HC Deb 16 February 1951 vol 484 cc845-56

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Delargy.]

4.0 p.m.

Mr. McAdden (Southend, East)

When I was fortunate enough to get the opportunity of being able to speak today upon the Motion for the Adjournment, I put down for discussion the question of transport facilities between Southend and London, but owing perhaps to my bad calligraphy, or possibly because somebody had discovered how long it takes to get from Southend to London, it seems to have been thought by some hon. Members that I was to talk about travelling facilities between Scotland and London. That, however, was not my intention, and I want to devote the short space of time at my disposal to draw the attention of the Minister to some of the deficiencies of the transport facilities between these two important places.

It was perhaps unfortunate that we did not have the opportunity a few moments ago of hearing something about raising the speed limit from 20 to 30 miles an hour for certain classes of vehicles, on a Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) which was not reached, because if there could be some steps by which we went a little faster than 20 miles an hour in modern trains, we in Southend would be very happy indeed.

The growth of the London-Tilbury-Southend line, as it once was, has been an interesting one. Southend is not only a dormitory town, to which a large number of people return at strange hours in order to sleep and from which they proceed each morning to London at strange hours in order to work; it is also a seaside resort. For those two reasons—because it is necessary for visitors to travel to the town with reasonable comfort and speed, and in order that hoteliers, boardinghouse keepers and the like may gain their livelihood, and also because those who live in the town and who have to come to London to work should be able to have reasonably efficient transport—it is essential that there should be a good and efficient transport service between Southend and London.

I should be less than fair to the Minister if I did not admit at the outset that there are certain difficulties which it is not within his power to combat successfully at once. There is only one railway track in each direction, and consequently, until arrangements are made to alter this state of affairs, the right hon. Gentleman must be presented with a certain amount of difficulty. The absence of facilities to enable him to take the really effective action which is capable of providing the regular and frequent service such as would be provided if we had more than a single track up and down, makes it all the more imperative that greater care and ingenuity should be devised to ensure that upon the limited tracks now available we have regular and punctual trains, so that the amount of inconvenience caused to the residents of Southend and to those who travel to that place may be on the smallest possible scale.

It is not a matter of argument between the Railway Executive and any of those who travel upon the line that the present service is simply deplorable. The trains are filthy. They very rarely, if ever, run to time. The condition of the locomotives is deplorable. I want to make it perfectly clear—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) will agree—that we make no complaint whatever about the staff employed on the locomotives. They are accomplishing miracles with locomotives which ought to be put out of service. I should be extremely sorry if ever the engine drivers on this line decided to work to rule, because if they did so we would have no trains at all. Although we may travel with a certain amount of trepidation, not knowing whether we shall arrive or not, we still cling passionately to the belief that it is better to travel hopefully than never to arrive at all. If those men were to work to rule, we would have a number of serious difficulties.

I do not pretend to be a technical man, and I am not in a position to advise upon what is the best class of railway engine for this particular line, but those who are competent to judge have, apparently, come to the conclusion that a Class 4 engine is the most suitable. There was some argument about it once. The Railway Travellers' Association, who have always been pressing this point, were told that they were being very naughty because they were interfering in things which they did not understand. In the result however the line is now operated in the main by Class 4 locomotives, but there are not enough of them.

There is no reserve of locomotive power at Shoeburyness. For one reason or another—and there are plenty of others—the locomotive which is proposed to be employed fails and is unavailable, and the only thing to do is to take the locomotive from the next succeeding train, and to hope that, by the end of the day, they will have caught up with all their troubles. That does not seem to me to be an efficient way of running a railway system. All the informed opinion which I have been able to collect leads me to believe that the minimum number of Class 4 engines in first-class condition necessary to operate this line successfully would be 70. At the moment, we have got 67, but not 67 first-class ones. The real trouble is the inefficient maintenance system and the lack of a sufficient number of Class 4 engines to operate the line successfully.

I am fortified in submitting my case by a letter from the Central Transport Consultative Committee—not sent to me, but which has been passed on to me—in which they state that the deficiencies in the locomotives at present operating, the condition of the permanent way and speed restrictions on parts of the track are due to a lack of qualified staff for the maintenance of both locomotives and the permanent way. If that is so, I should like to know what the Minister is going to do about it. Is he going to take some steps to see that we do get an efficient maintenance staff? If he will go into this matter, he will probably find that one reason why conditions are so bad is connected with the sheds at Plaistow. If he were to visit those sheds, he would see that the conditions under which the maintenance staff have to work are really tragic, and that it is impossible to get efficiency and good workmanship under such conditions.

Secondly, I want to ask the Minister what he is going to do to see that we get some Class 4 engines. I know that we are supposed to have a lot more; we have 43 Class 3, which we should be delighted to present to the Minister on the condition that he will find a suitable line on which to use them anywhere else than on our line. They are not the slightest use. They may have been good many years ago when they were properly maintained, but they are no use today. The locomotives we have got are not efficiently maintained.

The Minister might think that all this means that there is a shortage of locomotives generally, but that is not so. For instance, in the Southern Region, they have a very large number of locomotives—in fact, they have 77—in store, and they do not know what to do with them. If it would help the Minister, I would be delighted to give him the numbers of 77 engines which are now in store in the hands of the Southern Region; at least four of them were built in 1950, and, therefore, cannot possibly be worn out yet.

On the other hand, our line, which ought to have efficient locomotives, needs those engines for the heavy work entailed upon operating a short section of line, which is very popular and very much used, and on which 20,000 people travel every day. We should have these efficient engines, but we have not got them, whereas, in the Southern Region, at Brighton, they are building Class 4 engines and using them on work for which other types would be suitable, whereas other types of engines are not suitable for this line.

This is not a question of opinion. The fact is that it is clearly understood, both by those capable of advising me upon this subject and by the representatives of the Railway Executive themselves, that Class 4 engines are the most suitable type, and we have not got them. We want to know when we shall have them in the numbers required, instead of all the promises which have been made to us in the past. We were always going to get them, but we never actually received them.

I should also like to make some reference to what I feel is the rather discourteous way in which the travelling public in Southend are being treated by the Eastern Region. Some time ago, the Railway Travellers' Association sent a telegram to Sir Eustace Missenden congratulating him on the fact that a certain train had arrived on time for the first time in six months, and that seemed to have annoyed them, because they sent a reply in which they said that, in fact, that train had arrived on time no less than nine times in six months. If they had had any sense of humour, surely, they would not have stood upon their dignity, but would have taken a hint from the useful activities of the Railway Travellers' Association, and would also have been more co-operative with the Town Council of the County Borough of Southend. A very large number of the travellers on this particular section of the line pay a subscription to the Railway Travellers' Association, so that there seems to be something useful in their activities, because they are interested to see that we get good services.

It seems to me also that when the county borough council are prepared to take a direct and active interest in the provision of the service, every possible step should be taken to see on occasion that one goes hand in hand. In the old days when under nationalisation the Midland Region were responsible for what we all call the Fenchurch Street line, there was close collaboration. If they were going to get out a new timetable, they would consult the county borough council and the Railway Travellers' Association, and say, "Let us get together and work it out." Things worked very well then, but, nowadays, under the Eastern Region, we are treated off-handedly. They bring out their timetables first, and then, having printed them, they invite one to pass comment on them, at the same time making it quite clear that it is impossible to alter them because they are already printed.

The same thing has happened over the cancellation of trains. Although I do not like it, I can appreciate the point of view that we are so short of coal that we have got to cut down our trains. Though I do not like it, I understand we have got to put up with it. As I understand it, and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, an instruction was sent to the various Regions saying that they must carry out a 4 per cent. cut. If we are going to have equal shares, then let us have them. But why should we in Southend have a 15 per cent. cut?

It is not as if we were in any way paupers at the door of the Minister. Indeed, we ought to be his favourite children, because, as he knows, our line is one of those making a profit. In fact, it is one of the most profitable sections of line in the country. It was one of the most profitable—it made a profit of either £500,000 or £150,000, according to which way one likes to work the formula—even before the fares were put up. Now that the Railway Executive have put up the fares, they must be making a lot more from that line.

Surely we are entitled to a little better service, and, surely, if it is necessary to cut down the number of trains, it is a little arbitrary to cut out all the fast trains during the off peak periods? Had one been cut here and there, I could have understood it. If the Executive had said to the county borough council and to the Railway Travellers' Association, "Quite frankly, we do not know much about it, but we are quite sure you chaps do, because you travel on the line. Which trains do you think we could cut out, thereby causing the least inconvenience," I should have thought they were being intelligent. But no, do not consult anybody. Cut out all these trains during the off-peak period so that now the only means I have of getting home when this House sits late is to catch a train which stops at every station. That means that I get home much later, feeling very tired, and, if I happen to fall asleep and do not wake up before reaching Shoeburyness, I have to walk back. I think that the convenience of the travelling public ought to be considered by the Railway Executive. It is not necessarily the fault of nationalisation. I am saying that because I want to be kind to the Minister in the hope that he will be kind to me.

The Midland Region were much better, and I hope that the Minister will give serious thought to instructing the Railway Executive to transfer the Southend line back to them, because they have, I understand, within the region, the locomotive power which could solve the problem. The Eastern Region have not the power capable of operating that line. They are not particularly happy with it, and they do not want it. They regard is as the Ugly Duckling of the Eastern Region. We do not mind that. Indeed, we should be glad to get away from their clutches. It would be an additional advantage if we had two Regions serving the same town, the one serving Fenchurch Street-Shoeburyness line, and the other the Victoria-Southend line. We might then have some healthy competition between the two regions, which might be a good thing. I am a great believer in competition.

I could say something about the Liverpool Street—Southend line, but I want to leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who is going to say something in support of my case, and for the Minister in which to reply.

I very rarely travel on the other line but I did last week. I caught the 5 p.m. train from Liverpool Street Station and arrived at Southend at 7.50 p.m.—35 miles in two hours 50 minutes. Surely we can do a little better than that. The whole history of the line is a history of breakdowns and engine failures, solely attributable to the fact that we have not enough of the right kind of engines and they are shockingly maintained.

I ask the Minister to bear in mind that it is not only this question of the convenience of the travelling public that has to be considered in these days, when we are being exhorted by the Government to do all we can for the production effort. I hesitate to think how many man-hours of production are lost every year owing to the lateness of arrival of the trains from Southend. The trains are so bad that men who work at Briggs Bodies in Dagenham hired coaches to get them there—though the Minister has stopped that now—because they could not rely on the trains. When they went by train the 60 men found they lost between them no less than 1,000 man working hours a year. That is a shocking state of affairs. Surely it is possible for us to do better than that.

I believe the Minister knows something about the line and I believe he is willing to do something. The only way he can effect something useful is to see that we have more of the right class of engine and see that the Railway Executive get them from the places where they are not being used and put them where they can be used to greater advantage.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Channon (Southend, West)

I should like to endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) said about the Southend line, which is well known to the public generally. Originally Southend owed its prosperity to the railways which brought London to the sea. Now it is the other way. The railways owe a great deal to Southend and they are not playing the game. The service was never good but in the last two or three years it has seriously deteriorated. In the old days we had the shadowy illusion of hope of electrification, and now that electrification is coming nearer, the service becomes more and more deplorable. This afternoon we were talking about disabled people. I had a disabled man whom I was trying to help in my constituency. He was refused a job in London by a prospective employer when he heard that he had to travel on the Southend line because that line was not dependable. There may well be many similar cases.

I should like to say a word about fares. I am not going to talk about the increase in the price of fares, because that is too big a subject for a brief space; but there are some bad anomalies which the Minister ought to put right and he can do it at little expense to the taxpayer. A group of clerical workers from my constituency go up to London to work on Sundays, following the Government's injunction to put more into it. They work on the docks and they have never been on strike. On weekdays they pay 2s. 7d. for a ticket as they get an early morning train, but on Sunday, travelling on the same route to do the same job, they have to pay 5s. 8d. As one of them said, it is almost cheaper to go to church. They have twice petitioned the Railway Executive to go into the matter and they think that in common equity they should be treated as artisans and be allowed to travel at artisan fares.

The ordinary return fare to Southend is 7s. 6d. There is a day ticket from London to Southend and back for 5s. 9d., but it does not work the other way. A woman in my constituency has a sister living in London. It costs her 1s. 9d. more to go and see her sister than it costs her sister to go and see her. How is one to explain that to the ordinary housewife? The general scheme of day tickets to seaside resorts should be examined.

Recently it was announced that a £4 bounty is to be given to people called up for National Service. In the case of a man living in Southend, at least half that bounty will be wasted on a seasonal ticket as one cannot have a rebate on a season ticket unless there is an absence of four weeks, and then only on account of illness. Now that the Government own the railways I should have thought it possible, somehow, to allow the extension of the season tickets for the duration of a man's military training, that is for that extra fortnight. The technical difficulties cannot be very great. Surely if the call-up papers were produced at the booking office it would be sufficient.

I admit that before nationalisation the trains were very bad, and many protests were made. I made many myself. But I do say that in the old days after a protest there was always some improvement, if only of a temporary nature. I do not think that is the case at the moment, because for some reason or other our complaints are always lost. I beg the Minister to do something about improving the service from the point of view of unpunctuality and also of the filth in the carriages, which my hon. Friend did not mention. If he can do so he will earn the gratitude of large numbers of our constituents.

Mr. Braine (Essex, Billericay)

rose—

4.21 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes)

I am sorry if I have prevented the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) from speaking, but I feel that the main case has been submitted, and I should like to say a few words in reply. I cannot possibly cover the whole ground, but I want to give a general assurance that I will examine each of the points in detail and see that they go before the Railway Executive for careful and detailed consideration.

For the moment I should like to deal in a general way with references which have been made to the immediate cuts in the services. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden), recognises that they are of a general character and are justified by the need to conserve our coal supplies over the next few weeks. Of course, this is of general application and it has caused considerable inconvenience to the travelling public. As the spokesman for the Government, I think I should point out that these cuts are not really the responsibility of the railway management; they are affected by the need to conserve coal which applies to all industrial establishments.

I do not think it is generally appreciated that the greater part of coal consumption by the railways is in the freight services. It is not possible to spread this cut over passenger and freight services. Indeed, in conditions of this sort the necessity to maintain wagons at the collieries and to distribute the coal to industrial establishments puts an additional strain upon the freight side of railway operations. Therefore, in this instance—and it was the same in 1947—the economy which the railways have to secure in their use of coal has to fall entirely on the passenger services. I recognise that that causes serious inconvenience to the public, but I think it ought to be made plain, so that the public can understand, that this is not a decision of the railway management as such, and that they possibly regret it as much as the travelling public do.

Mr. McAdden

Would the right hon. Gentleman please deal with the 15 per cent. cut on the Southend line compared with a 4 per cent. cut elsewhere?

Mr. Barnes

I am assured that is not the case.

Mr. McAdden

It is.

Mr. Barnes

I am assured that that is not so, but I undertake to look into the matter. It is not always possible to answer accurately statements relating to percentages on occasions like this. I am informed that the principle of these cuts which is applied to the Southend services is the same as has been applied to comparable services.

Dealing with the particular problems of traffic in the Southend area, the two hon. Members know that on consideration of the London working plan I have authorised the British Transport Commission, as soon as economic conditions permit, to go ahead with electrification of that line. Here again I must make it plain that there is no time factor but that we depend entirely on economic conditions—the investment programme, the question of armaments and matters of that kind—and, although the decision is an authorisation, it does not mean that they can actually start on the process of electrification at present.

Although it does not solve the Southend problem, on the suburban lines of the old London North Eastern Railway to Shenfield, there was a similar position. The locomotive stock was worn out and the coaching stock was worn out and that condition remained for a number of years. It was not desirable to spend money on building fresh coaching stock and steam locomotives for that line when the intention was to electrify. Now, since it has been electrified, travel over that section of the line has been entirely transformed. If conditions permit the Railway Executive to complete the electrification of the Southend line, that part of the country will be as well served as any part of the country at present, or in the immediate future.

The hon. Member also made a point about Class 4 engines. Certainly if there is any surplus stock of those engines which can assist the problem at Southend I will have that matter looked into, but I should not like to commit myself at present. On the question of consultation and liaison between the Railway Executive and the Southend authorities, whether the corporation or the season ticket or travellers' association, it ought to be appreciated that when the Railway Executive are confronted with the need to save a certain tonnage of coal each week in a short period of time, the normal processes of consultation cannot take place. But it will be my desire—and I understand the hon. Member is not referring to the last few weeks, but to the general practice—that the fullest consultation should take place on these matters.

I recognise quite clearly that the public must have a voice in the matter when Parliament has established a complete monopoly in the railway service. Almost immediately an announcement will be made of the setting up of a consultative committee for the East Anglian area and I have chosen a representative from the hon. Member's district. I do not know whether he actually lives in Southend, but he comes from that area and will serve on the consultative committee. I anticipate that when that consultative committee is functioning in the Eastern Region, it will be possible not only for direct negotiations to take place with the management from day to day and matters of that kind, but it will be possible for bodies like the Southend Travellers' Association and the corporation to discuss problems of this character fully and continuously with the statutory body provided for under the Transport Act. Until that body functions I give a general assurance that the points the hon. Member for Southend, East, raised today will be thoroughly considered.

As to the three points raised by the hon. Member for Southend, West, I regret that I have not been able, owing to the short notice of his intention to raise the matters, to get a full and sufficient reply. I understand that the problem of workmen's fares—

The Question having been proposed at Four o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Four o'Clock.