RAILWAYS (ABINGDON-RADLEY LINE) (Hansard, 31 January 1963)

§ Mr. Airey Neave (Abingdon)

At the beginning of last year British Railways announced that they wished to ciose the Abingdon to Radley branch line, which is the line to the junction with the main Paddington to Oxford line at Radley, on the grounds that it was urtremunerative.

Now that this matter is before my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport for decision, I am grateful to be able to draw his attention to one or two important points, because it is my contention that there was a defect in the proceedings before the South-Eastern Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for coming to answer this debate, and also for all the trouble and interest that he has taken in a very long correspondence covering not only proposals for closing the Abingdon to Radley branch line, but also the functions in general of transport users' consultative committees.

I referred to this question in this House in November, and since then I have seen the secretary of the Central Users' Consultative Committee, and as I hope for the opportunity of further discussions about the procedure of these 1278 committees in general, I will not refer to that general aspect tonight.

I think the House would agree that it is essential that although these committees are advisory to the Minister and are not essentially quasi-judicial bodies, their claim to represent the public interest in closures should have some substance, that the hearing should seem to be impartial, and that each side, that is to say, both the railways and the objectors, should have a fair opportunity of presenting its case, and that if the hearings in any way become in the public mind anything of a sham, they might as well not take place at all.

This is very important for my right hon. Friend, because in the future, under the proposals for the railways, he may have to consider many closures, and it is important, when he has to come to a decision, to be satisfied that the report of the Central Committee is based on a fair hearing of the objections, since the Central Committee gets its recommendations from the area committees.

The Abingdon case is important for a number of reasons. The first is that the principal objectors, the Abingdon Borough Council, took exception to the refusal of the railways to supplement information which the railways had supplied in the usual form in January, 1962, when they announced that they were going to close the line. It is true that the borough council asked originally for a certain amount of information which was unnecessary—I concede that, and my right hon. Friend has pointed that out to me in a letter—but it also asked for certain statistical information about the passengers who were travelling on this line during the past five years.

I should like to read to the House the information for which the council asked. First of all, it asked for the number of passengers using the service seasonally and annually for the past five years; for details of the above, subdivided as between cheap tickets, monthly tickets and season tickets, and then for a broad analysis of the travellers as between commuters' destinations, summer holiday traffic, the directions in which they travelled, and the number of passengers per train.

In my submission that was not an unreasonable request. Although the railways had an agreement with the Central 1279 Committee prior to the Transport Act, 1962, on the information that should be supplied to the objectors, this request for a supplement was not unreasonable. At any rate, it was contained in a letter from the Town Clerk of Abingdon dated 27th April, at Appendix B, and refused by the railways. He did not press for certain additional information which is generally regarded as unnecessary.

Efforts to obtain this information went on for two or three months prior to the actual hearing, that is to say, from April to the hearing before the South-Eastern Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee on 13th July. It was then my view that this information—at any rate that which I have read out—was relevant to the question of hardship, and to the ability of the town clerk, who was to represent the council and most of the townspeople as users of this railway, to put his case.

A reasonable attitude on the part of the railways would have avoided the situation that occurred. I came into the matter, and tried to intervene with the general manager at Paddington, but he did not even offer to try to meet the terms of the town clerk. That attitude was unreasonable, and led to the situation which resulted in a hearing which was not utterly fair and impartial.

The two points that could have been made, and ought to have been before the area committee, are not points on which my right hon. Friend can comment, because I know that he has not yet come to his decision. In their statement the railways made certain claims about alternative bus services—with particular reference to the No. 14 bus from Oxford to Abingdon, via Radley—which would have been disputed. They also gave a long list of country bus services, but did not disclose the frequencies. In many cases the services operated only on one or two days a week. Unless the committee was aware of the facts it could not give any judicial decision in this matter.

On account of this refusal of information, a request was made by the town clerk for an adjournment of the hearing on 13th July. This was not granted, in spite of the fact that the chairman, at any rate, gave the impression of trying to bring the parties together on this matter. 1280 I am making no complaint about the way in which he conducted the proceedings. The railways stuck to their refusal in a most monolithic fashion. The town clerk said that he would try to find a way of appealing against the decision, and he decided to take no further part in the proceedings.

He did not cross-examine the railway witnesses on these points, because he felt that without certain financial details—for instance, of passenger totals, and so forth —he could not make his case. Individual objectors were later heard, and no doubt their objections were considered by the committee, but the main argument on hardship and inconvenience to the passengers was not presented, because it was thought that it might be possible to appeal to the Central Committee. The town clerk tried that, but without success. The Committee said that its jurisdiction was now under the 1962 Act, and it could consider only hardship. As no evidence of hardship had been presented through the medium of the Abingdon Borough Council it seemed a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.

The second point is that this case is important because it is a transitional case. It occurred between the operation of the old and the new legislation. In the interval between 13th July and the consideration by the Central Committee the law changed. The 1962 Transport Act received the Royal Assent, and under Section 56 of that Act the committee is confined to reporting on hardship. On this basis, presumably, the Central Committee recommended closure to the Minister. But as the argument on hardship had not been fully put, I suggest that the public and the users of this railway who were represented as objectors have been put at a great disadvantage in the matter.

Without wishing to attach too much blame to either side, I think that it is a clear injustice and that my right hon. Friend should look at this again and consider exercising his powers under subsection (10) of the Act, to require the South-East Area Committee to make a further report. In correspondence my right hon. Friend has argued that much of the information was unnecessary and I concede that. My point is that the information requested in Appendix B of the town clerk's letter to the railways was reasonable in the circumstances.

1281 My right hon. Friend has said that there is no obligation on the railways to produce the information requested. But from the point of view of justice and even public relations I think that the items contained in Appendix B ought to have been disclosed. The Committee had power, in my opinion, to press the railways, and it appeared to attempt to persuade the railways, to provide the information. My right hon. Friend wrote on 16th July that if the information from the railways fell short of what the Committee required, it would be provided. This was not done. If my right hon. Friend can see his way either to refer the matter back to the Committee before making his decision or seek some means of studying the information on hardship and inconvenience to the public which was not disclosed on account of the unfortunate dispute between the railways and the Abingdon Borough Council, justice would be seen to be done. My constituents would feel that any decision he reached would have been arrived at on an entirely fair basis.

§ The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) for the reasonable way in which he has presented his case. He has always been very lucid in his expositions in any case on behalf of his constituents and he has assiduously looked after his constituents in this instance. He has been persuasive and his arguments have carried more weight because he has been courteous and reasonable all the way through.

I am sure that my hon. Friend would be the first to agree that this debate places me in a real dilemma. As Minister of Transport, I have to be the final judge of whether this line is closed or not. In effect, the submissions of the consultative committee are before me and therefore the case is sub judice. As the judge I am being invited by my hon. Friend to make some remarks in public on how the case was conducted and I am invited to do so before I announce my decision.

Frankly, I cannot do that. I cannot enter into a detailed discussion—when I have to make a decision in a short time —about whether the committee was wrong or the town clerk was right. It is 1282 imperative that I say nothing which could be interpreted as prejudicing the issue. It is important that I should not utter a single sentence which could be torn out of its context and used against me later, or that it could be said, "You made this pledge in the House of Commons." So I am going to be very careful and my answer will be brief, correct, cautious and, I hope, constructive.

My hon. Friend alleges that the hardship argument was not properly deployed by the borough council. He said that the reason why the council did not deploy that case was that the representative of the council asked for further information which was not supplied. He quoted what I think he called statement B. Of the statements sent in, statements A and B, it would have required a chartered accountant to have worked for a couple of years to provide the information required in statement A. Statement B was less complicated. I think everyone had a chance to present their case. I have here a list of the objectors. They include the Abingdon Corporation and the Abingdon Labour Party, the Abingdon School, Citizens of Abingdon, Our Lady's Convent, Abingdon and District Trades Council, Friends of Abingdon, Abingdon Liberal Association, the Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Abingdon Afternoon Townswomen's Guild, the Mothers' Union and individual users. Written objections were received from a veterinary surgeon, Marcham Parish Council, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, Stert Street, Abingdon, the clerk to the Parish Council of Drayton, Abingdon Rural District Council, the Clerk to the Sunningwell Parish Council, the Clerk to the Parish Council of Radley and a solicitor.

I maintain that that is an imposing list of people who could have represented hardship. The town clerk attended and decided not to give the council case on hardship. The reasons for not giving that case may be good or bad. I do not know and I cannot comment, but all these others had an opportunity to give their views. My hon. Friend suggested that I should refer this back to the Central Committee so that the hardship which Abingdon Council alleges would be imposed on users of the railway could be considered.

1283 I must tell him straight away that I will not do that, but I shall make a constructive suggestion. At present I am considering the case. I have not made a decision, but, if my hon. Friend will let me have the reasons why Abingdon Borough Council considers that hardship will follow the closure of this line, I give him the pledge that I shall consider those reasons before arriving at a decision.

Therefore, whatever the rights or wrongs in the wrangle about procedure and the complicated legal arguments which go on, it will be seen that justice has been done. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to persuade Abingdon Borough Council to let me have in detail its proposals, its reasoned statement on the hardship which would follow the closure of this line, and I shall consider it. But it should let me have it quickly. I must have it in the immediate future. In this way the objective which my hon. Friend has in mind will be achieved and justice will be done and seen to be done. I want it quickly and in return I promise that it will be considered.

I want to assure the House that it is not easy to decide these cases. The Minister of Transport is on a certain loser whatever decision he makes. It is a very unenviable position to be in and it requires a great deal of heart searching on my part and a great deal of objectivity, but the help I receive from the transport users' consultative committees is very valuable. These committees are composed of distinguished men who give their services in a difficult and unpopular task. The nation should be grateful to them—I certainly am grateful to them, not only for serving on the committees but for the detailed way in which they apply themselves to a thankless, difficult and unpopular task. I pay this tribute because I have to wade through all their reports before arriving at a decision. Therefore, I am in a position to be able to assess their skill and efficiency.

They are impartial, of that I am quite certain, but, as my hon. Friend said, they must be seen to be impartial. During the course of the passage through the House of the Transport Act, 1962, various hon. 1284 Members on both sides made contributions to see that justice should be done in these matters. There are two of my hon. Friends present who took a great part in those debates. They argued that justice must be seen to be done. One of them said that it would be wrong if the offices of the T.U.C.C. at which these matters are discussed were on railway premises. I promised to look into that matter and I can tell them that we have made one or two alterations which are favourable and in accordance with the wishes they then expressed. I think it wrong that if one goes to the T.U.C.C. one should find the offices on railway premises. Then people would say it is a "fiddle." That is one thing one thinks if one is a suspicious person, unlike the Minister of Transport. Therefore, we have taken these steps.

I want to sum up in this way. First, as I am ultimately the judge in this case, I cannot argue the merits of the case while it is in effect sub judice. Secondly, I have great faith in the committees and their procedure. Thirdly, as my hon. Friend said, one of the objectors present in person decided, for reasons best known to himself, not to make his points about hardship to the T.U.C.C. I will receive those points if my hon. Friend will communicate with me in the next week or two.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this case. Every one of these Adjournment debates where the Minister has to be the judge places the Minister in a difficulty. He cannot defend himself or his Committee. All he has to do is to sit very quietly, listen to what hon. Members say, and then make up his own mind at the end of the day. I hope that my reply has been helpful. Within the narrow limits open to me, I have tried to be constructive. I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied.