HC Deb 08 February 1960 vol 617 cc187-98

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

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow (Lichfield and Tamworth)

I rise tonight to put forward certain ideas about the location of hearings of the transport users' consultative committees, and also about the conduct of those hearings. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who will be replying, will no doubt have been examining the records of similar Adjournment debates on these committees which have taken place during the last few years.

I have looked into this record of debates and I find that I myself probably started the ball rolling when, on 10th December, 1957, I raised the general question of these consultative committees. Since then, to name only a few, I find that the hon. Members for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers), Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever), Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell), Hexham (Mr. Speir), and Newton (Mr. Lee), as well as the former Member for Aberdeenshire, West, have raised this matter in the House.

In the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton I am perhaps anticipating things slightly, but I know that he intends to raise a similar matter soon by virtue of the extraordinary decision to close a station in his constituency which is very near a new and developing establishment of the Atomic Energy Authority. I merely make the point to demonstrate to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is some unease about the way in which these consultative committees operate.

Tonight, I do not wish to hang my case particularly on any one instance of the closing of a station, but rather to examine for a moment the way in which these hearings are conducted and where they are conducted. My complaint is in three categories. First—and I do not want to spend too much time on this—I am not very happy that the evidence which is produced by the defending body, as it were, British Railways, is always completely apposite or completely accurate. With respect, I will ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look at the Railway Development Association Bulletin for December, in which there is a criticism of the evidence produced in the case of the proposed closure at that time of the Lewes-East Grinstead railway.

There are two other aspects of their conduct, however, which I think are much more important. First—and this is a general criticism—I do not think that the consultative committees facilitate the attendance of all interested parties at the hearings. We have to remember that the large majority of stations to be closed are rural stations, and people who are interested in these small stations naturally live far from the large cities in which the hearings are normally held. I have heard it said that it is only in recent years that these consultative committees have tended to insist that the hearings should be held in the city rather than that the consultative committee should go to the place where it is proposed that the station shall be closed. The advertising of the hearings leaves much to be desired, a point to which I shall return later.

The third point is that the consultative committees examine alternative means of transport, but seem to be singularly ineffective in the way they put their case to the Minister. I am aware that under the terms of the Act the Minister does not consider that he is under an obligation to insist that the British Transport Commission provides alternative transport, but I have been looking again at the Act and I find that Section 6 (8) deals with the recommendations from the Central Transport Consultative Committee. Section 6 (8) includes these words: … where a copy of recommendation of the Central Transport Consultative Committee is sent to the Minister, the Minister may give such directions to the Commission with respect to the matters dealt with by the recommendation as he thinks fit. … I should have thought that that gave him a lead in to taking positive action where it is demonstrable that alternative transport facilities do not exist. I am well aware that by the rules of the House I cannot press for a modification of the law as it is, but I suggest that it does not need a modification of the law, but could be done under the present terms of the Statute.

I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Ministry misunderstand what anxiety is created in the minds of people who suddenly find that their local station is to be closed and that, apparently, there is no alternative bus transport. For that reason, I ask that the whole idea that these matters should wait upon the findings of the Jacks Committee be rejected. I do not think that they can await that report. I have made inquiries, and I find that there is no known date when that Committee will submit its report. This is the sort of thing that is happening all over the country now, and people are getting very worried about how they are to get to their work.

To give an example of the lack of sensitivity on the part of the consultative committees, I will take two cases that occurred in my own constituency recently—and I stress that in these two cases I am not arguing whether or not the stations should be closed, but that the consultative committee concerned was insensitive to public opinion and did not take proper steps to see that all the evidence as to the views of the people concerned was taken into account.

In parentheses, I might say that on 29th July last the then Parliamentary Secretary emphasised that it was the duty of these committees to consult all who might be affected. He emphasised that as much as anything because the matter had been pressed earlier in the day by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aylesbury, who had asked, first, that the consultative committees should consider the feasibility of alternative transport and, secondly, that the Minister should then direct the Transport Commission to produce, or order alternative transport to be produced. As I have already said, to the latter point the Minister said that there was no obligation, but I intend to prove tonight that, under the Act, he has the necessary power.

There was a great public outcry against the way in which a hearing was taken in Birmingham regarding a proposal to close the station at Hammerwich, because it was felt at the time that the consultative committee had not taken adequate steps to see that all knew of the hearing and had the chance to attend it at Birmingham. I was rather appalled—because I wrote to the Minister about the matter—to discover, much later, in fact, on the actual day of the hearing, that the consultative committee had not the slightest idea that I had raised the subject several times in this House.

I have been a Member long enough to know that one should not assume that one has too much influence, or can ask the Minister to do too much, but it does not seem to me to be unreasonable to think that the Ministry should at least pass on to the consultative committees anything that happens in this House concerning the areas for which they are responsible. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not say, as his predecessor certainly has said, that these committees are composed of hard-working, well-chosen people who are doing a part-time job and have other things to think about. We have spoken of reform in our earlier debate this evening, and there is no reason why we should not reform the conduct of these meetings and the scope of their inquiries.

In the case of Hammerwich, although the Minister replied that it was no part of his job to pass on news of my activities, the chairman wrote to me, saying that it was the first time that he or his committee knew that I was interested—in spite of the fact that I had raised the matter here and there had been a lot of local Press publicity.

Following that incident, a report went round that another station, called Armitage, not far away, was to be closed. I gather that information of this came to the notice of the public because of a notice posted at the local railway station—it certainly became known. As a result of this, a political body of my own party at Armitage made representations which were forwarded to the railway authorities in Birmingham protesting against the proposed closure. Subsequently, by accident the county councillor who put forward this memorandum heard that there would be an inquiry but he did not know where the hearing was to be held. I suggest that this is treating the public in a way which is lacking in sensitivity. As I said in my Adjournment speech in 1957, I should have thought that the time was ripe to consider whether the consultative committees should not be changed from having an advisory function to having a watch-dog responsibility towards the public.

In a handbook of the Central Transport Consultative Committee there was reference to the part the Press can play in publicising the activities of the committees. Yet in this case of Armitage there was no notice in the newspaper as to where the meeting was to be held and no attempt was made, as far as I can gather, to inform the county councillor whom I have mentioned, or the Armitage Labour Party, or anybody else, that the matter was to be heard at Birmingham on 25th February. It was discovered purely by accident. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that I have been trying to find out how it is that a properly constituted memorandum was never submitted to the consultative committee by British Railways.

Digressing for a moment from the desirability or the sense or otherwise of closing stations, I am not a great admirer of another place. I am a unicamerist. But I read a speech of Lord Merrivale at col. 599 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place, dated 17th December, where he talked about the sort of improvement in traffic that follows dieselisation, especially on branch line traffic. I should have thought that some of the information—and this is applicable to Armitage—is out of date in that it does not reflect the traffic which has developed as a result of the diesel rail car services. I can quite understand that it is not convenient for a large committee of responsible persons who have other jobs to do to go all the way to these small stations and conduct inquiries on the spot, but I think that, in the spirit of the Franks Report, there is scope for evidence to be taken, or a preliminary hearing to be undertaken, in situ by somebody from the Ministry.

In the letter which the Minister read to me he said he must be careful not to give the impression that he is partisan in any way in such inquiries. I do not think that that is a very good argument, because he himself established the consultative committees, so any inquiry for procuring evidence for submission to that committee, I should have thought, would not have given rise to the suspicion that he was partisan. It would, at any rate, have given people locally an opportunity of giving their views, submitting their own ideas and evidence and not having to lose a day's pay to go to Birmingham on the offchance that they may be heard and be overwhelmed by the pomp and circumstance of the committee.

The idea that I put forward is that an inspector or a senior civil servant from the Ministry or Transport Commission should hear this local evidence. The alternative to this is a continuation of this feeling of frustration. I believe that if the Transport Commission is given the responsibility of providing alternative transport it will be doing a very great job for the transport system of the country. The railways are in a very difficult situation, and I hope the Minister will understand when I say that the amount of ill will that the failure to provide alternative transport creates is probably much greater than his Department thinks at present.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

I listened very carefully to what the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) said. I greatly fear what may happen in my constituency, because I understand that the transport users' consultative committee is due to be consulted about the proposed closure of a line running from Nottingham to Rugby. I have already seen one line closed in my constituency recently, the line between Market Harborough and Northampton, and this additional proposal which is, I understand, to come forward shortly, will cause a great deal of inconvenience.

My reason for fearing very much the decision of the transport user's consultative committee on the matter is that in only two cases out of over 100 has the committee, so I understand, reversed or disapproved the recommendation of the British Transport Commission to close a given station.

I am very seriously disturbed, first, about the possibility of the closure of the line between Nottingham and Rugby, and, secondly, about the possible effect of any representations which may be made to the transport users' consultative committee in Leicester and district.

10.46 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay)

I thank the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) for very kindly giving me notice of some of the points that he intended to touch on tonight. I am sorry that I shall not be able to deal with them all in the time available, but I shall deal with as many as I can.

I am sure that it would be for the advantage of other hon. Members who have not the long and detailed knowledge of the working of the transport users' consultative committees possessed by the hon. Member and for the advantage of those who watch our proceedings from outside if I were to say a word or two now about the way in which these committees work. The transport users' consultative committees are completely independent of the Minister of Transport. It is true that they are set up by Statute and the Minister has, I suppose, some kind of general oversight of their activities, but they are independent in the way in which they conduct their inquiries and hearings.

Secondly, I want to make it clear that these committees are not "stooges" of the British Transport Commission, as some people are inclined sometimes to think and to say. They are representatives, as their name indicates, of the interests of users of the Commission's services. Nine committees cover the whole of the country.

On the committees are represented such diverse interests as agriculture, industry, commerce, shipping, labour and the local authorities. There are, as the hon. Member knows, two members of each area committee representing the Transport Commission itself. There are two independent members appointed by the Minister of Transport, and the chairman, an independent person, is, again, appointed by the Minister. It may be that there is some misunderstanding or even uneasiness, as the hon. Member suggested, about the way in which the committees work, but I urge hon. Members to do all they can to publicise the existence of the committees. They are an essential part of the machinery which Parliament set up under the Transport Act, 1947, to protect and look after the interests of those who use the Commission's services.

Briefly, there are six main steps which the committee takes when a proposal, is made by the Transport Commission. The first stage is to advertise the proposal and to notify it to those who may be interested. Also, the committee then receives the proposal itself with the necessary accompanying data. The second stage is for objections to be received by the committee. The third stage is hearing of the whole case and the decision by the committee whether they endorse or disagree with the proposal put forward by the Commission.

The fourth stage is that the area committee submits the whole question to the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee and the fifth stage consists of that committee's confirmation and recommendation to the Minister. The final stage, which is very rare—in fact, I do not think it has ever been used—is for the Minister, under the subsection which the hon. Member quoted, to give a direction to the Commission to comply with what the committee has recommended. Invariably, the Transport Commission accepts what the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee says and acts accordingly.

I mention all that simply to show that my right hon. Friend's position as Minister is independent, because he has this reserve power of compelling the Commission to carry out his wishes. He exercises that power in these cases only when he receives a clear and unambiguous recommendation from the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee. He must not only be above the battle, but he must be seen to be above the battle.

I should like to come quickly to the main points that the hon. Member mentioned. First, he was a little critical of the attitude that some of these committees appear to show towards objectors. As I have said, these committees are representative of users and they have no bias, therefore, in favour of the Commission. If anything, if they had a bias, one would imagine that it might be against the Commission. In fact, they have nothing whatever to gain by any lack of consideration to their fellow users of the Commission's services. Still less have they anything to gain from any discourtesy.

The hon. Member mentioned the case of the county councillor who was concerned over the closure of Armitage station. Since the hon. Member let me know about the matter, I have been able to find out something about it, although the information is still a little sketchy. The position is that the gentleman sent a memorandum about the possible closure of Armitage station to the Transport Commission in May last year. He did not send it to the transport users' consultative committee. In fact, he sent the memorandum before the committee even heard of the proposal.

I am told that when the Commission received the memorandum—I have not seen a copy of the letter—it acknowledged it but gave no undertaking to send it on to the transport users' consultative committee. The Commission stated, I am told, that, if a proposal was made that the station should be closed, the gentleman, as an objector, would have the right to be heard by the consultative committee.

Now, the proposal has been made to close the station. The proposal has been notified by the consultative committee to four local bodies, including the Lichfield Rural District Council, and the committee announced that it intended to consider the proposal at a meeting to be held on 14th January. The committee made it clear, however, that if there was evidence of strong local feeling emerging in Armitage and district, it would hold a further meeting later and, if necessary, would consider holding it in Armitage, on the spot.

I am today informed that only one objection has so far been received by the consultative committee, and that is by the Lichfield Rural District Council, supported by the Armitage Parish Council or Urban District Council. The consultative committee has, therefore, said that it will hold a hearing on 25th February and the Lichfield Rural District Council, I am told, has nominated four councillors to attend the hearing. The memorandum which went to the Commission but not to the consultative committee will, I am informed, be sent on now by the Commission to the transport users' consultative committee. The hon. Member's constituent can, therefore, be quite sure that his views will be heard by that committee.

I come next to the question of where the hearings should take place. I know that there is much reason to say that hearings of this kind should take place in the district affected, but I am sorry if I must disappoint the hon. Member by traversing again to some extent the ground once traversed by my predecessor. The members of the consultative committees are people who serve voluntarily. They are unpaid. They are not engaged in this business full time. They must, therefore, tailor what time they have available for this unpaid, voluntary service to the job which has to be done, and for that reason it is often very difficult indeed for them to find the time. They are people of considerable public standing, if they are to be of any value at all to us, and they find it difficult to find the time to attend meetings and hearings of the committees in various places.

However, in fact, a number of local visits to hear objections are frequently arranged. I am informed that quite often a committee will hold a meeting and will hold its hearing in the district which may be affected, so that any person who wishes to be heard orally by the committee can attend. In fact, however, the great majority of objectors are quite content either to put their objections in writing or, more usually, to allow one of their number—and it may well be a local council, and very frequently is a local council—to represent all of them, and, as in the case I have just mentioned, Armitage, the local council often nominate a deputation of several of its members to go to the hearing and put orally the views not only of the council itself but the local inhabitants. One has to keep some sense of proportion. I should very much like, if the rules of order did not prevent me from doing so, to consider whether some legislation might be introduced to achieve a change in the system, but I must not embark on that tonight.

With regard to the actual conduct of the hearings, as I said earlier, the committees are independent of the Minister, and, therefore, he has no power to require that they should follow some particular drill or procedure when they are considering a proposal. Their hearings are, of course, not a trial in the formal sense. They are not public inquiries. They are not tribunals. It is a meeting of members of the committee who come together to consider a proposal which has been made and to consider objections to it. Therefore, with all respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not really think his reference to the Franks Committee and the sort of procedure which that Committee recommended has much relevance to this set of circumstances.

The main point, as I understand it, that the Franks Committee made is that when we have a tribunal or inquiry of people who are objecting to a course of action which is being inquired into it should, first, receive prior notification and, secondly, details of the case it has to meet. This happens with the transport users' consultative committees. There is prior notification. There is advertisement, and the objectors receive details from the Transport Commission in precisely the same form as they are put to the consultative committee itself. We have heard the views of the Railway Development Association, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and all I can say here is that the form in which the data are given to the committees is now generally agreed by the area committees and the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee and by the Commission itself.

Mr. Snow

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his ipse dixit, that the form of recruitment of the committees cannot be looked at. There is no reason why the members should not be full-time members. Indeed, I think that present circumstances require that.

Mr. Hay

I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. I did not intend to make an ipse dixit. I would not dream of doing so in these circumstances. We have to consider what these committees are intended to do, and the people appearing on them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eleven o'clock.