HC Deb 11 December 1964 vol 703 cc2072-84

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

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Royle (Richmond, Surrey)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity this afternoon to raise the subject of the Richmond-Broad Street railway line. I am also grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport for sparing time to be here, although I am disappointed that his right hon. Friend the Minister has not found it possible to attend to answer the debate on this most important line—possibly the most important in the Greater London area.

I want to make my position clear regarding the Beeching plan for the reorganisation of British Railways as a whole. I have never been, and I am not, in any way opposed in principle to the suggestions and ideas incorporated in the original plan. I believe that the railways must be modernised, and modernised swifty, and that the plan as a whole is an excellent one. But there are certain lines where a closure would clearly be quite unacceptable in the public interest.

In my opinion the Richmond-Broad Street line is one of these. It is the uncertainty about the future of this line which I wish to mention. I have raised this matter in this House on many occasions during the past two years. Several of my hon. Friends and myself put down a Motion on the Order Paper some months ago on the subject. The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), whom I am glad to see here this afternoon, raised the matter on an Adjournment debate—I think the only other one—on the subject on 17th May, 1963. So it will be seen that all parties are agreed that the passenger services should continue on this line. The hon. Member for Willesden, West was supported by his right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), then the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, who I had the privilege to fight in the General Election of 1955. I am glad to see that the Conservative candidate who opposed the right hon. Member for St. Pancras, North in the General Election of 1959, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), is sitting on my lefthand side today. He also has played a great part in trying to stop the closure of the passenger services on this line.

Great concern has also been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Dudley Smith), who is also here this afternoon and who, I know, is hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I am also glad to have the firm and staunch support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke), who is also here, and who is also, like me, opposed to the continuing uncertainty regarding the future of the Richmond to Broad Street Line. I would like to mention two former Members of Parliament, Mr. Johnson Smith, the former Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South, and Mr. Skeet, the former Member for Willesden, East, who were untiring in their efforts to represent their constituents and to try to make certain that the line was not closed.

The passenger services on this line have been under threat for two long years. The proposed closure was, in fact, listed in the original plan drawn up by Dr. Beeching in 1962. Following this proposal, which is in the plan—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to this debate will have seen it—British Railways decided to try to make economies in the running of the line in order to make it an economic proposition. I take this opportunity of congratulating them on the very great endeavours which they have made to try to make the line more efficient and to find economies in running it as a whole.

As a result of this we had six months' notice as from October, 1963, that no decision would be taken about the line for that period of time. In May, 1964, a decision was still not reached by Dr. Beeching and his inquiry within the British Railways organisation was not completed. I have a letter from Dr. Beeching dated 7th May, 1964, in which he said: It is true that last October the London Midland Region stated that it would be about six months before a decision would be taken whether to proceed with the proposal to withdraw this service or not. Time was needed to study the effect of the economy measures which had been introduced since the publication of the Reshaping Report (in which the service is listed for withdrawal), and of others which were in mind at the time. This is a much more complicated question than the average passenger train withdrawal proposal. It has to be considered in relation both to other services using Broad Street Station and to railway planning for the future. The issues involved are such that it will be some weeks yet before we shall have them classified sufficiently for a decision to be made and announced. Since that time grave concern has continued to be felt by residents living all along the line, by passengers who travel on the line and by local authorities, all the way from Richmond in my constituency round the arc which the railway follows to Broad Street in north London. In view of the uncertainty, I was really amazed at the reply which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport gave to me in the House on 11th November this year when I asked him: Will the Minister assure the House that if he receives from the Railways Board a proposal for closure, he will turn it down? He made the following reply: I should have thought that there is no great uncertainty about this line, because there is as yet no proposal to withdraw the service." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1964; Vol. 701, c. 1008.] The Minister could not have done his homework, because there had been a proposal to withdraw the service in the original plan which was produced by Dr. Beeching. A formal proposal has not yet been confirmed, but the Minister must know that it has been considered and must know that it was in the original document produced by Dr. Beeching. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary has noted this point.

While realising that there is no firm proposal yet, I would tell the new Minister—I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will pass this on to him—some of the reasons why my hon. Friends, and, indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House, find that the proposal, if it is put forward in the form of a categorical decision by Dr. Beeching, to withdraw the passenger service is unacceptable to all of us. Firstly, 18,000 people use this line each day. If the line is closed, all these people, presumably, will be dumped on to the London Transport bus services with all the resulting strain that will inevitably fall on the bus services as a whole. Secondly, like all commuter lines—because this is basically a commuter line—it tends to have the most use at rush hours, but, unlike most commuter lines, it is also used at the weekends.

I have the honour to represent an extremely beautiful constituency and I am glad to say that Londoners come from all over the area to see Kew Gardens, the River Thames, Richmond Park, Petersham, Ham and other parts of my constituency of Richmond. So it is a line which is used at the weekends as well as during the rush hours in the week. Hon. Members on both sides of the House think that even more use could be made of it, if the line was more efficiently run, and therefore we welcome the inquiries which Dr. Beeching has been making during the past months.

But the passengers and the local authorities, which are all very much concerned along the length of the line, all feel that more advertising could be done and that the stations themselves could be improved and made more attractive. We still cannot understand why the line has not been included on the London Transport maps. This has always been a matter we have found quite incomprehensible. We have been told again and again by various authorities concerned that it cannot be put on the maps, and I should be grateful for enlightenment on this by the Parliamentary Secretary.

The main point that I wish to impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary is why cannot this line be included in the special category of proposed major closures? I think he will know what I mean. In answer to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on 4th November this year, the Minister of Transport said: As my hon. Friend is aware, the lines out of Inverness, the line to Wick and the line to Kyle were clearly major closures which were unacceptable from the start. He went on to say what the Secretary of State for Scotland said at the time. Then he said: That is the sort of thing which I want to avoid in future."—[OFT IC IAL REPORT, 4th November, 1964; Vol. 701, c. 201.] In other words, he was apparently excluding certain lines in Scotland in view of the public interest in them and their special situation as opposed to the ordinary proposed closures that may be taking place. It is quite clear that a special category of proposed closures has been established by the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that many of us would like to see the Richmond-Broad Street Line included in this category—in other words, that an announcement should be made now that it will not be closed, even if a firm proposal is put forward, because it comes into this special category of railway line.

My next point is slightly controversial. There is no doubt that during the General Election campaign, hon. Members opposite in constituencies all the way along this line stressed the fact that they would press to remove uncertainty if they were returned to Parliament.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt (Willesden, West)

indicated assent.

Mr. Royle

I know that the hon. Member for Willesden, West agrees. Indeed, my Labour opponent in Richmond stated: The Richmond-Broad Street Line is a vital metropolitan railway link for thousands of travellers. For many, journey times would be doubled—as would the cost—if it closed. Some would have to change jobs. There is no logic in proposing to close the line when we need, urgently, to develop and modernise our city transport. I fully agree with that statement. This was possibly the only time in the campaign that I agreed with the Labour candidate in my constituency.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to bear in mind the pledge which was made by many of his hon. Friends during the election campaign, and to see that at least this pledge is carried out by the Government who, to the dismay of many of us, have been inclined to ignore many of the pledges that they made during the campaign.

The London County Council has under consideration the preparation of a transport plan for this area. It comes in the Town Planning and Roads Committee's Joint Report and it is likely to involve the most complex exercise in planning yet seen in this country. The study areas include sections served by this line. If the study is to preserve its true purpose, it ought to take into account the existence of the Richmond-Broad Street line for passenger services.

In this context, it can be argued reasonably that a statement today on the future of the line would prove invaluable from the planning aspect. There is at the moment grave uncertainty. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to assure the House this afternoon that if the British Railways Board proposes to close the passenger services on the line from Richmond to Broad Street, the Minister will reject the proposal.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt (Willesden, West)

I welcome the initiative of the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) in raising this subject this afternoon, but I must challenge the list that he gave of his hon. Friends who, according to his opening remarks, were the main contenders in the efforts to keep this line open when the announcement to close it was first made.

I was grateful for the help from the hon. Gentleman and from many of his former hon. Friends who are no longer with us, but I would remind the House that within 24 hours there was a lobby which was supported by the mayors, and two rooms were taken by myself and Michael Cliffe, who used to represent Finsbury, and that the last great effort that was made when the mayors again attended was organised by the hon. Member for Willesden, West.

Having evened the score on the claim as to who was pushing the most, I accept the hon. Gentleman's contention that we fought the campaign in this area pledging ourselves to keep this line open. I urge my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to get Dr. Beeching or the Railways Board to take the initiative in settling this matter once for all, so that we shall know that the line is to be preserved, although not in its present rather antiquated form. With regard to the petition which the hon. Member mentioned, I was handing out forms for two hours at Willesden Junction, which, I think, has not been painted since the relief of Mafeking. If the line is to be preserved, it must not be preserved as a museum piece, but as part of an economic transport system.

I urge my hon. Friend not only to think in terms of maintaining the service for all the users in my constituency and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey, but also to provide further capital investment whereby it can be made a viable and going concern. Without that, merely maintaining it in its present state of efficiency, will not do the service that this can do to relieve the enormous congestion that occurs in transport on the roads and the underground which serves this important area of north-west London.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith (Brentford and Chiswick)

I should like to add my support to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) in bringing up this matter and to press the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport to make an announcement and dispel some of the disillusion which has been spreading among local people who thought that with the election of a Labour Government there would be an early announcement on this matter.

I should like to see this line treated as a special case. All closures are regarded as special cases, but in the metropolitan area we must realise that, if people are thrown off this line they will go to the already overcrowded bus service; and if this happens there will be chaos. There is an excellent case for keeping the line open.

If only the people who run the line showed some realism and published the route of the line on transport maps they would attract a great deal of custom. Here is an occasion for Dr. Beeching who is appreciated on both sides of the House as a man of initiative and courage, to say that this is a special case and that something must be done about it here and now. If that happens, both sides of the House will be very satisfied.

4.21 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler)

I know that there is a widespread interest in this case and I wish that more hon. Members had been able to take part in the debate. As it is, owing to the lack of time, I shall have to speak at some speed in reply.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) started by criticising my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. My right hon. Friend has inherited colossal problems and he has his responsibilities as a member of the Cabinet. It is extremely rare in the House, as I know from 17 years' membership, for a Cabinet Minister to answer an Adjournment debate. Since I came to this position I have attracted four Adjournment debates already, two of which I have to answer next week. I am sorry that the hon. Member criticised my right hon. Friend for not being here. My right hon. Friend is extremely interested in this as in other closure cases.

This debate gives me an opportunity to make clear the Government's policy on railway closures generally and how it will have a bearing on the Richmond-Broad Street line. As has been said, this line was listed in the Beeching Report as one of those which the Railways Board saw little prospect of making financially viable, and which the Board considered, on the basis of its statutory duty to pay its way, as one they intended to propose for closure.

This aroused very substantial opposition. Nobody should be surprised at that, because the line is used extensively not so much by the constituents of the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey—because they have the District Line with a more direct and faster route to Central London—but more by people in North London and especially by the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) and Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt).

The local opposition, as we know, was organised with impressive speed, efficiency and skill and produced some very interesting publications which I have read very carefully, with counter-suggestions and proposals which no doubt have been under consideration. At least three committees were formed to oppose this closure. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West referred to the mass lobby on 13th May, 1963, and the presentation of a petition with 57,000 signatures. This was submitted to the then Minister of Transport, the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) who, four days later, because of the massive agitation, answered a debate on the subject.

The right hon. Gentleman used that occasion to expound his policy of rail closures generally and, secondly, to announce that he could say absolrttely nothing about the prospects for the Richmond-Broad Street line because the Railways Board had not made any formal proposals to close the line. He explained that even if they had done, the statutory procedure, that is consideration of the effect of closure in terms of hardship by the T.U.C.C., would have Lad to go on.

I wish to make it crystal clear, having regard to what the hon. Gentleman said about proposals, that the Railways Board has still not made any definite proposal about the Richmond-Broad Street line. I have the utmost sympathy for the users of the line in their state of uncertainty and the fact that they are having to wait a very long time for an announcement to be made about its future. I can say that we and the Board are extremely anxious to come as quickly as possible to a definite conclusion on this matter, from the point of view of railway efficiency and finance and the social values involved.

There are still many proposals listed in the Beeching Report which have not yet been converted into definite submissions. In fact, out of the immense programme set out in the "Reshaping" Report, there are 75 so-called proposals about closures on which we in the Ministry have no definite information at present.

In fairness to the Board, it is understandable that it should take a longer time to formulate a definite proposal about this line since it differs considerably from the much smaller branch lines about which proposals have been put up. It forms part of a complex network, and the Railways Board has to consider it in relation to numerous other services which run into Broad Street. The Board has, at the same time, been making a number of changes, altering some of the services, including, for instance, a reduction in off-peak services find the length of trains. It has required time to assess the effects of these alterations, to take censuses, and so on.

The Board has now told me that it hopes to reach a definite conclusion on the basis of all this within the next month or so. I cannot say what the conclusion will be. Only then shall be know exactly whether, for financial reasons, the Board still proposes to close the line or, perhaps, merely some of the stations on it or to withdraw the proposal altogether.

Mr. A. Royle

Will the hon. Gentleman give a firm assurance that when, or if, a proposal comes in six weeks to close the line, he will turn it down and keep the passenger services going? That is the point.

Mr. Swingler

I am about to come to the procedure which we shall adopt, which differs from the procedure followed by the Minister of Transport of the hon. Gentleman's Government.

When the Board has the information and a definite proposal is made, instead of that proposal, as advocated by the right hon. Member for Wallasey, being made immediately under Section 56 of the Transport Act, involving the mounting of elaborate proceedings, the engagement of expensive lawyers, and so on, the proposal will be made to my right hon. Friend in accordance with his statement of 4th November.

My right hon. Friend will then consider, as a matter of urgency whether the proposal is likely to conflict with future transport plans for the London area. This will be done immediately, and if, in my right hon. Friend's opinion, the Board's proposal is likely to conflict with these plans—in other words, if he judges it to be a major closure—he will ask the Board to withdraw the proposal. That is what will be done, and that is how the Richmond-Broad Street line comes under the statement made by my right hon. Friend.

I am sorry that it is not possible for me to say categorically that the proposal will be judged as a major proposal. It would be quite wrong for me to prejudge it. I should not even know what I was prejudging. The proposal does not yet exist in the form of a definite and precise statement. When we have a definite proposal we shall judge it, as my right hon. Friend said, against the background of of future economic and population trends in this area, taking fully into account the possible economic and social consequences, including road congestion, a very important point mentioned by some hon. Members. We shall certainly take into account the possible social benefits which an urban railway line can bring —social benefits which do not necessarily appear in the balance sheet of the operator of the line.

Reference has been made to the London Transportation Study. This is being undertaken by consultants under the guidance of a group of officials of the London County Council, the Railways Board, the London Transport Board and the Ministry of Transport, and is working now on the projection of a detailed pattern of the future demand for transport in the London area. The study is based on a very detailed survey which covers journeys by all forms of transport in the London area, including the Richmond-Broad Street line. I have no doubt whatever that the London Transportation Study Group will need to consider the part which the Richmond-Broad Street line could play in London's future transport system.

Therefore, when I say that if a proposal comes to the Minister, in accordance with the announcement made on 4th November the existence of the London Transportation Study and the discussions that it is having and the conclusions that it may reach about the future pattern and needs of transport in London constitute one of the most important factors which will be taken into account.

That is the assurance that I give hon. Gentlemen. I know, because they pressed the previous Minister for a decision on this matter, that it is not completely satisfactory to them. However, I can tell them two things. The first is that very soon indeed we shall have from the Railways Board either the cancellation of the proposal, or the full proposal or a modified proposal, and that will go through the "early sift" procedure and be immediately considered by the Minister.

The Question having been proposed after Four o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes to Five o'clock.