HC Deb 03 July 1961 vol 643 cc1202-14

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

1.2 a.m.

Mr. James Boyden (Bishop Auckland)

I rise to represent to the Minister of Transport the very strong feelings in the North of England against the proposal to close the Barnard Castle-Penrith railway line. So persistent and vocal has been the opposition to the proposal that, although the British Transport Commission brought its recommendations to the North-East and North-West Consultative Committees in the early days of 1960, it has not yet been able to gain a favourable decision from all the Committees, but by a process of attrition—not argument—the B.T.C. is wearing down opposition. Even before the Central Committee considers the recommendations of the North-East Committee at its meeting on 11th July the B.T.C. has proposed the closure of a connecting line, West Auckland to Barnard Castle, and I understand that it is having staff discussions with the object of closing the Middleton-Barnard Castle branch.

This is the sort of piecemeal approach to a major social and economic problem to which four county authorities, eight district councils, five amenity interests, trade unions, chambers of trade, one of the principal freight customers, and many members of the public, including most of my constituents, strongly object. The objections are in no way party political. I have the support of the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson), the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Bourne-Arton), the Liberal candidate for Bishop Auckland, and most of the northern Members of Parliament. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will find time for a conversation on this subject with his hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane).

That my constituency has taken the lead in resisting the closure is perfectly natural. The closure of the main line—this is not a branch line—will lead inevitably to the closure of two branches in the constituency, will cause unemployment and social distress, and will adversely affect the measures being taken by the Board of Trade to bring industry to the area. Parts of Westmorland, Cumberland, the North Riding and parts of Durham will suffer as well.

What is so regrettable is the inadequacy of the consultative machinery to decide an issue so complicated and with such widespread ramifications as the closing of this main line. How can, to quote the consultative committee's handbook, busy people who will give their unpaid services only so long as they feel they are doing useful public work find the time to unravel the profit and loss account of a section of the railway system? Perhaps some of them have doubts as to how far closing down railways is "useful public work."

In any case, the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries dealing with British Railways has criticised severely the imprecise accounting methods used by the B.T.C. Even if the profit and loss account were capable of greater precision, two factors are unknown, namely, the loss to railway revenue through customers ceasing to use the more awkward services left, and that element in the more profitable main lines which has originated in the line to be closed and which will in future no longer use the railway at all. It is probable, for example, in this case that one of the prin- ciple limestone transporters will ultimately put all his traffic on the road. Certainly there are thousands of more potential summer passengers over this most scenic line if the B.T.C. would only go after the traffic.

Considering the inconvenience of the timetable the service is well patronised in the summer. Instead of encouraging passenger traffic, as the North-East and North-West Consultative Committees' meeting jointly at Carlisle recommended in March, 1960, the administration has been unenterprising and pessimistic. What is certain is that consultative committees not the staff or the machinery either to discuss the profitability of a line or adequately to examine the railway's financial case. At the meeting on 16th January the consultative committee thought that the line was probably operating at a profit, and several important witnesses, notably the Clerk to Cumberland County Council, felt that this might be so, but the central committee prevented all possibility of a period of enterprise on the line showing a profit by recommending the diversion of the freight traffic via Carlisle and Newcastle and asking that closure should be considered as soon as the diversion arrangements were satisfactory. Once that happened the meetings of the consultative committee to consider the passenger service were dealing with only one side of the problem and naturally a line built to deal with freight and passengers is hardly likely to pay if the freight is cut off.

I understand that the North-East Consultative Committee offered valuable advice to the British Transport Commission on economies in running the line. It was originally unconvinced that the 60 extra miles of the freight diversion was an economic proposition and it thought that the withdrawal of the passenger service could not fail to create hardship. I believe that the committee initially supported my view that the retention of the railway service was a matter of importance to those who were seeking with Government aid to revitalise the industrial life of South-West Durham.

It is at this point that I ask the Minister of Transport to offer the British Transport Commission a subsidy for the line. The Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries states the principles clearly in paragraphs 421 to 425 as follows: … the consideration of direct profitability is not tie only one which applies in this case. Because of the cost of the roads, and of the congestion on them, the national interest may require railway services which do not in fact directly pay for themselves, but which may cost the nation less than the alternatives. In some cases, there may be a third and different consideration—one of social need. A service may be justified on other than economic grounds, because for example the less populous parts of Britain might otherwise be left without a railway service. Account may, in other words, need to be taken of social considerations. … if decisions are to be taken on grounds of the national economy or of social needs, then they must be taken by the Minister, and submitted by him for the approval of Parliament. Furthermore, if Parliament is to specify that certain services should be undertaken, despite the fact that the Commission cannot profitably undertake them, then the additional cost of them should be provided, in advance, out of public funds."— "In advance" in this case could hardly apply— If subsidies of this kind are to be paid to the Commission, then they should be paid for specific purposes, and they should be paid openly. The Minister should state tonight that the maintenance of this line should for the time being come out of the general subsidy given to the Transport Commission and that he will at once discuss with the Commission what amount of subsidy would be necessary to run the line in future.

The Commission says that in the last year before the freight was diverted the revenue was £378,000 and the expenditure £418,000. That was a particularly bad year for traffic. Moreover, evidence from many reliable quarters to the North-East Consultative Committee convinced it at one time that the Commission had not made all the economies it could. Therefore, given economies, enterprise, and better steel and coal trade, the £40,000 deficit could be considerably reduced. Indeed, the cost to the Ministry of Transport would be much less than the indirect losses caused to private individuals and the direct costs which will be borne by other Government Departments arising from the closure.

The Transport Commission maintains that it must now spend some capital sums on this line. It seems most unfair to us in the North that this part of England should continue to be starved of capital expenditure while millions of pounds are spent on electrifying London suburban lines where, even before, there was a reasonable service. I give as one example the Bishop Stortford-Liverpool Street electrification. I understand that the capital expended on that electrification has caused a land boom. Are the Government content to let land speculators take most of the profit that an improved nationalised industry brings to Hertfordshire and Essex whilst, for lack of a much smaller sum of money, there would be damage to the livelihoods of the hardworking farmers, hotel-keepers, miners and quarrymen of the North of England? Neither the local nor the central consultative committee can decide on this first priority. It is a matter for the Government.

I should be surprised if any of the West of England services, west of Exeter for example, are run at the Commission's conception of a profit. Is it proposed to leave Cornwall and Devon without a railway at all? If profit is the sole criterion, these lines are as disadvantageous to British Railways as the Stain-more line. Certainly the North of England feels that it has as much right to see the Pennine line maintained as any other region has to see its lines maintained.

If the line is closed, irreparable damage will be done to the economy of South-West Durham and parts of Cumberland and Westmorland. In emergencies—such as prolonged snowstorms or military evacuation—avoidable hardship and loss of life will be inflicted on the Pennine farming communities and the Tees-side urban population. Emergencies apart, more heavy traffic will use the dangerous A.66 road, and more damage, injuries and deaths will result. In 1958 and 1959 15 people were killed and 92 wore seriously injured in 440 accidents on this road.

Thousands of city dwellers in South Durham and North Yorkshire will be deprived of excursions into the Pennines and Lake District, and damage will be done to the tourist trade of Teesdale, Weardale, Kirkby Stephen and the Lakes. This is particularly irritating when the Barnard Castle Urban District Council and Rural District Council, encouraged by the North Eastern Industrial Development Association, are making special efforts to attract more visitors. This is very commendable from the point of view of local government cooperation in doing something for the area. The Friends of the Lake District regard the closure as an unjustified diminuation of the accessibility of the National Park to Tees-side.

The North-East Consultative Committee must have had a bad conscience about the difficulties which would be caused by the proposed alternative bus service when making the recommendation that the buses should have trailers attached to carry perambulators, hikers' baggage, etc. The local people complain now about the inadequacy of the existing bus services. One trouble about the offer of an alternative bus service—as the Parliamentary Secretary well knows—is that if the bus company decides after a while to cut and then later to close the service, it cannot really be stopped from so doing.

I cannot help contrasting the difference in procedure when the Commission operates through the medium of its annual Private Bill Committee with that of the consultative committees. At the second meeting I attended of the North-East and North-West Consultative Committee, the witnesses were heard in a most haphazard fashion. Objectors were bundled through their evidence in a most unseemly fashion. Commission witnesses hurled bus time tables and financial data verbally at the Committee in a way that effectively prevented any counter-argument or cross-examination. Moreover, as one member of the consultative committee remarked to me in the corridor, "You never know where the B.T.C. men are. They seem to be on the committee and witnesses as well." It is true that the central committee gave the deputation from the objectors a most patient and courteous hearing, and did much to erase from their minds the haphazard methods adopted by the North-East and North-West Committees earlier.

But compare the procedure before the Commons Private Bill Committee. I was a member of the Committee that considered, among other matters, the Commission's proposal to close the Tilbury-Gravesend Ferry when the Dartford Tunnel was finished. Not only did the Commons Committee compel the Commission to keep the vehicular ferry open an appreciable time after the completion of the tunnel, but it also insisted on the Commission making adequate arrangements on the passenger ferries for a wide variety of travel apparatus—mopeds, perambulators, etc. What is sauce for the Kent and Essex goose ought to be sauce for the Durham and Westmorland gander. If it is necessary to maintain a ferry for the convenience of Kent and Essex long after a tunnel is available, surely the people of Durham and Westmorland are not to be deprived permanently of such a vital route as this?

I appeal to the Minister to use his power not just to maintain this passenger line but to instruct the Commission to run this line—freight and passenger—as one efficient working unit. The Government are spending millions on subsidising the Cunard liner; surely they can invest a few thousands on maintaining and improving a main line railway which the North of England regards as essential to its well-being.

1.15 a.m.

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

I am most obliged to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) not only for having been kind enough to give me advance notice of some of the points he proposed to raise tonight but also of putting his case in a very moderate form. I will try to give him what answers I can to the points he raised, but I must begin by saying that I appreciate the feeling aroused in the North and North-West by the proposals of the British Transport Commission for this railway line. The details of these proposals are somewhat complicated, and at this late hour I hope that I may be forgiven if I do not try restate them. I am sure that all hon. Members in that part of the world know what they are.

I know that they have led to a great deal of local feeling, but, whatever may be the views held as to their merits, I do not think that anyone can deny that they have been under the most searching examination by the consultative committee machinery, and a very thoroughgoing review over a period of eighteen months. At this point I want to make it clear that at the present stage I can express no opinion whatever on the merits of the Commission's proposals to close this line. The current position is that in January last a joint session of the Transport Users' Consultative Committees for the North-Western and the North-Eastern areas recommended by a majority that the Commission's proposals for the withdrawal of passenger services should be approved. Freight services had already been diverted to other lines to see if these could handle the traffic satisfactorily.

Under Section 6 of the Transport Act, 1947, the area committees are required to send their minutes and conclusions to the Central Transport Consultative Committee. The central committee reviewed the conclusions of the area committees on this case last March and referred the matter back to the area committees for consideration of certain matters and for further recommendations to be made. I understand that the area committees have already considered this reference back. On receiving their further report the central committee may make a recommendation to the Minister of Transport, and it is not until then—and only then—that under the provisions of the Transport Act my right hon. Friend is put in a position where he could exercise his powers to issue a direction to the Commission. That is the legal position. For these reasons, therefore, these proposals of the Commission must be considered by my right hon. Friend as still within the consultative machinery which Parliament has laid down. The House will therefore appreciate that it would not be proper for me to comment on the merits of these proposals one way or another.

In arriving at any decision to exercise his powers my right hon. Friend would take into account the views expressed by everybody, both in this House and outside. I cannot enter into a detailed discussion of the merits of a case which is still going through the statutory consultative procedure, but there are some general comments that I should like to make in relation to branch line closures and which I think are relevant in this case. I can put them in a somewhat interrogative form.

The first question, which is often asked, is whether the economic and strategic importance of railway lines is properly considered before they are closed. This is a matter which the hon. Member himself raised in the House on 3rd February, 1960, in a Question to my right hon. Friend, and I should like to repeat what my right hon. Friend then said: Proposals to close lines are widely publicised and the Consultative Committee procedure permits full account to be taken of the value of a line to trade and industryֵIndustrial and commercial undertakingsֵmay make representations to the B.T.C. or to the appropriate Transport Users' Consultative Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1960: Vol. 616, c. 990–1.] Government Departments are of course informed and can raise objections if they wish, and any potential defence interest to which the hon. Member referred in this case would of course be taken into account by the Departments concerned.

Another question which might be asked can be phrased in some such way as this: "It is said that you are modernising the railways. You hope to regain traffic and make the system pay. Is not it possible that the lines which you are now proposing to close will ultimately carry enough traffic again? Even if they never become sufficiently profitable on their own account, is it not at least possible that when the railway system has been modernised, profits on the main routes will be sufficient to make up for the secondary and branch lines?" If I understood him aright, the hon. Member asked that question again tonight. The answer is twofold. First, before it proposes to close a line, the Commission seeks every possible way of making it yield a proper return. In suitable cases it tries out modern equipment such as diesel trains in place of steam. The Commission not only looks at the results to be expected from using improved equipment under present conditions: it tries to assess the future trends of traffic as well.

That is the first leg of the answer. The second leg is this: we in the Ministry of Transport have to look at these problems in the light of the present financial position of the railways and the targets of viability which are being set for the future. The House knows that the present position is extremely serious. Losses are continually accumulating. British Railways cannot just sit tight and do nothing in the hope that somehow, somewhere, some traffic will turn up. Recently its Report for 1960 was published. It shows a revenue deficit last year of over £100 million. Those are the losses which the taxpayer has to bear out of taxes. A state of viability will be hard enough to reach even without the burden of uneconomic services that have no prospect of ever being anything else.

The hon. Member made the suggestion again tonight that we should consider a subsidy for this particular line. I shall not break my self-imposed rule and discuss the merits. I beg him to look at this request for subsidy, which I assure him would be repeated many times over in practically every part of the Kingdom, against the background of the fact that the taxpayer is already subsidising the railways to the tune of £100 million a year. I should not like the hon. Member or anyone to imagine that I am leading some kind of crusade against branch lines. It is no matter for anyone to rejoice over when a railway line has to be closed. Least of all does it give any satisfaction to railwaymen who have operated and managed it and taken a pride in it. No one likes to have to bow to the inevitable or to admit defeat. I realise how local people may feel who, besides a natural sentiment of regret at the passing of an era, may be genuinely put to trouble or inconvenience by the need to find other means of transport, but I must stress that at a time when the resources of the nation are so fully stretched it is nothing short of folly to try to keep in being uneconomic and inessential services for the benefit of a few who can be or are already being adequately provided for in other ways.

I remind the House of what the Prime Minister said on 10th March last year. He said: The life and trade of the nation require a railway system, but it must not be allowed to become an intolerable burden on the national economy. He said in the same statement: … the public must accept the need for changes in the size and pattern of the industry This will involve certain sacrifices of convenience, for example, in the reduction of uneconomic services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March 1960; Vol. 619, c. 644–5.] The House will remember that in paragraph 4 of the White Paper on the Reorganisation of the Nationalised Transport Industries we have restated these principles. It is our duty to go on bringing home to the public the gravity of the financial position. In the circumstances, I suggest that it is up to all of us to weigh very carefully the consequences of anything we do which may add to the difficulties of those who are doing their best to cut down costs in any direction.

I have said this much because I do not want to hold out to the hon. Member or anyone else any false hopes. But I recognise the force of some of the points which he made about the working of the consultative committee machinery. One aspect which certainly requires consideration is whether plans for a particular closure should be related more closely to the needs and prospects of the area as a whole. We are giving thought, in the context of the legislation proposed for the reorganisation of the Commission's undertakings, to this and other facets of the present consultative procedure. We are seeing whether any improvements are necessary in that machinery. But I must emphasise that whatever may be the final outcome of that consideration, current proposals in that machinery for the rationalisation of various parts of the railway system cannot and will not be affected, for the reasons which I have given.

I appreciate that the hon. Member may have wished me to say more about the details of this case, but I have explained to him that I am not in a position to do so. We are bound by the fact that the proposals are still in the machinery. But I thank him personally for the suggestions and advice which he so moderately and carefully put before us. I will take note of the points which he raised and see that they are reported to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Boyden

May I draw attention to the fact that the North-East and North-West Joint Committee, at one of its very first meetings, did not think that British Railways had done its best to make the lines pay? The meeting criticised the general publicity and advertising and thought that the Commission had taken the line that the traffic would turn up. The committee's recommendation was sent to the central committee and was that the Commission should make the attempt for an experimental period of eighteen months. On that basis the committee would consider the matter. The central committee turned this recommendation down and thus frustrated the original intention of the regional committee.

The hon. Member spoke of revising the machinery. This is almost a test case, not of a branch line but of a main line, with two other branch lines dependent on it. It seems hard that it should be exempted from this procedure of looking at the machinery again, since it is one of the clearest of the cases in which the machinery has been inadequate.

Mr. Hay

It may well be that the area committees reached certain conclusions and reported these, as they were obliged to do, to the central committee. But because no final recommendation has been sent by the central committee to my right hon. Friend, I cannot comment in detail, even indirectly, on what may have happened at lower levels in the machinery at the earlier stage. Unless and until the central committee makes a recommendation to my right hon Friend, there is no further information which I can give the hon. Member or the House and no observation that I can make.

It is true that this series of lines with which these proposals are concerned resemble main lines very much more than branch lines. If I may say so without giving offence, they are something of a hybrid between the two. The considerations of finance which I sought to underline in my earlier remarks were intended to apply not only to the smaller branch line, which is quite easy to single out, but also to even greater complexes of lines in other parts of the country. The criterion which the Commission applies is whether a line is now paying or can be made to pay. If that cannot be done, it normally puts forward these proposals.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Two o'clock.