HC Deb 17 May 1978 vol 950 cc651-8

"In section 56(5) of the Transport Act 1962 omit the words 'any committee' and insert the words 'any area committee'.".

Mr. John Ellis

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We should like a vote on New Clause No. 10.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is agreeable, but the hon. Member will have to move it formally at the appropriate time.

Mr. Moate

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

These two new clauses have certain outstanding merits. They are very brief, simple, comprehensible and non-controversial. I hope that the Minister will agree to accept them both.

I attach great importance to New Clause No. 9. Essentially it seeks to amend the Transport Act 1962 in a very minor way. It would have the clear effect of allowing the National Transport Users' Consultative Committee to consider fare increases in the future. This is a simple proposition which will have wide-spread support in principle and practice on all sides of the House.

The essentially technical point is that by deleting the words "any committee" and inserting the words "any area committee" we are simply saying that in future area committees should not have power to consider fares and charges, but that the Central Transport Consultative Committee would have the right to consider fares and charges imposed by British Rail.

It is now widely accepted that it is right for the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, or some other consumer body, to look at rail fare increases. By doing that it in no way inhibits British Rail or interferes with its management. That principle was conceded very fairly and clearly by the Under-Secretary in Committee. He said: I do not think that one would say that this was an unnecessary interference in the working of British Railways or that it would necessarily cast doubt on the principle that the Board should run the railways and the Government should set the broad parameters within which they are run. Earlier in the same debate the Under-Secretary generously conceded the principle of what I am now arguing and said in response to an amendment that I tabled: Again, I should like to be sympathetic, except for a minor, technical quibble."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 4th April 1978; c. 835–7.] The implication was that, had I drafted the amendment more accurately on that occasion, the hon. Gentleman would have accepted it. Now I am making another effort and have tabled the amendment in a more precise form. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to accept my proposition, particularly as embodied in New Clause No. 9.

I am strengthened in my belief that the right hon. Gentleman will accept my proposal because, effectively, what I am doing is carrying out the intentions of the Government as expressed in their White Paper on the nationalised industries issued in March 1978, Cmnd. 7131. On page 15, paragraph 35, the Secretary of State says: The Government intends in due course to promote legislation to extend the powers of the existing Central Transport Consultative Committee, at present prescribed by Section 56 of the Transport Act 1962. It will be renamed the National Transport Consumers' Council (N.T.C.C.), and enabled to consider the general tariff structure of the British Railways Board's railway passenger and parcels services; There we have a clear statement of intent by the Government to allow the national consultative committee to consider rail fares.

I do not think that there is any divide between the two sides about the common sense advantage of having some outside body to consider fare increases. It would be a good thing, because it would enable there to be a broader acceptance of increases by consumers. Fare increases place a heavy burden upon commuters. There are bound to be further increases in the pipeline. They are always controversial and always need a degree of examination and explanation. It would help the public relations aspect if the public were aware that the increases had been considered by some consumer body. I believe, too, following our earlier debate, that enabling the facts and figures behind applications to be exposed would help to produce wiser decisions. We would be better off if a consumer body were to consider these increases.

The Government say that they intend to do "in due course" what I am proposing should be done this evening. With the political uncertainties at present, I wonder when the Government intend to introduce legislation of their own. I suspect that it will not be in this Session, and probably not in the next Session. Would it not be helpful to have this power entrenched now, so that when we have the next round of fare increases they can go to the Central Transport Consultative Committee?

Last year the matter was covered because the Price Commission considered the fare increases. I believe that that was a valuable exercise. We were rather surprised and encouraged by some of the comments made by the Price Commission on the last application for fare increases. Let us repeat that exercise by allowing the Central Transport Consultative Committee to consider fare increases. On the basis that there is no gulf between us, I hope that the Secretary of State will accept New Clause No. 9.

May I comment briefly on New Clause No. 8? In that I suggest that we change the name of the Central Consultative Committee for Great Britain to the Central Passenger Council and that the local organisations should be named area passenger councils. Whoever thought up the name "Transport Users' Consultative Committee" did not do us a very great service. It is a dreadful name. Most people do not know what the initials TUCC mean. I would have thought that "Passenger Council" was a simple and clear title which would have meaning. I am suggesting a central council and area passenger councils. In their White Paper the Government suggest that there should be a renaming and I carry on this rapport with the White Paper—that paragraph at least. The Government suggest that the name should be changed to the National Transport Consumers' Council. It is still a bit of a mouthful. I suggest that the term "Central Passenger Council" is better than "National Transport Consumers' Council".

I expect that the Secretary of State will say "But it will consider more than passengers. It will consider the parcel service as well". Is that meaningful? The parcel service is highly competitive. British Rail is constrained by the need to break even on its freight services generally. Is it necessary to have the passenger councils or the central transport consultative committees designated in such a way that they have to take account of freight and/or parcels? The important role that they have to perform is that of dealing with railway passengers. The term "Central Passenger Council" would create a greater awareness in the minds of the travelling public that there is a body that takes an independent and objective view of rail fares.

12.45 a.m.

It would be a helpful move if tonight we were able to create passenger councils. It would be a move encouraging rail passengers throughout the country. It would be even more encouraging if the councils could consider the fare increases that might be proposed by 1979. It is to be hoped that no increases will be proposed in 1978. With any fare increases heavy burdens are placed on commuters. If accepted, the clauses would ease the way to a greater public understanding of the problems facing British Rail and the need for fare increases and the like. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to accept them.

Mr. Younger

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) on making two extremely constructive suggestions. My hon. Friend has made a powerful case for the logic of what he is proposing. It is a case that ties in with the way in which we have approached transport planning within the Bill, which is that the emphasis both in the form of what is proposed and in the way in which it is presented should be towards the consumer and towards making it clear to all those concerned in operating, planning and using transport that the consumers' needs are the raison d'être of the transport industry.

My hon. Friend's suggestions to rename the committees, and the names that he has produced are helpful, and I look forward to hearing what the Secretary of State has to say about them. There are two sides to that which we are discussing. There is the way in which transport is to be organised in its various forms and there is the way in which it is presented. We should not under-estimate the importance of building up public confidence that their view is to be taken into account and is to matter. We can do so by ensuring that the bodies that represent their views have names that are readily understand-able and memorable and represent the tasks that they should undertake.

Mr. William Rodgers

There are many occasions on Report when we feel that we should have more time to discuss important propositions that come before us. It may be that it makes nonsense of our procedures that as the clock advances we find ourselves a little impatient to give time to important matters that should receive full consideration. I am sure that that will be said again from the Dispatch Box before dawn breaks over the Thames and the birds sing again.

The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has raised important issues and I do not differ from the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) in what he said about them. It was the theme of hon. Member on both sides in Committee that the consumer must have a larger say than hitherto in the formulation of transport policy in so far as the transport system bears down upon him.

When I look back I can see many anomalies in the TUC system. I am surprised that it has persisted in its present form for such a long time. For all those reasons I wish that we could have a considerable debate on these matters to ascertain whether the House could work out a solution that makes the best sense.

As the hon. Member for Faversham said, he has looked at the White Paper on nationalised industries and he is aware of the proposals that we intend to bring forward. I have to tell him that I think that his new clauses, with respect, although well intended, do not fulfil the broad purpose which I think he has in mind.

The hon. Member said quite fairly in relation to New Clause No. 8, to which he attached less importance, that the very change of title which he proposes, which is on the face of it a very logical and sensible one, would eliminate the consideration of parcels. My view is that we should be very cautious indeed in taking away from any council of consumers a power that it possesses today. I know that there is some ambivalence on the Opposition Benches between the role of the market and the role of public policy when it is not the role of the market. But here I should have thought that to maintain a public interest in parcels is desirable. As the hon. Member himself conceded, New Clause No. 8 would take something away which has been found to be valuable even in a limited and restricted way. Although the new title is attractive and maybe it is a title to which we shall come in due course, it is by implication a restrictive one. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member will feel that New Clause No. 8 cannot be proceeded with this evening.

Looking at New Clause No. 9, I see something much nearer to the White Paper on nationalised industries. I am sure that the hon. Member is very anxious to legislate on those elements in it which, on both sides of the House, are found to be desirable. But even there, New Clause No. 9 is very much more restrictive in its scope than the Government's present intentions as expressed in the White Paper on the nationalised industries. It is designed to allow the CTCC to consider fares and charges, but it would not give the CTCC the strategic role that we envisage for it in the White Paper. The new clause would not, for example, give the CTCC powers to make representations to the Price Commission—something which we ourselves propose. Instead, it would give rather wider powers to myself. I am always grateful to have them but I do not think that I would exercise them better than by the processes recommended by the White Paper.

For this reason, it seems to me that what the hon. Member has in mind is not the purpose which would result from his new clause. In fact, the new clause might result in a good deal more Government day-to-day interference with the management of our transport system. Again, in view of our earlier debates, I am sure that that is not what the hon. Member has in mind.

Therefore, I say very regretfully that I would have to advise the House to reject the new clauses were the hon. Member to press them. However, he has raised an important matter. I hope that he will take the assurance that we hope to go rather further than he proposes when the time comes to legislate in the light of the White Paper. I hope that the hon. Member will regard that as a step in the right direction and will not wish to pursue the matter further now.

Mr. Moate

I confess to being somewhat disappointed with the Secretary of State's response. With regard to the question of fares consideration by the CTCC, I concede the strength of his argument. But nevertheless I should have thought that the immediate prospect of consideration by the CTCC would be attractive as an interim measure. It could be years before we have other legislation on the statute book, years during which there will be other fare increases. I should have thought that this would be quite a useful interim step.

With regard to the matter of the name of the passenger council or whatever, I should have thought that one could designate it a passenger council, which would be a meaningful title to the world at large, without reducing its power if it wished to scrutinise parcels matters. One would not necessarily be reducing the powers of the council by changing its name. In fact, one could not do so simply by a change of name.

Nevertheless, I appreciate that I shall not make much progress with these new clauses tonight. I am glad at least that there is a general acceptance of the principles of this matter. One can only look forward to early legislation that will allow these matters to be properly considered. I nevertheless register my disappointment that the Government have failed to carry out the intentions which were implicit in the statements by the Under-Secretary in Committee, which were much more helpful, and I should have thought that the Government could find a way at this stage of providing some interim investigation by the consumer bodies of rail fare increases.

I am disappointed. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.