HL Deb 28 June 1951 vol 172 cc482-96

5.51 p.m.

VISCOUNT LONG rose to call attention to the statement made by the Chairman of the Railway Executive concerning the proposed curtailment of the summer passenger services; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, knows that this Motion was down on fie Order Paper for debate some days ago but on his personal intervention I postponed the date. I am sure that your Lordships will be delighted to hear that the reason for his request for a postponement was that on the earlier day the noble Lord was celebrating his son's great feat in passing out third in the Foreign Office examinations. I should like to offer Lord Lucas my congratulations upon that success.

My Lords, when there appeared in the Press the announcement of the Chairman of British Railways that the summer services were to be curtailed because there was a congestion of a very grave character on the railways, I could not help thinking of the submarine menace in the First World War, and of the submarine and the bomber in the Second World War. Both menaced our lifelines, but we survived them. In the Second World War we survived them not only because of the courage of the men in the Services but through the close co-operation which existed between road and rail. Our lifelines, were not severed then, though there were many anxious moments. To-day, six years after the wa,. we are suddenly told about this great congestion. This must have been a grave question to decide. People who had made all their plans for the summer holidays were suddenly told that the summer trains were to be curtailed. I should like to ask the noble Lord, first: How great is this congestion? Secondly, in view of the sacrifices that have been made (I am sure quite willingly) by the people of this country, through the curtailment of the services, I should like to ask whether he can give us any good news as to how this congestion is being dealt with.

I turn now to the statement which was made in late autumn of last year. I understand that there is in existence a consultative committee, presumably composed of representatives of the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the Ministry of Transport, possibly of the Ministry of Defence and, of course, of the British Railways and British Road Services. In the late autumn an announcement was made to the effect that we were to have a great number of new and better trains, more restaurant cars and so on. I must say, in passing, that it might have been better had they said they were bringing the present trains up to date. But, in actual fact, how many new trains were put into service? Within two months of that statement the Minister of Fuel and Power announced that there must be a curtailment in all industries in which coal was being used. So it does not look as if there was much liaison between the Ministry of Fuel and Power and the Ministry of Transport in regard to the first announcement.

Following upon that there came the last announcement in May, presumably made with the full authority of the Minister, that summer services were to be curtailed. It is interesting to note that services which were put on before the spring and taken off, owing to the statement of the Minister of Fuel and Power that there was a shortage of coal, were put on again as soon as that situation eased. As I understand it, some of these services are still running at the present time, despite the announcement of the Chairman (I know that this matter has already been debated in another place), and in the meantime the public are informed that everything in the garden is rosy.

We are referred to "Mr. Biff" and "Mr. Buff." I do not know who "Mr. Biff" is. He may be the Minister, and "Mr. Buff" may be the Chairman of the British Railways. But whoever they are, the public have certainly been "biffed" and bluffed. I need not go into that side of the matter. The Minister has already said that he is not responsible for the publicity of the British Railways, but I want to make an appeal to the noble Lord who is to reply to-day. Will he look again at "Mr. Biff" and "Mr. Buff" in this light: Is it really worthy publicity, having regard to the prestige of our railways? Is it the sort of stuff that the skilled railway worker appreciates? I am sure that if the noble Lord looks again at this publicity he will come to the conclusion that it is very cheap and tawdry, and not worthy of the name of our great British Railways. If he does that, would he then consult with the Minister as to whether or not something better can be put forward?

However, this situation is with us. Despite what the Chairman of the British Railways has said, in June "Mr. Biff" and "Mr. Buff" are telling the public, "Come by train. It is part of your holiday. It is the greatest fun in the world." Then came the real "biff" when we were informed that there were to be no more trains, and that there would be this curtailment of the summer services. It would be interesting to know whether these recommendations were made to the Minister by the consultative committee, and also how many of their recommendations were accepted by him. It is interesting to note that the Chairman of British Railways, who is not responsible (I presume that in the long run the Minister of Transport is responsible), without giving the public a moment's notification announced that there would be this curtailment. The congestion must be very great for such curtailment to be necessary. What does the Railway Gazette say on this matter?—I quote from the publication of June 8: For a good many months the freight position of British Railways has been causing acute concern. My Lords, what were the consultative committee doing? If this crisis was known months ago, why was there all this publicity until the very last moment about everything in the garden being lovely? Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell your Lordships when the Minister realised how grave was the position of our freight traffic on the railways.

Having said that, may I turn for one or two moments to the other side, that of nationalised road haulage? There is a grave crisis in the railways, and I would ask: Has full use been made, as it was in the last war, of road transport? Have the wheels been revolving? I very much doubt it. My information is that in many of the big depôts in this country even now hundreds of vehicles are lying idle. The co-operation between road and rail which saved us in the war no longer exists, I au told. Is it to be wondered at that industrialists all over the country are feeling frustrated because they cannot get their goods for export—and the vital importance of our export trade is constantly being stressed by His Majesty's Government to the industrialists. They are complaining that they cannot move their good to the ports. So what must they do? In many cases, of course, they are buying their own vehicles and transporting their own goods. One hears that that does not meet with the approval of the Minister of Transport, who does not like that idea. He does not want to see an increase in the number of "C" licence vehicles on the road. Perhaps he is thinking of nationalising them. It is clear now how wise were members of your Lordships' House who, when the Bill to nationalise road transport was passing through this House, pointed out that if "C" licence vehicles were nationalised it would be a piece of great folly. The situation which has now arisen underlines the truth of that statement.

I go further, and I say that I believe that, because of the extraordinary situation in which the railways find themselves only six years after the war, in some instances "C" licence holders who own vehicles may even be illegally carrying goods belonging to other people, because they cannot get them moved and the congestion is so great upon the roads. If the situation of which I have spoken is as serious as I believe it to be, is there a reason for it? Possibly I may be able to put forward one reason. Is it not a fact that, before the railways were nationalised, the four boards of the four great railway companies, cost the shareholders of those companies approximately £100,000 per annum? Should I be wrong in saying that the cost of the people who are now doing the work of those four boards is about £750,000 per annum? Is that not one of the reasons for the position: that matters are so centralised at the top that it is not possible to get rid of the congestion? I admit that I may be wrong in my figures.

There is another question that I should like to put to the noble Lord. I know well that there is a great shortage of engine drivers, and that the railways are finding it very difficult to keep the men they have. If the crisis is as grave as it has been painted by the Chairman of British Railways, why has the Minister of Defence not been more helpful? Why is it that the Minister of Defence at this moment, when people have to put up with curtailment of services, has refused to exempt 7,000 men on the railways? It does not look as though there is much co-operation between the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Defence. Lastly, I wonder whether I can put forward a constructive suggestion to the noble Lord? Why not pay the skilled worker on the railways a higher reward for the great work which he is doing, thus giving an incentive to those who are not skilled workers to strive for that greater reward? I am confident that if that were done, instead of trying to level down—which seems to be the process that is going on at the present time—it would stop men leaving the railways and encourage others to enter that service. The country is gravely anxious concerning this problem. It is not only the public who are concerned: the workers on the railways and on road transport are just as worried as the public. In moving my Motion, I express the hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us at least some idea whether this grave crisis through which the country is passing can be remedied merely by this curtailment of summer services. I beg to move for Papers.

6.8 p.m.

LORD WALERAN

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend, Lord Long, and I do so in the firm conviction that something is vitally wrong with one of the arteries of this great and powerful but now tired animal that is our country. If the position is as serious as I believe it to be, it is obviously a matter of the gravest national importance. Your Lordships know as well as I do how essential it is that the transport system of any country should work efficiently and at the lowest cost. If it does not do so, the result must be that the general conditions of life and the standard of living of that country go down. The muddle—I nearly said "buddle," thinking of "Mr. Biff and Mr. Buff "—of the curtailment of the summer services is, to me, just one indication of the chaos that is growing in our railway system. I am sure all your Lordships will agree with me that there is not an industrialist in this country who will not tell you that the movements of raw materials and component parts from the producer to the factory, and of the finished article from the factory to the port or shop, are being subjected to undue and unwarranted delays, which increase the cost of the finished article.

I know that people generally in this country, as well as your Lordships, will be most interested in what the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government is going to say in answer to the specific questions which my noble friend has put to him. Who knows but that he may say that the Severn Tunnel can pass only x number of trains a day? Of course, he would be quite correct in saying that. Then he may say that there are 7,000 or 8,000 trucks of coal at places beyond the Severn Tunnel which cannot be brought to the factories of England. If that is true, I say, curtail passenger services through the Severn Tunnel and build the Severn Bridge as quickly as you can, because the patient dies if his arteries harden and the blood cannot get to his heart.

In addition to the statements made by the Chairman of the British Railways Executive to which my noble friend has already referred, there is another remark of Mr. Elliott to which I should like to draw attention. Mr. Elliott is reported to have said in a Press interview in New York that the newspapers are not printing the truth. He was referring to the British Press, and his complaint apparently was based on the fact that the British newspapers did not accept his view that the railways made a profit of £29,000.000 last year. Apparently he was disappointed that they could not accept his curious view—and I think the word "curious" is a fairly mild one that the railways had been earning profits which had been turned into deficits only because they have to pay interest on the 3 per cent. stock issued to shareholders when the railways were nationalised.

It is interesting to note that when the Chairman of the British Railways Execu- tive made this extraordinary statement, the Daily Worker published an article making exactly the same point. With your Lordships' permission, I will read a short quotation from this Communist newspaper. It is as follows: Why is there a deficit? Only because the railways are burdened with colossal State charges, running to £33,000,000 a year in the total transport stock, for the inflated capital holdings of the former shareholders. Both the Daily Worker and the Chairman of the British Railways Executive seem to believe in abolishing interest on capital expenditure, an idea which your Lordships will agree would lead only to national bankruptcy. It is surely remarkable that the Chairman of the British Railways Executive and the Communist newspaper should share the same view. It is bad when a man in his position has to cover up his own mistake by an unwarranted abuse of a great institution, the British Press, without which the aims and views, extraordinary though some of them may be, of both the Socialist and the Conservative Parties would never be known to the public. It is in the worst taste that this comes from someone who is the son of one of the most famous journalists in Fleet Street.

In conclusion, I should like to say that if the position is bad, let the country know it. Tell us the truth. Transportation is vital, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that we must get the railways working at their fullest efficiency. Faced with serious difficulties overseas, everything possible must be done. We must lay Party and political prejudice aside and do the job for the safety and well-being of the country.

6.14 p.m.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH)

My Lords, perhaps you will be good enough to allow me to acknowledge my indebtedness to the noble Viscount, Lord Long, for allowing this Motion to be changed from its original date. The reasons he gave are quite correct, and I must say how appreciative I am of his congratulations. For his information, on the following morning I came to the conclusion that the disparity of years had taken their toll. The noble Viscount has put the Motion before your Lordships in his usual straihtforward and pungent manner. I have no complaint whatsoever. He has said things that I think should be said, and I think should be answered. The whole problem which he has put before the House is a commercial and industrial problem; it is not a political problem, and I am grateful to him for leaving politics entirely out of it.

It is no part of my duty to wrap a white sheet around the British Transport Commission, and I do not intend to do it. The British Transport Commission is an industrial and commercial concern and, as such, must withstand criticism, particularly the criticism of their customers. It is quite right that it should be voiced. The only thing I can say, and I think the noble Viscount will agree with me, is that those who voice this criticism, if they wish to criticise intelligently and objectively should be informed of the facts. There is a lot of loose criticism. I will straight away absolve the noble Viscount from any charge in that direction, but there is no doubt that the railways, their mistakes and misdeeds, seem to be used for Party political purposes far too much. What I propose to do in reply to the noble Viscount is to place the facts before your Lordships, without, I hope, any bias one way or the other, and your Lordships can then assess the position.

The noble Viscount has said rightly that one of the main causes which led up to the curtailment of the summer services was the shortage of man-power. I agree with him. The growing shortage of skilled men upon the British Railways has been apparent now for eighteen months or two years. Although the noble Viscount's Motion relates to summer services, he rightly pointed out that the real problem is freight congestion. I should like to give some figures of the decline in the numbers of men in the four main grades comprising the train crews. These are drivers and motormen, firemen, guards and shunters. At April 21 of this year there were 1,200 drivers fewer that there were at the corresponding date in 1950. There were 2,984 fewer firemen—and firemen are sometimes drivers. There were 896 fewer guards and 881 fewer shunters. Last January there was some very had arid wet weather. I think I can say, with some justification, that the last place I should like to work in weather of the sort which we experienced last winter is on a locomotive or in a marshalling yard. I know of no wetter or windier place than a marshalling yard; and additional sickness took its toll. Again, I am confining my facts to these same four grades. In January and February, 1951, there were 3,627 drivers and motormen, and 2,424 firemen, absent on sickness. In the first case that represents an increase of nearly 1,500 over the number for the corresponding period of the previous year, and in the second case 759. There were 1,861 guards sick, which was an increase of 540; and there were 1,525 shunters sick, which was an increase of 514. The National Service call-up does not affect engine drivers very much, because they are the older men. I have lust one figure which will give the noble Viscount some idea. There were 4,102 firemen called up for National Service last year.

The drift away from the railways has been a most serious thing. It is one of the penalties we have to pay for full employment. There is a greater attraction of labour towards other industries. One of the attractions of the railway industry before the war was that, although the wages perhaps were not comparable, there was security. To-day that is not an attraction, because there is security of employment in every branch of industry. There is no doubt that in the industrial areas of this country there has been a drift away from the railways into other industries, particularly the exporting and rearmament industries. This has been a drift of the skilled classes, and, therefore (I do not say this in any offensive manner), of the more intelligent grades of workers on the railways. These are facts one has to face. May I take a specific example? On Tuesday and Wednesday, June 19 and 20, in the hardest hit industrial areas, we were short of 409 sets of engine men—that is, drivers and firemen—and 502 guards, to cover booked freight services—that is, the goods time-table services. As a result, 254 freight trains were cancelled. That is a very serious matter. By the curtailment of the summer services—it was a postponement just for one fortnight—we have released from 200 to 250 trained crews, comprising the engine driver, fireman and guard, for freight working.

That is the man-power side of the story. We are having this labour difficulty, but there are a great number of men on the railways who are doing a magnificent job. The noble Viscount asked me whether the crisis was over. I think I can say that the jam is mainly over, and has been cleared, except in a few odd spots here and there, mainly in the south, where we are faced with the necessity for building up coal stocks. But the jam is over, and it is largely due to the efforts of a large proportion of the workers on the railways, who have voluntarily worked over the week-ends during this period of crisis. As the noble Viscount knows, there has been difficulty in only certain areas, such as in the Midlands and South Wales. But where you get a jam in a marshalling yard, the effects are felt hundreds of miles away. I will not go into all the details; the noble Viscount knows them as well as I do. But I want to pay tribute to those men who have done a very fine job of work. Unfortunately, we must face up to the fact that there is an all too large proportion who have not a proper conception of their responsibilities and do not face up to them. I do not mind whether labour is in the railway industry or any other industry, if they insist upon working less and less for the pound they get, they cannot complain if that pound gives them less and less. They must realise that. This is a joint enterprise. Management may have its faults—as I said in my opening I am not proposing to cover the British Transport Commission with a white sheet—but first-class management cannot solve this problem unless it gets the wholehearted support of the bulk of the workers in the industry.

I should like to deal with one other factor to enable noble Lords to assess the problem properly; that is, the volume of traffic. In the sixteen weeks up to April 22, 1950, the net ton miles travelled were 6,954,830,000. For the corresponding period this year it was 7,096,761,000 net ton miles, which is an increase of 141,931,000. This increase is due to greater productivity, the export drive, and also to coal imports. Coal imports have presented a great problem. As the noble Viscount knows, there were approximately 1,000,000 tons of coal which came into the ports of this country from the United States of America up to the beginning of May. I thought that he might be interested in these figures. The three points of entry with the largest tonnage were Mersey, South Wales and the Thames and the South Coast. Of the 1,000,000 tons, just over 260,000 tons went to South Wales, and of that amount 200,000 tons had to be transferred from South Wales to Birmingham and the Midlands. Your Lordships can see the problem which this created. Now who is responsible? Here I think the noble Viscount is under a slight misconception. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has very limited powers, and if the noble Viscount will take his mind back to the time when the Transport Act was going through this House (and both he and I sat and heard every word), he will remember that noble Lords opposite were anxious to divest the Minister of every possible power of interference. I remember the debate very well. The Minister, however, as I say, has very limited powers. And, as I have also said, this is a managerial problem, and is concerned with the day-to-day operation of the transport system of this country. I feel sure that if the Minister or I started interfering in the day-to-day management, we should suffer very severe criticism. We are disturbed over the position, and I am going to say something more about that in a minute.

The noble Viscount asked me my opinion of "Biff" and "Buff." I have no responsibility for them; and neither has my right honourable friend; but if it is any satisfaction to the noble Viscount, my personal view is very similar to his own. My commercial experience has taught me that that is not the way to get business.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Would it be a breach of faith or Ministerial practice if the noble Lord were to convey the opinion which is shared on both sides of the House to the persons responsible for these two animals?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I should imagine that those who are responsible will read in Hansard the report of this debate, and will read the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Long, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. If their remarks do not convince the people responsible, then I am sure that any effort that I may make will not succeed. The noble Viscount kept talking about a consultative committee composed of representatives of the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Fuel and Power and, perhaps, the Defence Ministry. I do not know of the existence of such a committee. There is not one. Naturally, there are consultations between Ministries, but there is no committee of the kind which the noble Viscount appears to have in mind. The noble Viscount then asked me about these additional trains. He asked: How many additional trains were put into operation at the beginning of this year? As a matter of fact, nine additional long-distance trains were put on, but the total train mileage was not increased because there were compensating reductions in other lightly loaded trains.

I acknowledge the noble Viscount's courtesy in giving me notice that he would put some of these questions, but one of them has rather puzzled me. It is true that, as he said, the remuneration of the directors of the railways before the war ran into about £100,000 a year. Then he asked me whether it was true that the comparable sum paid now to comparable people is £750,000. I do not know where he obtained that figure. I have made all the inquiries open to me, and I cannot get anywhere near that figure. The total remuneration of the members of the Railway Executive, including superannuation and national insurance, comes to £39,868. They are the persons most nearly comparable to the old railway directors, and they do the same kind of work. It is true that to that you have to add a proportion of the remuneration of the British Transport Commission—the hierarchy, as I might call it—as you would have to allocate part of the cost of the Commission to the Road Haulage Executive and to the other Executives. But the total remuneration of the Commission comes to only about £23,000. Therefore, even if half is due to be debited against the railways, it amounts to less than £50,000. Perhaps the noble Viscount has been misinformed or he has in mind something different.

Another question of the noble Viscount concerned the operating stock of road vehicles on road haulage. During the months from January to May of this year the operating stock of road vehicles averaged out at slightly under 40,000. I have another figure which may also be of interest to the noble Viscount. The average vehicle miles travelled per month was in the region of 56,500,000, rising from 54,268,000 in January to 58,355,000 in May. So, while this freight crisis was on the Road Haulage Executive increased their mileage by something in the region of 4,500,000 miles per month.

Those are the facts. I have given your Lordships the facts about man-power. I have given the reasons why this crisis was caused. It was a build-up caused by increased productivity, by a diminution in man-power, and by exceptional circumstance. I am not going to say that there were not other faults of operation. I am not going to stand here and claim that the British Transport Commission or the Railway Executive have reached a 103 per cent. peak of efficiency; I would not insult anybody's intelligence by saying that. There have doubtless been operational mistakes, and I think that these are lessons which they will have to learn. But that is conjecture. I have placed the facts before your Lordships, and it must be for your Lordships to assess as to whether they can be put in mitigation. I have told your Lordships that in general terms the crisis is over, but it could only be arrested by a diminution in the summer services. I do not know whether the noble Viscount has any information I do not possess, but so far as I know there has not been any real inconvenience to the public. I do not know whether there has been any passenger congestion on the railways during the fortnight that these summer services have been cut. If there has, I am sorry, but that is the price which has to be paid.

I am not, however, so much concerned with the crisis which is just over, but about next winter. I am very worried about that, because, standing a little outside the scene and being able to assess the thing as I see it, and not being actively engaged in the day-to-day operations of the railways, I can see the problem perhaps more clearly. We have been told that there will be considerable consumer goods shortages. I am afraid that you cannot have a £4,700,000,000 rearmament programme and a huge export programme if you keep up a supply of consumer goods. If we have this drift away in the direction of better employment in other industries—I mean more attractive employment, especially to the younger men; if we are to see the increased productivity that we hope for, then I am afraid that, allied to a shortage of consumer goods next winter there will be a considerable reduction in rail passenger transport in this country. Frankly, I must warn the public here and now that that is what they must be prepared to face if we are going to keep out of the position in which we have been this year as regards freight movement. We simply have not the trained crews; they are not coming in—in fact we are losing them. The noble Viscount asked whether we could not release these men from their National Service obligations.

VISCOUNT LONG

I did say, if the crisis is as grave as it has been painted by the Chairman of British Railways.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Noble Lords, especially on the opposite side, have a great knowledge of defence matters. They know very well that if His Majesty's Government relax the call-up for National Service for one industry there will be a queue of other industries standing outside the Defence Department asking for similar treatment. Think of the number called-up from agriculture—about 17,000 men. Where are we going to stop? If we are going to have a Defence programme we must have a real Defence programme. I am afraid that all these shortages are straining our economy, both in man-power and in material, so much that we ordinary consumers have got to tighten our belts another two or three inches. That is the only remedy. That is my answer to the noble Viscount. I have given him the facts. I hope he will not accuse me of complacency, or of not facing up to the situation, or of finding excuses. I have given your Lordships the facts as to what is likely to happen in the future and how they have to be met. I hope sincerely that what I have said will satisfy the noble Viscount and that he will not press his Motion.

6.43 p.m.

LORD GIFFORD

My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord one question before the noble Viscount, Lord Long, replies. Lord Lucas told us that many of the operating staff had worked very well indeed, and had worked wonders in clearing the jam on the railways. He also said that other members of the staff had not shown that pride in their job or that sense of craftsmanship which it might be thought we have the right to expect. Speaking as an agent for the railways I may say that in some cases we receive very good service, whereas on other occasions we find the opposite. For instance we find that promised extra coaches are not attached to a train. May I ask whether anything is being done to reward men for the good work they have done, by early promotion or otherwise? They surely deserve some recognition. It seems to me that the individual may well be lost sight of in these vast undertakings. I am sure that it is right that the men who give the best service to the Railways should have that service properly recognised, thereby giving encouragement to others to do likewise.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, I can speak again only by leave of the House. What I had in mind when I said that there was an all-too-large proportion of those engaged in the National Transport system who had not faced up to their responsibilities were the silly and ridiculous strikes that occur from time to time. That was all. As regards the noble Lord's second point—whether these men who have worked and contributed so much to the easing of this jam will be suitably rewarded in one way or another—I should think that intelligent management would always take notice of loyal and exceptional service. If the management does not do so, then it must not expect to get the co-operation it desires.

6.46 p.m.

VISCOUNT LONG

My Lords, may I say how grateful I am to the noble Lord for the full statement he has made in reply to my Motion? I find myself in some little quandary at this late hour, in that I should have liked to go into other questions arising out of his reply which do not really concern my Motion. In fact, I am not quite certain that I did not go outside the Motion to begin with. The chief point the noble Lord has made is, as I understand it, that the crisis is over, or nearly over. I sincerely hope that this question will be carefully considered in the future and that trouble will not suddenly burst upon us as it did this year. In thanking the noble Lord again, I would add that I hope that when the accounts of the Transport Commission are published your Lordships' House may have an opportunity of debating the whole question of the result of the year's trading. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.