he now consider the suggestion made in the Evening Standard and elsewhere that employers should not be prevented by public policy from offering their staffs new travel-to-work schemes? Is that not a constructive way forward?

Mr. Rodgers

I can understand the search for an easy way out of this complex problem, but commuter problems do not arise only in the South-East travel-to-work area. They arise in all parts of Britain and it is difficult to find a scheme that meets everybody's requirement. It is certainly unreasonable to expect people in other parts of the country to put their hands in their pockets to help those in the South-East.

Mr. Norman Fowler

Will the Minister now answer the question that I put to him? It does not require taxpayers to put their hands in their pockets; it is a constructive suggestion that may lead to progress. Surely the Secretary of State must realise the difficulties. Will he please take the suggestion seriously?

Mr. Rodgers

I am taking it seriously, but the hon. Gentleman must face the fact that the suggestion that he has in mind would be a breach of the pay policy and would affect some people and not others. We must try to arrive at a policy that is fair as between individuals and groups.