§ The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples)Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House I wish to make a statement.
The Railways Board's proposals for reshaping the British railways system were published today. Copies have been available in the Vote Office since noon.
The Government are greatly indebted to Dr. Beeching and his Board for their comprehensive proposals, which flow from the most massive compilation and systematic analysis of information about our railways ever attempted. We agree that extensive reshaping on the lines now proposed is essential.
The Report offers a firm prospect of an efficient and modern railway system handling those traffics technically best suited to rail. Reductions in the present subsidy of about £150 million will release economic resources which can be better used in the national interest elsewhere. The Board's aim is, therefore, wholly consistent with our policy of modernisation and redevelopment.
The Report is a major contribution to the Government's policy of providing an efficient, economic, and well-balanced transport system for Great Britain as a whole. When the new shape and pattern of the railways are clear we shall have a foundation on which we can create such a system. It is not possible to have effective and efficient co-ordination until we have as a basis a modern twentieth century railway system.
In the meantime, steps are being taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself to see that any additional demands on our roads will be met. Also, I am meeting representatives of the bus operators on 9th April and both the Railways Board and myself will consult the road haulage industry.
The changes proposed by the Board will affect many people and further careful study and consultation by the Government is necessary. The Railways Board will, of course, be following the agreed procedures for consultation with its staff. The Government, for their part, will pay special regard to the long-term requirements of particular areas, including those 1320 arising from planned movements of population and industry.
I should like now to deal with three main points. First, freight services. Clearly, rationalisation here is of the greatest importance, not merely to the railways' finances, but to industry and commerce. For example, by reducing rail costs and improving methods of distribution, the Railways Board believes that a substantial saving can be achieved on the carriage of some types of coal by rail. On freight generally, the Board will discuss the future possibilities with its customers. It will also discuss the implications of its proposals with other transport interests.
Secondly, passenger services. The most controversial part of the plan is the withdrawal of many passenger services. This is necessary if better railway services are to be provided to meet the real needs of the nation. But I must emphasise that, in the procedures to be followed when passenger closures are proposed, Parliament has laid down very extensive safeguards. Under the Transport Act, 1962, each proposal must be published in advance. Objections can be made to the transport users' consultative committees, which will report to me on any hardship involved.
No opposed closure may be carried out without my consent, and I shall take into account all important factors, including social and defence considerations, the pattern of industrial development and possible effects on roads and road traffic.
The Report makes it clear that in the remoter areas of the country there will be special problems. This applies not only in Scotland and Wales, but in some parts of England, and to communications with Northern Ireland. But in this country a widespread network of bus services already exists and I shall see that, where necessary, adequate alternative means of transport are available before a railway passenger closure takes place.
I recently announced the arrangements for co-operation and co-ordination made between the railways and London Transport Boards under the new Transport Act. The Government will closely consider those passages in the Report on suburban commuter services in London and elsewhere.
My third point is on staff. The effect of the Board's proposals on railway employees must be of special concern 1321 to the Board, the unions and the Government. Our railways will require fewer men in future. The best present estimate of the total reduction these proposals will give rise to over the next few years is of the order of 70,000. But most of this reduction will be effected by normal wastage and control of recruitment. Actual discharges are not expected to be more than a small proportion of the total staff reduction. The number will depend largely on how far it is possible to arrange for men to move to other work and different areas.
Even so, there will be problems for those displaced. The Government will do all they can to help in retraining and placing them. We specially welcome the recent agreement between the Board and the unions representing the conciliation grades. This does two things: first, it facilitates transfers from one part of the system to another; and, secondly, it provides fair compensation for those for whom work can no longer be found on the railways.
The Government will proceed speedily with their consultations and discussion, so that we can soon make a fuller statement.
§ Mr. StraussDr. Beeching's Report has, of course, been in our hands for only a few hours and it has been quite impossible to study all its implications in that short time. We should like a debate to take place as soon as possible after we have studied the Report fully so that all hon. Members whose constituencies are affected may be able to put their points of view freely—and no doubt strongly—in the House.
But may I put this to the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the short notice which we have had? Is he aware—no doubt he must be—that others have had a copy of this Report for two days and more? Is he aware that not only the unions, but the Press and the two broadcasting authorities have had the Report for two days. Indeed, there has already been this morning a debate on the B.B.C. on the Report.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this order of priority in giving out information which is essentially of importance to Parliament, this order of priority which puts Parliament at the bottom of the list, is undermining the sovereign authority of Parlia- 1322 ment and ought not to be condoned, but should be condemned by the House?
I should like to congratulate Dr. Beeching on producing a very able Report. It is lucid, comprehensive and well-argued, and he has carried out admirably the task entrusted to him by the Government. That task was to see how best the railways could be reshaped to fit modern conditions and, above ail and particularly, what steps should be taken to make them remunerative. In doing so, Dr. Beeching has devoted a very large part of his Report to proposals for making the railways more efficient. Further—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would remember that I am allowed to permit only a few questions on this statement.
§ Mr. StraussI apologise, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. C. PannellOn a point of order. Will you inform the House, Mr. Speaker, how the Opposition are to deal with a long statement unless the principal Opposition spokesman is allowed reasonable latitude to answer it?
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the House wants to change its procedure about these statements, that would be a matter not for me. I have no power to do it myself. Subject to a little latitude being allowed to the Leader of the Opposition of the day, and nobody else, to make some introductory remarks, all I can allow is a few questions.
§ Mr. StraussThere are only a few further points I want to put, Mr. Speaker, but it is difficult, when we have a big Report like this and a long statement on which is essential, to put briefly our doubts and queries to the Government in a very short form.
Is the Minister aware that the recommendations for making the railways more efficient and increasing traffics have our whole-hearted support? On the other hand, is he aware that the proposals to curtail the railway services on the drastic scale suggested confirm our very worst fears? In particular, is he aware that we are surprised and distressed at the scant attention which Dr. Beeching devotes to the consequences—the congestion on the roads, the making of new roads and the general social consequences 1323 of the closures, which he dismisses as being practically non-existent?
As the Minister will be responsible for authorising these closures, is he aware that every proposal for closure which will come before him—and they all will—will be scrutinised and opposed by hon. Members, at least on this side of the House, unless they are accompanied by full assurances that adequate and satisfactory alternative services will be provided and that where that does not happen necessary subsidies should be paid to maintain the existing services?
Finally, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman how the Minister reconciles the frequent references and recommendations in Dr. Beeching's Report to the desirability of co-ordinating our transport services after he himself, last Session, introduced a Bill to disintegrate those services as much as possible?
§ Mr. MarplesI shall try to deal with some of those points. This is not a Report to Parliament, nor a Report by a Government Department. It is the Report of the Railways Board and it is published in the way which is usual with these things. There is nothing wrong with this. Normally, it is quite usual for statements to be made at the Dispatch Box at 3.30 and for the Minister to say that the Report will be available afterwards, but I went out of my way to see that it would be available at noon so that hon. Members should have an opportunity to see it before I made my statement.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his tribute to Dr. Beeching. I warmly support what he said. I think that this Report is the most competent analysis of a difficult industrial problem I have ever read.
All proposed passenger closures will come to me, but not freight closures. The passenger closures, if opposed, will go to the transport users' consultative committees, which will report on the adequacy of alternative services. I shall certainly take into account the adequacy of alternative services. That includes not only buses, but the state of the roads on which they run.
As to the deep concern felt on this matter, before the Government make a policy statement we would like to have 1324 the views of both Houses. I believe that there is to be a debate in another place on 1st May and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has told me that he will make arrangements through the usual channels for a debate in this House. We cannot make a fuller statement until the Railways Board has had consultation with the unions and its customers and until the Government have had a number of consultations with interested parties. Therefore, none of these proposals will be brought before the transport users' consultative committees until this House has had a chance of saying what it thinks.
Mr. G. WilsonWhile congratulating my right hon. Friend and Dr. Beeching on boldly accepting the principle that the railways should concentrate on doing those things they can do best, may I ask my right hon. Friend to tell us a little more about how he proposes to get the other services to do what is best for them to do—the road services, and so on? Is he to make any use of the National Transport Advisory Council which he set up recently, and which is an extremely powerful body?
§ Mr. MarplesThe question of co-ordinating other forms of transport with the newly reshaped railway system will he brought before the Transport Advisory Council. As long ago as 6th November I announced that we were setting up machinery to strengthen and modify roads where necessary in the event of this Report being published. The same applies to buses because, through the Transport Holding Company, we control 85 per cent. of the buses outside London and the municipal corporations. Therefore, we are able to see that there are good alternative bus services.
On the question of co-ordinating alternative services, the machinery is already there.
§ Mr. HoltIs not the Minister aware that whether the Beeching Report is technically efficient or modern is quite irrelevant so long as the Government do not announce overall transport policy, particularly to deal with the problem of regional development and the stopping of the drift to the South-East? When will the Government enlighten us on what their transport policy is?
§ Mr. MarplesIn the debate which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will arrange through the usual channels.
§ Mr. Bourne-ArtonIs my right hon. Friend aware that Darlington, the birthplace of railways, will welcome this bold and sensible plan—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, hold and sensible plan—for giving the country a transport system appropriate to the needs of the age in which we live?
§ Mr. MarplesI am very grateful to one representing such a distinguished place for saying such nice words.
§ Mr. F. Noel-BakerThe Minister will be aware that this Report will have increased the anxieties of many thousands of workers in railway workshops. Will he take an early opportunity of saying what the implications of the Report are likely to be on railway workshops, and whether the Government will now permit those workshops to take work from outside to compensate for the loss of work which they will sustain as a result of this Report?
§ Mr. MarplesThis Report does not deal directly with railway workshops. They are mentioned, but not dealt with by the Report. The plan for railway workshops was announced by Dr. Beeching some time ago. There is no power by Statute to allow the workshops to do work for outside bodies.
§ Sir J. MaitlandDoes my right hon. Friend realise the fury of resentment which places like Lincolnshire and other scattered areas will feel that in many cases they are dealt with as second-class areas? Will my right hon. Friend tell me how soon they can appeal against these proposals and how long they have in which to do so?
§ Mr. MarplesIf the Railways Board proposes a passenger closure it publishes the proposal twice, and six weeks after the second publication the transport users' consultative committee can consider the proposal and anyone can object and give evidence.
Mr. H. WilsonIs the Minister aware that some of the sycophantic pronouncements which have been made to him this afternoon do not express the mood of the whole House or of the country 1326 about this Report? Is he aware that while hon. Members on both sides of the House will be very concerned about individual closures—the procedure for closures, safeguards, and so on—what is clear is that the responsibility for forcing Dr. Beeching to do this job is uniquely and unequivocally the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government and that the whole of the responsibility for the very grave state of affairs shown in the Report goes back to what the Tory Government have been doing ever since 1953, when they started the disintegration of the transport system?
§ Mr. MarplesI want to be quite clear about this. The responsibility is mine and the Government's, and I have never tried to shirk that responsibility. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman did not insinuate that that was so, because it is not. Dr. Beeching was not forced to do it. He has a job to do, but the responsibility ultimately is the Government's, and the Government accept it. There will be anxiety, of course, in some areas, but procedures and safeguards have been laid down by Parliament and they are pretty adequate.
§ Mr. Wolrige-GordonWho will decide questions of freight closures and, for the purposes of distant communities, what is meant by the phrase "alternative facilities"?
§ Mr. MarplesIt is purely a matter for the railways. They will be consulting their customers in the next month to see what arrangements can be made if they are going to be in difficulties as a result of their proposals.
§ Mr. ManuelIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that these assessments and recommendations from Dr. Beeching have been arrived at in a period of economic stagnation in the country? If the economy had been buoyant and up-thrusting possibly the changes envisaged in the Report would not be so wide-ranging.
Would the right hon. Gentleman not further agree that these closures of main lines, many branch lines and stations will inevitably turn many people on to the roads? We have already 350,000 casualties a year and about 132 deaths a week. Will not this inevitably increase the toll 1327 on the roads, because he will be forcing on to the roads more traffic than there is on them at present?
§ Mr. MarplesI have already said that we should look at the question of the roads and see what traffic is forced upon them, but, frankly, it is in the rural areas that we have most of the difficulties, where the railways will be closed. In these areas there is not the congestion that there is in the urban areas. In the urban areas we are trying to take people off the roads by building such lines as the Victoria-Walthamstow underground line, which will cost over £60 million, and in Glasgow providing the electrified Blue Trains. The main point is that people who want to use the railways will spend the money. If they do not, there is no point in having the railways.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We cannot discuss this any longer without a Question before the House.