§ 5.56 p.m.
§ LORD TEYNHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the strategic importance of the port of Whitstable in South-East Kent has been fully considered, in view of the report that the branch railway line, linking this port with the main line, is to be closed; and, while appreciating the interests of economy, whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to close other branch lines leading to similar ports. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have set down this Question so that it should be debated, because I felt that without some explanation the purport of the Question might not perhaps be clear, or even that it might be misunderstood. During a recent debate in your Lordships' House on defence, 369 I ventured to point out to His Majesty's Government that in the event of heavy mining taking place at the entrances to our larger ports it might well be necessary to discharge goods from our larger vessels into our smaller coasting ones, for redischarge at our smaller ports. I suggest that it is essential that railway branch lines leading to our small ports round the coast should be kept in a state of efficiency for emergency purposes.
§ In my Question, I have specifically mentioned the port of Whitstable, which was used during the last war for many purposes, including the refitting of a number of small naval craft and also, of course, for the unloading of goods and stores. I should like to ask His Majesty's Government what steps will be taken to maintain this port in operation. I suggest that it is not a practicable possibility to handle port goods at the main-line station. I understand that it is proposed to extend the sidings at the main-line station, at a cost of some £6,000. But I venture to point out that this will not provide facilities for traders and warehousemen, who will have to continue using the buildings at the harbour. There is little doubt that the closure of the branch line will mean the eventual decay of the port; and this, of course, would be a serious matter. I suggest that a little more money spent on improving the East Quay would be far more beneficial than spending it on unnecessary sidings, and would keep the port in operation and in a state of efficiency. In fact, I believe that the expenditure of some £12,000 to £15,000 would enable two vessels to be berthed at the East Quay. This expenditure would have the twofold effect of increasing railway receipts and also harbour dues.
§ I would add that it the past the port of Whitstable has handled a considerable quantity of goods in peace time, and I understand that up till recently a considerable trade was passing through the port. I hope that the Minister of Transport will issue a direction to the Transport Commission to reconsider their decision. I also hope that we may hear to-day from His Majesty's Government that the importance of these small ports will be borne in mind, and that every step will be taken to see that they are kept in a state of efficiency, since they, and the branch lines connecting them with the main railway system, may well be our lifelines in the 370 event of war. I appreciate fully that in the interests of economy it is necessary to close as many branch lines as possible which are not paying their way, in order to improve the financial basis of the nationalised railways. But it is vitally necessary that we should not lose sight of the strategic aspect of these matters, when we are thinking of closing down these branch lines.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH)My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has narrowed his Question to the strategic importance of a certain port and a certain length of railway line. As an old naval man, he will not expect me to assess the strategic importance of the port of Whitstable. The facts are these. The passenger service on the five miles of line from Whitstable to the harbour has been discontinued, the reason being that there was not enough traffic to make it economic to carry it on. The very efficient service given by the East Kent Road Car Company has taken the traffic away from it. The goods this line carries at present are sufficient for only one train each way per day. That certainly does not justify the British Transport Commission keeping this line open, at the cost of thousands of pounds a year. The goods traffic carried on the one goods train a day can he better carried, and carried more economically in the long run, by the Road Haulage Executive.
LORD TEYNHAMMy Lords, is not the real point the fact that at the moment steamers cannot berth at the East Quay owing to the condition of the quay? If steamers could berth, then railway receipts, would go up.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHThe noble Lord's Question did not deal with berthing facilities, but with a length of railway line.
LORD HAWKEMy Lords, before the noble Lord continues, he said something about the five miles from Whitstable to the harbour. I cannot see five miles on the map. Is he sure of that?
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I am talking about the length of line from Canterbury to Whitstable. I beg the noble Lord's pardon. It is proposed to increase the sidings at Whitstable 371 and Tankerton station to deal with the traffic. The noble Lord is concerned with the losses of the British Transport Commission and the necessity for economy. I know that he will not mind my saying that it always happens, whenever the British Transport Commission close down a line on the ground of economy, that it instantly becomes, in the eyes of a number of people, the most important line in the country. I hope that the British Transport Commission will go on closing down these uneconomic lines.
LORD TEYNHAMMy Lords, I think the noble Lord has missed my point. I was talking not only about Whitstable, but about the other small ports in the country. Before closing branch lines to these small ports, we must be careful to make sure that these ports are not of strategic importance. I do not want to deal entirely with the Port of Whitstable.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHThe noble Lord will not expect me to discuss the strategic importance of any port in this country: it would be improper. But I assure the noble Lord that all the facts have been taken into consideration. When a change of some strategic importance is proposed, my right honourable friend the Minister is informed, and if he thinks it necessary the Service Departments are consulted. The noble Lord will appreciate that in an island such as this, every means of transport has some strategic importance, and it is difficult to say whether one section of line going to a port or another in the middle of the country is of more strategic importance. As this line is an uneconomic proposition, it is proposed to close it down, and the British Transport Commission intend to adhere to their decision. I only hope that they will take similar action with many other lines, because the sooner we realise that many of these lines are costing far more money than they take, the better. The passage of time and circumstances have passed them by. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with what I have said. If he is not, and if there is local feeling on this matter, I would suggest that the local people do what is envisaged in the Transport Act, and put the case before the area consultative committee. So far as my right honourable friend the 372 Minister is concerned, he has had no complaints at all from any local interests. I give the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, the assurance that the strategic factor in this matter has been very carefully considered and that, leaving aside the strategic question, on economic grounds there is no case for keeping this branch line open.
LORD HAWKEMy Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has really answered the point which my noble friend made. As I see it, the question is not so much the closing of the line, as the closing of the port. My noble friend's case is that these small ports would become vital in the event of war, and that they must be kept open. I develop that by saying that if we close the railway lines that lead to them, however uneconomic they may be, there is a danger that the port will go completely out of use, so that we shall not have the use of it if war comes. That seems to me to be an eminently sensible line. I have always been an advocate of the closing down of uneconomic branch lines, but I have always qualified this by saying that if any defence Department objects to it they should be prepared to pay the care-and-maintenance charge, as used to be done by the Government of India, who maintained what were called strategic lines. Provided that we are willing to ignore the upkeep of stations, keep only the track in order, and prevent undergrowth from encroaching, the cost will be small—at the most, a ganger's pay for a year for every mile or two. If His Majesty's Government can assure my noble friend that some steps will be taken to see that the port is kept open, so that in the event of war it can be used and the branch line can either be revived from a care-and-maintenance to a service basis or connected with the main line which is within one mile of it, possibly his point would be met.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I can speak again only by leave of the House. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that that is the purport of Lord Teynham's Question. The Question specifically mentions the the effect upon this port of the closing down of the branch line, and asks whether it is the intention to close down other branch lines. I told the House that, after 373 considering all the factors, the closing down of this branch line will not affect the strategic importance of this port. I have given the House that assurance, which is based on the opinion of the competent authorities whom I have consulted. The other matter which the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has memioned, that of keeping the line on a care-and-maintenance basis, is something which I do not think your Lordships will expect me to enter into this afternoon.