HC Deb 29 July 1959 vol 610 cc639-48

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart (Workington)

I wish to speak on a matter affecting not only my constituency but the County of Cumberland. I know that it has coincided with a major debate on transport, but I have been fortunate enough to obtain the Adjournment and I wish to draw attention to the needs of Cumberland and to my own constituency of Workington. Most of my constituency lies in what is known as the West Cumberland Development Area, but I also have in my constituency a very famous part of England—a large part of the Lake District.

I wish to draw attention to the needs of Cumberland, with particular reference to West Cumberland, for improved road services, and above all to prevent the British Transport Commission closing down railways. I do not want to labour the point too much, because my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds), a neighbouring constituency to mine, wishes to support my point of view.

First, on roads, I stress that roads are vital to our area because we are a Development Area and we are anxious that new industry should still be attracted for we still have an unemployment problem. If our industry is to develop we must have good roads so that we have an easy access for goods produced in the area and specifically an easy access towards the southern industrial parts, passing down from my constituency through Whitehaven. We have a very serious problem. In the southern part of Cumberland, leading from my area, the road situation is really serious. We need major road improvement schemes. More than that, much of the heavy road traffic from West Cumberland has to go across country through the Lakeland area, along narrow roads which are used in the summer by tourist traffic.

I have raised this matter on many occasions, not only with the Parliamentary Secretary but with the Minister himself and also with Ministers in previous Governments. The Parliamentary Secretary is aware that I have met him, with my hon. Friends the Members for the various Cumberland divisions, including the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow) and the hon. Member for More-cambe and Lonsdale (Mr. de Ferranti). We have pressed this matter on the Minister and we have asked that he shall make a decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness, who represented our deputation in the sense that he did most of the hard organisational work, wrote to the Minister on 14th July about the north-west coast roads. He wrote as follows: You will recall that Members for the Fur-ness, Cumberland, Morecambe and Lonsdale Divisions met you on Wednesday, 8th April, to make representations as to the possibility of improvements in certain roads. You indicated that you would give consideration to the suggestions submitted and intimate your decision later on. I should be obliged if you could now let me have your observations. All I am asking the Minister is whether we can have a decision now. Are the Government really going to act? Are we going to have a major road improvement scheme in West Cumberland? I merely want frankness from the Government either way. Let us have an answer. If the answer is not favourable, I can assure him, despite the nearness of the General Election, that we in the north-west of England will continue to press this matter, irrespective of the type of political administration which is controlling transport. We feel it is a vital issue in the development of our area. We believe that roads are vital to this area which, after all, is geographically isolated.

We are not a large area, but we are an important area with new industrial developments like Calder Hall and the Atomic Energy Authority establishment at Windscale, which is a major industrial organisation. Therefore, it is vital for this area that we have a major road improvement scheme and, above all, that the Government, after discussing this matter with the deputations which have met him, should make a decision and that we should have an understanding of what our position is. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give an answer about the road position, which is important.

I will now pass on very quickly to the railway position. It has been suggested in our area that the railway line between Workington and Penrith, which runs west to east right across the County of Cumberland, passing through my own constituency of Workington and including towns like Cockermouth, Keswick and Penrith, is to be closed. We have had as yet no definite information on the matter. I hope that the Minister will use his influence to see that this is not done.

For various reasons, it is madness to suggest that this railway should be closed. The suggestion has aroused a storm of protest in the area and has created a body of public opinion which is of a non-political nature. I have here a copy of a resolution passed by the local authorities in the area. I will quickly read the gist of it. It states: Resolved that this conference of representatives from all the local authorities interested (that is to say, the Cumberland County Council, the Workington Borough Council, the Urban District Councils of Cockermouth, Keswick, Maryport and Penrith, the Rural District Councils of Cockermouth and Penrith and the Cumberland Parish Councils Association) deplores any attempt to close the Penrith-Workington Railway (which is the main connecting link between East and West Cumberland) and will take all steps within its power to oppose such closure which it is considered will inflict untold hardship on the inhabitants, industries and trading of the whole area within the jurisdiction of the said local authorities and aggravate the unemployment position. It then goes on to argue: The whole question of closure of railways is one of utmost national importance and of serious consequence in the Lake District particularly so when the Government itself has thought it desirable to create the first National Park in the North in this area for the benefit of the public at large and is seeking to attract foreign visitors to come and enjoy its lovely surroundings and should therefore ensure adequate means of different methods of transport rather than to curtail them. The resolution goes on to argue further: Any closure would impose a greater burden on the already overcrowded roads and further as many branch lines in Cumberland have been dismantled the county has contributed to the needs of the British Transport Commission … They are the terms of a resolution which was passed by all the local authorities not only in my constituency but right throughout the county.

I have here many resolutions which have been sent to me from trade union organisations and from the men working in the industry. I have also a letter from the Workington branch of the N.U.R. deploring such action. I have, too, correspondence from the Lake District Resorts Federation, of which I am an honorary vice-president. That Federation, also, has expressed its concern in the matter. I have resolutions from Chambers of Trade in the area. More than that, I have had literally dozens of letters from my constituents in the area protesting against any such closure.

I have argued earlier about roads. We have an acute road problem, and, therefore, it would be madness for the British Transport Commission to close this main line in the area.

Cockermouth is a very well known town in my constituency, on the fringe of the Lake District and near to Workington. Cockermouth has a goods depot which receives coal for the area, animal feeding stuffs, and agricultural machinery for sale in the area. It receives bulk supplies of petrol, by railway tanks. It has a new cattle dock and pens with electricity laid on. We have an auction market there. To agriculture in the district, the railway is very important. Although he is now in the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, I know that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's first love is agriculture, and he was a very successful junior Minister concerned with agriculture in the past. He will appreciate that, from the point of view of agriculture in this area, which he knows well, it is vital that we should have essential rail communications.

Keswick is a wonderful tourist centre. It lies in my constituency also, and I am very proud of Keswick and its beauty in that northern Lakeland area. Keswick, so I understand from people concerned with these matters, receives in one year 125,000 passengers at its station. From Keswick station itself, I understand, there are in one year about 27,400 bookings. In one week, for example, when the famous Keswick Convention is held, there are between 7,000 and 8,000 visitors to Keswick. In the summer and later on in the year thousands of visitors come to Keswick from all over the world. They come to see this lovely centre of Lakeland.

How stupid it would be if the British Transport Commission decided to close that railway station and the line which links the main London lines at Penrith 18 miles away. The tourist coming from London to Lakeland and going to Keswick would have to leave the main train, take a bus, and then proceed with all his luggage to Keswick itself. The whole idea is absurd.

The area is a great tourist centre which must develop, as we seek to develop it, and its development must not be impeded by any stupid action on the part of those who would like to restrict its railway communications.

I have put my case very briefly tonight so that my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven will have the opportunity to support what I say and give an indication of what he feels about the situation in his own constituency. In conclusion, I merely add that we regard any proposed closure of this line as a serious blow not only to our country life, to our local agricultural industry and to our important tourist industry, but also to the needs of our Development Area. I beg the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to use his influence with the British Transport Commission. I hope that the people in the Commission who are responsible will read the report of this debate in HANSARD, even at this stage, and will recognise that we in Cumberland will fight this proposal and do all we can to oppose it. More than that, I hope that the Minister will give me a definite reply about our roads.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Symonds (Whitehaven)

I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart). As another Member from Cumberland, I wish, first of all, to express my dissatisfaction and the dissatisfaction of very many people in the Whitehaven area at the closing of the Eskmeals station. I have already sent my protest to the Minister. There are 30 workmen who use the Eskmeals station at present, and the closure will mean great inconvenience to them. They will have to get off the railway somewhere in the area and take an inadequate bus service. As a result, the men must now either rise earlier or be late for work. That would mean a loss of production, which nobody desires.

It has been said that the goods traffic will be sent by road. I would like the Minister to travel along that road. The driver of a motor car cannot exceed 30 m.p.h. because there are too many twists and turns in it.

Let me deal with the line from Whitehaven to Millom and then on to Barrow, and particularly between Millom, in my constituency, and Whitehaven. Having travelled in the carriages now in operation, my feeling is that they were some of the first ever used on the line. They are not a credit to British Railways. They should be done away with and replaced by new rolling stock. The best way to deal with the problem, and to assist particularly in the St. Bees area for the Ennerdale Rural District Council, which is trying to develop the whole of the coastline as a resort, is not to close any stations, but to modernise that section and bring it up to date.

Colleagues of mine have been 25 minutes late in travelling from Millom to Whitehaven, and vice versa. It is not uncommon for me to receive, as did my predecessor, complaints from constituents concerning the lateness of the train. Modernisation would benefit not only the workers, but others who desire to use the line. It would mean that instead of the line losing money, the area would be opened up and money would be made. If the Minister seriously considers this matter and makes a personal visit to see for himself, I think he will agree that something must be done for this part of the country.

10.48 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Richard Nugent)

I have been a long time on the Front Bench today, starting with Questions, going on to a debate about transport and the Transport Commission generally and finishing up by answering the debate raised by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart). I sympathise with the anxiety which, I know, he feels about road and rail links with the towns in the North-West and especially with Workington.

First, let me say a word about the road links. I have clearly in mind the deputation that the hon. Member accompanied to see me about this matter last April. Although there seems to have been a long delay, time has not been wasted, because the surveyors of the three county councils—Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire—have been proceeding with the preparatory work for the survey which, I felt, should be undertaken.

I have not written to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, and, indeed, my own hon. Friends, because I was not clear in my own mind what would be the right way to complete the survey which should be made of the road links with this area.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a problem to decide which would be the best route to back. It is obvious that we cannot back them all. The problem is to link Workington and Whitehaven with the A.6. There is the possibility of improving the coast road, but the bad gradients and alignment would make it a very expensive job, although it has certain attractions. There is also the possibility of improving the A.594 road via Keswick and linking up with towns on the coast, and of the A.595 having a branch off it and running round on the north to link up with the A.6. It is a difficult problem to decide which is the best route.

The only way to proceed is to have a complete survey made of the area. I was not clear whether our divisional road engineer would be able to manage it along with all the other commitments that he has, but in the event we have decided that he should co-ordinate the work of the three county surveyors. He has been asked if he will go ahead and get this survey made of the possibility of improving one of those three routes.

Mr. Peart

The hon. Gentleman says that it is to be one of those three routes. Has he made a decision which one it is to be, or will he have a survey made of the whole picture, followed by a political decision by the Minister?

Mr. Nugent

The survey will throw up the technical pros and cons and what the cost will be. The cost on the coast road would obviously be very heavy. There are amenity objections to the Keswick route. The northern route is more attractive except for the problem of line. We want a professional survey and we shall then decide which route should be developed in the future. At that point we shall have to consider when we can bring this development into the road programme. On that I can say nothing tonight.

The delegation to which the hon. Gentleman referred was very helpful in bringing to our attention the need for preparatory work and getting on with it as fast as we can. When we have taken our decision I shall let the hon. Gentleman know.

The problem of the rail link is that the British Transport Commission is considering the closure of the Penrith-Workington railway. A Press statement was issued in May saying that this closure, and others, were being considered. I realise that this is a blow. I take note of the grave anxiety expressed by the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the local authorities, and the effect that it would have on the farming community. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kindly reference to me. The farming world is my world and I am very sensitive to the interests of the farming community.

I realise how important the tourist industry is, and I hope to see it developed. This railway is not only convenient, but very beautiful. I feel as unhappy as the hon. Gentleman does that it should be necessary for the Commission to consider making this proposal. The proposal will go through the statutory procedure. It is not for me to express any view on the merits of the proposal. The area transport users' consultative committee, set up under the 1947 Act, will consider the merits of this proposal. The committee will hear objections from local authorities and others who are concerned with the proposal, and will then advise the Minister, through the central committee. If the central committee approves—and it does not always do so—it can modify or reject the decision of the area committee—it then advises the Minister and a copy of its recommendation is sent to the Commission. The statutory procedure is there to protect the local interests as far as possible.

But I do not know the facts of this matter. I believe that the Commission has been running a diesel train over this line in the hope of increasing its profitability, and obviously in the hope that it might make unnecessary the proposals that it is now considering making. These proposals do not come from us. They are nothing to do with us. The Commission, which consists of railwaymen, does not propose closures where there is any prospect of keeping the railway going, and I can only suppose that after having tried the diesel train there, and done its best to make the line profitable, it simply cannot see any prospect of doing so. But I do not wish to enlarge on the matter, because I do not know the merits of the case.

All I would do is briefly to paraphrase what the House has been saying this evening during the general debate on the affairs of the Commission, namely, that an essential part of the modernisation of our railways is the streamlining of the uneconomic and unremunerative services. That is accepted everywhere generally, although each Member objects strongly—as I have no doubt I would—to any proposal to close a line in his constituency. Looking at the national picture, however, we cannot deny that ours is a railway system laid out in the days of long ago, before the motor-car had arrived, and that large parts of it are no longer going to be remunerative.

Unless the railways are allowed to shed the parts which they cannot make remunerative and concentrate on the parts which they can, by modernising them to the best standard, they will have no prospect of meeting their obligations, firmly laid upon them by the 1947 Act, of achieving solvency. That is the broad tenor of the debate we had earlier today and both sides of the House must accept it.

But having sketched in that background, I do not wish in any way to reduce the weight of the case which the hon. Member has put. I am certain that the Commission will read HANSARD closely—as it always does on these occasions—and I have no doubt that the transport users' consultative committee will also read it when it considers the case, and will take into account the cogent representations made by the hon. Member.

Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central)

Would the Minister bear in mind that this is only a bit of the line concerned? The railway is to be closed from Keswick, through Penrith and right across to Durham. This is not a railway running through some remote valley, but a major route right across the country, from the industrial area of Durham to the industrial area of Cumberland. It is far more serious than the closing of a little bit of line.

Mr. Nugent

I realise that, and I was prepared for the hon. Member to intervene. It is a major closure and, therefore, it will have very full consideration by the transport users' consultative committees concerned before the Commission can go ahead with it. I realise the gravity of the proposition.

As for the point put by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) about the closing of the Eskmeals station, I would point out that he wrote to my right hon. Friend, and that I replied to him on 22nd July explaining that the local transport users' consultative committee had considered this matter and had referred it to the central committee, who endorsed its decision on it on the 14th of this month. This was that the proposal must be approved and that the closure of the station would, therefore, have to proceed.

I explained that the circumstances would have to be most exceptional be fore my right hon. Friend could go against the advice of the central committee, and I am afraid that in the circumstances, much as I would like to meet the hon. Member's point, my right hon. Friend does not feel that he could give a direction to the Commission—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eleven o'clock.