HC Deb 19 October 1961 vol 646 cc517-30

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Sir H. Harrison.]

11.39 p.m.

Mr. John Rodgers (Sevenoaks)

I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport for detaining him at this late hour, especially after the strenuous time that we have already had, and I hope that he will forgive me if I trace briefly the short history of the proposed closing of a railway line in my constituency, the Dunton Green-Westerham line.

In March, 1960, a notice was posted in the Westerham, Brasted and Dunton Green stations giving details of the proposed closure of this line and giving particulars of where protests should be addressed. Subsequently, appeals were made to the London Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee. There was a hearing in July, 1960, at which my constituents were represented by counsel, and also at that hearing were representatives of the Kent County Council, the Sevenoaks R.D.C. and the parish councils.

This consultative committee recommended that the line should be closed, and this recommendation was passed to the Central Transport Users' Consulta- tive Committee. This Committee, however, referred the matter back to the area committee on the ground that it came to its decision having had access to further information and the Transport Commission to which the objectors had not had access.

The London area committee heard the case again in February, 1961, and, again, my constituents were represented by counsel. This time the area committee recommended to the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee that the line should now be kept open. The Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee examined the position most carefully and studied all relevant documents and recommended on 9th May that the line should be kept open on social grounds, though it recognised that a small loss would be incurred whatever modernisation or improvements were carried out. The committee, however, expressed the view that the present loss could by modernisation be very considerably reduced.

I would remind my right hon. Friend that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, in paragraph 422, of its Report, said: In some cases, there may be a different consideration. 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. The Minister reinforced this point of view himself in his own White Paper, Cmnd. 1248, paragraph 50, when he suggested that … uneconomic services which the railways are required to provide on grounds of the national interest or of social needs should be met by specific grants from public funds. The Government undertook that for the time being railway losses on such services would be covered by contributions from public funds.

It was, therefore, a very great shock to my constituents, two days before the House rose for the Summer Recess, to be informed, by Written Answer, that the Minister had broken all precedent and, for the first time, had overruled the advice of his Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee and had gone against the principles which he had enunciated in his own White Paper and had authorised the Transport Commission to close the line at any time after 15th September.

Had this been proceeded with there would have been no opportunity, as is afforded this evening, for a debate or further Questions to be put to the Minister before the line closed. I am glad, therefore, that the closing date was extended to 30th October, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. Although the Minister's action was, as I have said, completely unprecedented, I recognise that he was acting quite within his powers. But to act within one's powers is not necessarily to be right.

Why do my constituents feel so deeply about the closing of this branch line? First, no real explanation has yet been given to the House or to my constituents as to why this line is to be closed. A Minister, even such an important Minister as my right hon. Friend, is not above having to explain his actions. Therefore, I welcome the fact that this Adjournment debate can be held so that we can hear his exact reasons for overruling his Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee.

As my right hon. Friend knows, there have been protest meetings, a Petition signed by nearly 2,500 people living in the area affected and literally hundreds of letters received by me which I have forwarded to him. My right hon. Friend will argue, I am sure, that the alter- native transport arrangements which he is now offering, by way of augmented bus services will prevent any undue hardship. On paper, it certainly looks as if this new bus time-table is an adequate schedule. I submit, however, that the person who drew it up could have had no real experience of either the road or the weather conditions in the Darent Valley. The A.25 and the A.21 are already grossly overcrowded and in places extremely narrow, with an absolute bottleneck at Riverhead. Ice, fog, snow and floods have on occasions completely brought road transport to a standstill and, on much more frequent occasions, have been responsible for great delays.

The majority of people who use this branch line commute all the way to London, not from Westerham to Sevenoaks or to the intervening stations. These are not what one would call rich people. They are what one might term the daily bread winners, and among the travellers are school children. For many of these people their jobs depend, in large measure, on their ability to be punctual at work. Even if enough crews can be obtained to man these extra buses, there can be no guarantee that they will arrive regularly in time to make the necessary connections with the trains.

In addition, some of my constituents will not use the buses but are prepared to drive their private cars to Sevenoaks where, already, parking arrangements are difficult and where there is no oportunity for further parking facilities. Further, for my constituents using the line from Westerham, a full half to three-quarters of an hour will be added to their journey each day.

It is not only a question of time. The cost to them will go up by 10s. a week, perhaps more, although I recognise the temporary concession for one year for season ticket holders. The question is: if this concession has been made for one year, why not make it permanently? I urge the Minister to investigate this, perhaps resulting in season tickets at the old price, combining the use of bus and rail. I wonder whether this concession has been made as the result of a guilty conscience on the part of his officials at the Commission?

I realise that the Minister's main argument is likely to hinge on the astronomic losses of the railways and the impossibility of making this particular line pay. This is not the time or the occasion for detailed discussion on the statistics involved, but my own information—and this was the figure given by the Commission itself—is that the closure will save only £11,600 net, compared with the present loss of about £20,000.

Is it not true that operating modifications and the introduction of a diesel railbus would result in a loss of only between £2,000 and £3,000? If this is so, is not this course the economically justifiable one to take in this case? In addition—and the Minister knows this—my constituents have offered to pay an additional sum commensurate with the difference that would be involved in using the bus service.

I urge the Minister to consider that 180 season ticket holders, each paying £20 extra, would produce £3,600 and should wipe out any loss. If these figures are correct, I urge my right hon. Friend to give the necessary order to postpone the closure of this line until at least this experiment has been tried for a period, say, two to three years.

If the Minister will not accept this course and argues that this is only the first of many such uneconomic lines which it is proposed to close, then surely he should postpone a decision on such a major step until the House has had an opportunity of debating the Transport Commission's Annual Report and his own new Bill, so that the House can fully consider the place of the railways in the life of this community.

Is it the Minister's policy to push as much traffic as possible—despite his utterances on road congestion and safety—on to the roads? Perhaps the feeling in my constituency is best summed up in a letter sent a day or so ago to me—and which has been forwarded to my right hon. Friend—from the Kent Association of Parish Councils, representing 24 parish councils in my area. The letter states: We regard such closures as the one proposed as detrimental to our efforts to maintain and stimulate rural community living. Many of my constituents bought their houses in this area in order to commute to work in London. The railway serves a population of 8,000, which will soon grow to 10,000. If the Minister persists, 200 car users will probably take to the roads each day, in addition to the bus. As I have said, they will have to spend more time and money to get to work. I should have thought that it was sound policy to try to drain off the roads in and around London as much of the traffic that the railway can carry.

The figures in the case are not in dispute. If they are in dispute, the least the Minister can do is to keep the line open until an independent market survery can be conducted. In recent weeks the Minister has somewhat cynically posted up on the stations at Westerham, Brasted, Chevering and Dunton Green the slogan: It's less of a strain To travel by train". I urge him to allow my constituents in Chevering, Brasted, Westerham and Dunton Green to follow his excellent advice.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway (Eton and Slough)

I want to add only one or two sentences, not on behalf of the residents of Westerham, but on behalf of the visitors to Westerham. I have two married daughters there. One serves on the parish council. The husband of the other serves on the parish council. I know the deep feeling that there is in Westerham on this question. Westerham is a lovely village. It is the home of Wolfe. It is the home of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). Large numbers of visitors go there. They are not even being granted the 10s. per week concession which the residents are getting. On behalf of those who very frequently use the line I add my strong protest.

11.51 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples)

I am sure that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) will be grateful to him for raising this matter tonight. He has worked very diligently and skilfully in their interests. His constituents themselves are not without ability when it comes to presenting a case. They have marshalled their forces with great tenacity. In fact they presented a petition signed by 2,400 people—an impressive number. Alas, only 167 people use the line regularly. I should like to get a petition signed by 167 people with 2,400 travelling on the railway. It seems to me to be a disproportionate number.

I want to say how glad we are to see the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) with us tonight, because I feared at one time that he might not be able to be with us. But things went his way and we are grateful for his intervention, which otherwise we should have missed. I, too, go to Westerham. I know this line as well as he does and as well as my hon. Friend does. I have done more than my hon. Friend has. I have walked the length of this line. I know the district very well, almost every inch of it, because I walk regularly in the district. The other Sunday I went to look at the number of visitors going to Westerham. I counted them on a Sunday travelling by steam train. On the first train there were two. On the second train there was one. Anyone who heard that masses of people come to Westerham Station would be moved by the pleas of my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, but I have discovered that they do not travel on this line on Sundays to visit Westerham.

Mr. Brockway

Not necessarily on Sundays.

Mr. Marples

That is when people visit Westerham—namely, weekends. I have counted the number who travel by train. I have looked into that carefully.

I will try to put it logically. It is operationally not possible to continue the present old and obsolete steam service after June, 1962, because of servicing difficulties. The steam service is losing money, so we must find some sort of alternative. The economic alternatives are either diesel rail bus, which is the cheapest form of railway services, or road bus services. There is an existing bus service which the railways have volunteered to augment.

On the financial side my hon. Friend did the Commission and my Ministry less than justice. The present steam service has a net loss of £26,000 per annum. That is over £150 for each regular passenger. In other words, the ordinary taxpayer is paying £3 a week out of taxes for every person who travels regularly on this line. Taking a five day working week, it is 12s. a day paid by the taxpayer for every passenger on the service between Westerham and Dunton Green. That money is received by the recipient, as it were, free of tax. It is not added on to gross income. It would pay the Commission to give the passengers £3 a week and let the passengers include it on their Income Tax returns, because they would then have to pay tax on it. It is an enormous loss. When we look at it in perspective, it is terrific.

The cost of running this line at present is £29,700 per annum. If we take that figure as 100, the receipts from the line, which are £3,500, represent 12 per cent. of the cost. Therefore, the people who pay to go on the line pay 12 per cent. of what it costs. The other 88 per cent. is found by the constituents of other hon. Members, by the whole community. The constituents of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough are helping to pay for 88 per cent. of the cost of the line, and the people using it pay for only 12 per cent. I suggest to the House that this relative disproportion is something which cannot be tolerated. Those figures relate to the present steam service.

If it was made a diesel rail bus service, that would help a bit, but it still would not be a great deal better. The estimated loss would be £17,500 per annum on the present traffic, and this again is an enormous figure in proportion. It could be reduced to about £13,700 if increased fares were authorised on the scale that regular users have said they would pay, but there are two other considerations here. It might cause a loss of traffic. People say that they would pay, but a lot of people say that they will volunteer to pay extra fares although, when it comes to the point, they do not to so. Secondly, there is no guarantee that the Transport Tribunal would authorise any increases.

If the line were closed and the road bus service augmented the estimated loss per annum falling on the taxpayer would be about £11,000. There would be the possibility of a further reduction if all the extra bus services which were provided did not prove necessary. That is still a substantial sum. Expenditure of this order is required, at least initially, in order to provide adequate services.

That is on the income side. I have never known of a business run with losses like those. With all respect to him, my hon. Friend had some very harsh things to say about me when a Bill relating to the cost of subsidies was passing through the House not long ago. This subsidy pro rata per passenger is greater than that on the Cunard Line. That may be a coincidence, and I do not put it on those grounds, but I am bound to say that what my hon. Friend proposes really is not on if we are to make British Railways pay.

Turning to capital investment, we know that in this country, because of pressure in a democracy, we have sometimes overstepped the resources we have and tried to spend too much money on capital investment. I ask the House to consider the investment which is wanted here. Initial capital required for a diesel railbus service would be £46,000. For additional road buses, which would have to be built for the purpose, the investment would be £12,700. Neither of those sums would produce an economic return. To invest £46,000 in expectation of a loss of about £14,000, which would be the loss on diesel, would not help the railways towards viability. If I am to yield to the pressure to keep these uneconomic branch lines open, there will be no hope of the railways ever becoming viable, and the taxpayer will have to find the difference. At the moment, that difference amounts to a substantial sum of money, almost the equivalent of 5d. in the £ on the Income Tax.

My hon. Friend talked about the hardship to users. Is he certain that it would cause undue social hardship? The consultative committees, to which I am very grateful for spending so much time and care on the subject, concluded that, on balance, the closure would cause undue social hardship—just. That was their view. What does that mean? I ask the House to consider the position. Parallel to the branch line there is a road linking Westerham and Sevenoaks. More trains run to and from Sevenoaks than call at Dunton Green. Buses and coaches run along the road at the rate of about four every hour. The railways have offered to provide four additional services between Westerham and Sevenoaks in the morning and six additional services the other way in the evening.

My hon. Friend speaks about hardship. I should like him to go to certain parts of the North of Scotland to see how the situation there compares with what will happen at Westerham.

One of the questions which my hon. Friend had in mind was whether the additional services would continue to run after the first few months. Hon. Members may rest assured that as additional services are taken into considaration in reaching a decision on a closure, the railways would have to satisfy the consultative committees and me that there was no longer any demand for them before cutting these additional services. In other words, what the railways are doing by way of bus services would be continued so long as they here needed.

It has been said that buses are less comfortable. I have had some letters from my hon. Friend's constituents. They write to me in many and varied terms. In Westerham they have a use of adjectives which is something which I have never experienced before. Most of them are directed against me and not the consultative committees. I must take that because the responsibility for this is mine and mine alone. That is why I am here myself tonight to answer this debate, because I did not wish to saddle my Parliamentary Secretary with the responsibility when it is mine. I take the responsibility.

It is said that buses are less comfortable and somewhat less convenient. I have had a letter to that effect today. Passengers may have to wait at a bus stop occasionally, but the buses have been timed to take meeting trains into consideration. Some passengers will have a Shorter walk to the buses than to the railway station. Another objection has been that the bus journey will take longer—19 minutes against 11 by train. Against that, the service interval will be shorter—four buses an hour instead of a half-hour service at peak periods for trains.

It is said that buses will cost more, because there are no season ticket facilities and so on, by about £26 a year. That is only because the users have been subsidised by the taxpayer at £150 per annum until now. The British Transport Commission is trying to cushion the blow by allowing the bus journey to be charged at season ticket rates for a year. If it was to subsidise the bus journey for longer, I do not know where we would be getting and there would be no hope of the B.T.C. becoming viable.

After very careful consideration, I myself have taken the decision. I myself have gone to the station to see it and to look at the line and to walk in the area on both Saturdays and Sundays and I have visited it on weekdays—I used dark glasses so that no one would recognise me, because I felt that I might hear some of the things which I have been reading in the letters from my hon. Friend's constituents and I did not want to be subjected to that indignity.

It has been said that I acted unconstitutionally.

Mr. J. Rodgers

Oh, no.

Mr. Marples

I know that my hon. Friend has not said that, but his constituents have written to The Times, and any letter in The Times causes me to lose sleep, saying that I have rejected the recommendation of a statutory committee without giving reasons and that that is unconstitutional. My hon. Friend has not gone so far as that, but his constituents have in their letters to The Times.

In a leader, The Times pointed out that the Central Committee is an advisory body and that its advice is not mandatory. The procedure established by Parliament places the final responsibility upon the shoulders of the Minister and my reasons for not accepting the Central Committee's recommendations were summarised in my reply to a Written Question on 2nd August. They were that I am unable to agree with the Committee's view that closure of the line would cause undue social hardship.

The second accusation made against me by my hon. Friend's constituents is that I have reached my decision after hearing additional evidence to which the objectors did not have access. That is untrue. My decision was based solely on the evidence put before the Consultative Committee. They also said that I deliberately delayed announcing my decision. That is untrue. My hon. Friend will grant that, with all my faults and failings—and I agree that they are many—I always face the consequences of any decision I myself take.

I am bound to say that constitutionally I have behaved correctly. I am also bound to say that I do not think that a Minister of the Crown should pass responsibility to a committee which is set up to advise him. He makes the decision and not the committee. Otherwise, there would be no point in having a Minister at this Dispatch Box justifying whatever decisions he may take.

I know that certain people will be inconvenienced. I know that there is a sentimental attachment to these two coaches which chug along on a Sunday with a little steam engine drawing them, with more people in the engine than in the train. I know that it is a nice sight to see this train coming along a track with grass sprouting up between the lines, but I think that it does not play a part in this third quarter of the twentieth century in whatever transport system we are to have.

The railways are facing a crisis. I have sympathy with hon. Members and their constituents who are affected by closures of branch lines, but there is someone else of whom I have to think, and that is the taxpayer. I have repeatedly said in this House, and I do not apologise for saying it again, that the taxpayer, is shouldering an enormous burden. For the financial year 1961–62 £130 million is being provided to meet the Commission's revenue deficit and interest on past deficits. As I said before, it represents about 5d. an the standard rate of Income Tax.

We have to try to put the railways on a sound financial footing. They have made proposals to this end. The Commission is seeking to improve its position by cutting costs, by concentrating on the more profitable traffic, by increasing its share of the traffic, and by eliminating activities which do not pay. Inevitably branch lines will be cut out.

In this House I hear hon. Members cheer when I say that the burden on taxpayers must be reduced, but the same hon. Members who cheer that statement and those sentiments are solidly against me when it affects their constituents. It is the same with the roads we build. Everybody wants roads, but nobody wants them to go through or near his back garden. This great tug-of-war goes on incessantly in almost every line of activity which we discuss.

The Prime Minister reminded the House on 10th March, 1960, which is a long time ago, that the public would have to face changes both in the extent and nature of the railway services. I agree that it may mean hardship. Where there is real hardship, the Government will take steps to relieve it. On the other hand, what have we done? The inconvenience to users by the closure of the Westerham line is not hardship in the true sense of the word, and the Commission has taken steps to alleviate that hardship by the provision of additional bus services. The closing of branch lines is an essential part of the Commission's plan for bringing the railways towards a condition of viability.

I ask my hon. Friend to assure his constituents about that, and to acquit the Government of discourtesy. This has been dragging on for a long time. The processes have not been quick. Indeed, they have been slow, and the morale of the people who work on a line such as Westerham cannot really be very high if there are two people in the engine and they are pulling one person in two coaches behind. They cannot feel that they are part of a workable show.

I ask my hon. Friend to explain this to his constituents and to say that it was my personal decision; that I take full responsibility for it and that they must not blame anybody else; that I am sorry if any inconvenience is being caused, and that I shall still walk in the beautiful country round Westerham, whatever they may say about me in their letters. I hope that when I meet them they will be as courteous to me as they have been in the past.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Twelve o'clock till Monday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.