HC Deb 14 February 1961 vol 634 cc1367-76

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

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Charles Grey (Durham)

On 2nd January, this year, there were alterations in train services which greatly affected Durham. Opposition to the alterations came from many quarters. I received many letters from my constituents, and the Chairman of Durham County Council made known his objections.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

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

Mr. Grey

I have also had a letter from the Durham City Council, and the local branch of the N.U.R. strongly opposes the proposals. I have had letters from constituents expressing their grievance, and many of them have spoken to me personally and have made their views known in no uncertain way. In spite of all the objections, the alterations came into effect. Is it any wonder that there is general discontent with the powers that be about what they have done?

I have been rightly asked what advantages there were in the alterations. Frankly I do not know. The letter which I received on 21st December, 1960, from the Chairman of the British Transport Commission and that which I received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport two days later did not help me very much. The general feeling among my constituents is that the people who bother themselves with plotting and re-timing trains do not care a tinker's cuss how many people are inconvenienced so long as there is a measure of satisfaction somewhere.

I know that I shall be told by the Parliamentary Secretary that all these matters are beyond his control and are entirely for the day-to-day administration of the Transport Commission.

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

Mr. Grey

He will no doubt say that the appropriate authority in this case is the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, which is appointed by the Parliamentary Secretary and which represents a wide section of transport users.

Mr. Hay

The Minister appoints them.

Mr. Grey

The general idea is that users of the Commission's services and facilities may make representations to that Committee on matters such as this. I wonder how far this kind of machinery has been successful. It does not appear to have been successful in this case. May we be told how it works? May we be enlightened about how to set about the task of assessing the views of transport users? May we be told what methods are adopted to find out what people think? I get the impression that not much is done in this respect.

This view is strengthened by an interview I had on the subject with a constituent of mine. He told me that he was a frequent user of the train services. In fact, he travelled on most days of the week, and had done for many years. He pointed out that, although he often travelled on trains, he had never been asked anything about the train services. I mention that case, because it is typical of the experience of thousands of other people. Nobody seems to bother to find out what they think.

In view of that, I am tempted to make the declaration that there was never at any time any attempt to get to know what the people in Durham and the surrounding districts thought about these alterations before they came into effect. Had they been consulted, I am sure that the British Transport Commission would have thought twice before bringing them into being.

The most amazing thing is that when the Chairman of the British Transport Commission wrote to me on 21st December he tried to give the impression that the people of Durham had not been overlooked. I may say in parenthesis that his letter was in reply to one I had sent him complaining about the cutting out of the Durham stop on the journey from Newcastle to Liverpool. He tried to give reasons for the alteration. He even went as far as to sympathise with the Durham passengers who would have to change at Darlington. He went on to explain that there would be reserv-able accommodation on the Liverpool train for people who boarded the train at Darlington, and that at Durham Station they would be able to book a seat for an extra 2s.

This is a poor sop for the Durham people. They are asked to be reasonable. How can one expect people to be satisfied with this kind of alteration when one realises the inconvenience to which they will be put. First, they will be inconvenienced by having to change at Darlington. Secondly, to ensure getting a seat, they will have to pay 2s. extra. To be told that, and at the same time to expect them to believe that they have not been overlooked is asking a bit too much. If the British Transport Commission thinks that it has acted like a kind of godfather, I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that there are thousands of people who think differently.

May we now look at the two changes that have been made? First, until 2nd January there was the 9.16 a.m. train to Liverpool. I referred to this earlier. It was a very good train, very popular and well patronised. I have used it on occasions when I have found it necessary to visit the Liverpool area. The Durham stop has been blotted out. Therefore, to catch the same train I have to get to Darlington in time to catch it there. No doubt I will be told that the object of the alteration is to speed up this train, but the real effect is that people will be on the road for even longer than they were before. While this is true for the people living in Durham City it will be even more so for people who live outside Durham who have to do the journey by car or bus.

I should like to quote my own experience, because I believe that it is typical of many. I live about six miles east of Durham City. Originally, if I wanted to go to Liverpool all that I had to do was to catch a local bus at my village at 8.25 a.m. That got me to Durham at about 9 o'clock. I then walked to the station which was only a few minutes away, and there was the train. It was as easy as that.

What happens now? I have to get on a bus an hour earlier, in order to get into Durham earlier, in order to catch a train which will enable me to get my connection at Darlington. On top of that, in order to ensure getting a seat I must pay 2s. Even to do that I must make the journey into Durham. That is another inconvenience, not only for me but for others like me. It boils down to this: many passengers from Durham and the surrounding districts have a longer journeying time merely to satisfy the people who join the train at Newcastle. I hope that I do not seem to be too cynical about this, but the result of all this supposed magnificent reorganisation is that four or five minutes only are gained. It is amazing, but it is true. Is it really worth putting people to all this trouble and inconvenience in order to save such a short time?

I have another complaint to make in connection with the cutting out of the Durham stop in the case of the 5.10 p.m. train from Newcastle to Liverpool. People have spoken and written to me about it. One lady wrote to me explaining how her two sons and twenty-five other boys are affected by this change They go to school somewhere in Newcastle and they used to take that train each day. They cannot do so now because it does not stop at Durham. I made certain inquiries about this train and I found that, on an average, sixty persons travelled on it each day, and that on Saturdays, when Newcastle United were playing at home, that figure rose to between 500 and 600. That was the position when Newcastle played well.

Whatever the Joint Parliamentary Secretary may say about these alterations, I can only say that they are bad and ill-conceived, and that the persons responsible have been ill-advised. The only thing that has happened is that some people have benefited at the expense of others.

I wonder whether anyone realises the harm done to Durham itself. I know that it is a small City, but it is still a pretty good centre, and a very important one. People come from all over the world to the City and to see the beauties of the great cathedral, of which Sir Walter Scott wrote: Half church of God and half castle against the Scots". It is still the desire of many people to see it. With all the confidence I possess I say that to do a thing like this to Durham can do nothing but harm. It should not be belittled in this way. There are many other points that I have not the time to elaborate, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not do anything to the disadvantage of Durham. I hope that it will not end up as a place through which mainline trains pass. I ask for a train service which will allow people to come into or leave Durham with as little inconvenience as possible. In short, it should have a train service in every sense of the word.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. William Ainsley (Durham, North-West)

I appreciate this opportunity of joining with my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) in his complaint about the rail services in that part of the country, as my constituency adjoins his and the same problems confront many of my constituents. We pride ourselves on the historic aspect of the City of Durham and particularly the beauties of its centre. Durham is the natural administrative centre for the county. There is the ancient university and the cathedral, and at Darlington Station there is on view that monument to the iron road, the first locomotive.

I frequently pass a wrought iron notice pointing the direction to Weardale and to the Lakes which, ironically, we are encouraging people to visit. But there is no passenger train service to that part of the country. At one time the transport picture was that of a tree with branches spreading out in every direction, but today the passenger facilities for travel to the west have been lopped off. Weardale was lost some years ago although now we are trying to convert that into a tourist area and to encourage people from Norway and Sweden to visit it.

The Great North Road cuts the county into two parts but the divisions of Bishop Auckland, North-West Durham, Consett, and Blaydon have no railroads and people have to rely on road transport to bring them to Durham City. Almost two-thirds of the trains between London and Edinburgh pass through Durham City Station without stopping. Suppose that from one of the sputniks circling round the world some visitor were para- chuted into the centre of the City of Durham and they wanted to go to one of the two capital cities. He would see that the trains passed through Durham without stopping and could conclude that the mentality of the people was such that they ought to be living in a mental institution.

It is time we examined the structure of our road and rail transport to ensure that we provide proper services. We should not allow them to be cut down, with the consequent reduction in the standard of living of the people. Our constituents prefer to travel on road services because of the inconvenience of rail services. In many parts of the west of Durham this causes chaos in the road services. The Ministry has to spend millions of pounds making motor roads, although we already have the iron road of which we in the North-East are noted as the pioneers.

Will the Minister investigate the problem of changing from rail to road so that we may have a reasonable service for our constituents? I am pleased to have had the opportunity to give my support to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham.

10.20 p.m.

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

The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) raised this subject on the Adjournment principally, I believe, to ask what was the purpose of the changes in the railway services around Durham which were instituted by the North-Eastern Region of British Railways on 2nd January? These changes, I am told, affect the areas of Newcastle, Durham, Sunderland, West Hartlepool, Stockton and Darlington and the object was to enable the railways to run fast diesel trains from Newcastle and Tees-side to Leeds and Liverpool.

The alteration was made necessary by the introduction by British Railways of the Trans-Pennine diesel service and the improvement of the inter-city service between Newcastle and Liverpool. I am told that this involved in two cases the cutting out of a stop at Durham. Formerly there were three services every weekday between Liverpool and Durham and two between Durham and Liverpool, and now there will be one fewer through service in each direction each weekday. That, I understand, is the extent of the change.

Mr. Grey

The Commission has retimed one.

Mr. Hay

In addition, I am told that certain local diesel trains are being run between Durham and Darlington and the passenger can thereby join the fast train at Darlington and, according to the timetable, can reach Liverpool in less time than when formerly he travelled direct from Durham. In any event, as I am sure the hon. Member for Durham appreciates, these are matters of day-today management which Parliament has expressly excluded from the responsibility of the Minister of Transport. Therefore, they are not matters in which it is possible for the Minister to intervene even if he wished to do so.

I am sorry that, for these reasons. I cannot comment on the difficulties of passengers in the Durham area, no matter how important they may be, nor how difficult they find their problems. One matter I can discuss tonight is the position of the transport users' consultative committees in this situation. The hon. Member for Durham and the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) asked me some questions about that. The transport users' consultative committees have two principal functions. The first is to consider proposals for major alterations to the character of the rail services provided. If, for example, a line is to be closed or a service withdrawn, or if British Railways decide to withdraw all expresses from a particular area, those are matters for the committee to consider. The second major function of the committees is to consider complaints lodged with them by any member of the public on any aspect of the Commission's services.

In regard to the first of these functions, the procedure is that British Railways put proposals to the transport users' consultative committees, and the local authorities and any other interested bodies are in practice notified at the same time. The committee then investigates the matter, and makes its recommendations accordingly. But such matters as the re-timing of trains, or the cutting out of one train—unless the character of the service was substantially altered—would not normally be put to the transport users' consultative committees or to the local authorities.

It is clear that it would put both the railways and the committees in an almost impossible position if that were not the case. If the railways were required to process through the committees every proposal for alterations in the time-table, it would mean an enormous amount of delay in implementing what we hope would usually be useful changes.

It has to be remembered that we are aiming at viability on the railways, and despite what the hon. Member for Durham, North-West said, we must always bear in mind the general financial position of the railways. They are still losing a very great amount of money, and the taxpayer is having to bear the burden of that loss. We do not, therefore, want to put any unnecessary impediments in the way of their attaining that position of viability.

If the committees had to deal with such a volume of business of this kind it would obviously bog them down. It would place a great deal of strain on the patience, and on the willingness to serve, of the present members of the committees—who are voluntary, who give their time freely, and who do an extremely useful service.

The committees are representative of user interests. The Minister selects the majority of the members to represent particular interests, and not particular localities. In appointing members, he has regard to the desirability of ensuring a fair geographical spread throughout the area concerned. For instance, the committee in the North-East Area, which covers Northumberland, Durham and the North Riding of Yorkshire comprises twenty members, nine of whom, including the chairman, come from Durham County. If there is a complaint about the Commission's services, users can ask the transport users' consultative committee to look into the matter, and for this propose "users" includes local authorities and other local bodies.

How do these committees assess the opinions of users? No procedure is laid down by the Minister, and there is no provision in the Act to regulate the methods by which the committees work. In practice, I understand that when the committee receives a complaint the secretary circulates details to all members and, at the same time, the comments of the railway management on the complaint are also circulated. The matter can then be discussed by the committee at its next meeting, if it so wishes, and, if necessary, it can decide to see and hear complainants.

I ought just to add that as the members of the committees are representative of users, they are usually fairly closely in touch with the transport needs of the area, and with the problems and difficulties of other transport users. They can, therefore, assess the strength and validity of any complaint made.

That is all that I can really say to the hon. Gentleman because, as he will realise, my right hon. Friend has no responsibility in this matter at all. I have, however, tried to give what little information I can. I sympathise, of course, with the difficulties of individuals, but this is not a matter in which my right hon. Friend can interfere. He is often accused of interfering with the railways—a charge that is quite wrong—but I can assure both the hon. Gentleman and the House that my right hon. Friend certainly does not intend to interfere with the British Transport Commission's statutory responsibility for running the country's trains.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.