HC Deb 27 November 1964 vol 702 cc1803-14

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

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale (Harwich)

My purpose in seeking this Adjournment is to raise several matters which have been of concern of late to those affected by transport policy in north-east Essex, most particularly by the closing of the Brightlingsea Railway and the measures taken to alleviate the hardship that it has caused. It is, indeed, a sad story.

First, I want an explanation why the orders were given to tear up the Brightlingsea railway track whilst I was in correspondence with the Minister. Who gave the orders? Why were not the local authorities informed? Why was I not informed, particularly as I had protested most strongly in the past to my own Minister about the closure? As the Parliamentary Secretary probably knows, I wanted a three-year trial period because of the expansion of the town of Brightlingsea and the new developments there, and the building of the new university at Wivenhoe. Why was the track torn up before it could be seen that the conditions laid down by the traffic commissioners with regard to the road could be fulfilled? What is the present position with regard to the railway? I hope that we shall have an explanation from the hon. Gentleman.

Is the Minister aware that representatives of the Labour Party, including its candidate, promised that should a Labour Government be returned in the General Election the line would be reopened? We were told that the present Prime Minister had examined the files personally. After all these and other events many people in Brightlingsea are beginning to ask what Labour promises are worth.

I wrote to the new Minister on 21st October, asking him to reopen the Brightlingsea line, especially as Brightlingsea had expanded, and I asked him to deal with the question as a matter of urgency. On 3rd November I received his reply, saying that at present he was developing his policy of rail closures in all their aspects, and that he hoped to make a statement in the House at the earliest opportunity and did not wish to anticipate what his reply would be.

In his statement in the House on 4th November the Minister said: I have, therefore, arranged…that, even in those cases where I think it right to grant consent, the track will be retained for the time being unless I otherwise agree. He went on to say that he had no power under the Transport Act, 1962, to withdraw a consent which had already been given. How different this view was from what the Labour Party said about what could be done before the General Election! If they had no powers, why did they not say so before the General Election?

The Minister went on to say: I have power to vary or add to the conditions attached to those consents, and I shall not hesitate to do this where I think it desirable. In addition, there will be the safeguard about the retention of track which I have already mentioned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1964; Vol. 701. c. 195–6.] If this was his policy, why did British Railways begin tearing up the track on 28th October, almost half-way between the date on which I wrote to the new Minister and his statement in the House on 4th November?

I must say that I was exceedingly surprised. I was phoned on 5th November to be told, not from an official source at all but by a representative of the local newspaper who wanted to know what my views were about it. I told him that I thought that it must be just sheer incompetence and that I hoped there was no other reason at all why we had not been informed and why this action had been taken. But this is not all.

I was informed by the Brightlingsea Urban District Council on 11th November that it had not been informed either of the intention to tear up the railway track. In fact, the first indication of this was received by the urban district council in exactly the same way as I had received the information, by way of a telephone message from the Press. But perhaps even more disturbing than this is the information which I have had from the Brightlingsea Urban District Council that the six months' trial period mentioned by the traffic commissioners at the meeting at Cambridge has not yet been tested.

Surely, in these circumstances, and bearing in mind what the new Minister has said about the safeguard of not tearing up the track, British Railways were acting very precipitately indeed, and surely the Minister should have seen at least that this was postponed for the time being, particularly in view of what his right hon. Friend said at the Dispatch Box on 14th November.

We do not believe that the Minister is protecting the interests of the people of Brightlingsea. All this seems to make nonsense of his promise about the safeguard concerning the retention of the track. Surely he should stop the tearing up of the track until the six months' trial period mentioned by the traffic commissioners has been concluded. Does not the hon. Gentleman know that representation has already been made to the commissioners that alternative bus services have not been satisfactory? Does he know that there is no alternative bus service on Sundays or bank holidays? Does he really think that this is right for one of the most charming seaside towns of southeast Essex, which depends on holiday trade and on business done on bank holidays and Sundays as well?

We are most disturbed at what has been happening following the decision to close the railway. Why has the Minister been acting in this manner? Why have British Railways acted in almost indecent haste. He has said that he has time to vary the conditions attached to this consent. I hope that he will do that now and show at least a little bit of good sense to make up for the confusion and contradiction emanating from the new Minister's office.

Will the hon. Gentleman please inquire why the bus service does not meet the trains at Alresford Station as it was promised that it would? Is he aware that there is no shelter for people waiting for the bus. Is it his wish that they should stand in the rain? These are very important points and I hope that the Minister will take steps to see that these matters are attended to without delay.

When I objected to the railway line being closed to the previous Minister of Transport on the grounds of the hardship it would cause, I was promised that steps would be taken to see that this hardship would be alleviated. I hope that what I have said has convinced the Minister that the people of Brightlingsea are feeling justifiably angry at what has happened. I trust that he will examine very carefully the points I have raised and will help alleviate any hardship which is being caused at present.

I have called this Adjournment debate "Transport to North-East Essex." I feel, though, that I should be digressing too far from the main points about the Brightlingsea railway line if I stray too wide, but I press the Minister for more flexibility in rail policy. Nationalisation seems to get away from an understanding of local needs and the human approach. When that comes in the end it is no wonder that there is a failure to make the businesses pay. I hope that the Government will view the proposed fare increases in this light and, indeed, the closure of the railway. In the days before nationalisation the old London and North Eastern Railway studied the needs of the local people far more and with the expenditure of far less capital than is the case with British Railways.

When British Railways want to make a closure on financial grounds it would seem that the loss is made up very easily, as we have experienced over the Harwich Ferry and the Brightlingsea Railway. We are seldom allowed to see the other side of the coin and to know which concerns are making a profit.

In my own constituency Parkeston Quay is doing very well, if the private enterprise concerns bordering Parkeston Quay are any guide to what is happening at the quay, and the figures of the vast increases of trade and passengers through the Port of Parkeston mean anything at all. I am sure that it is grossly unfair that the railway authorities at Parkeston should be excluded from paying rates to the local council on the ground that railways over the country as a whole are making a loss.

That is why I ask for more flexibility. I feel that the railways are arguing that they make a loss overall, and although a profit is being made in one place or other the local people do not benefit. It is this lack of humanity which affects not only those who use the railways but those who work on them. How much better would be the morale of the railwaymen at Parkeston Quay, and in the whole area, if it were known that in that area they were making a profit and not the loss which we are continually told is made all over the country. Can the Minister tell us the latest developments in this case which I have taken up with his Ministry on a number of occasions over the last two years?

This is a slight digression from the main point which I was making about the Brightlingsea railway, but if my constituents are to suffer because British Railways are making a loss in one place surely it is fair that they should be helped if a profit is being made in another. To many of us in north-east Essex the story of the Brightlingsea railway has been a sad one. It was distressing enough when the railway was closed, but even more distressing has been the latest development. I hope that the Minister will be honest and frank with the people of Brightlingsea. They are justifiably angry particularly as the bus services and the facilities offered at present are in no way adequate to compensate for the loss of the railway. What is the true story about the tearing up of the track? I hope that the Minister will tell us.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Buck (Colchester)

No doubt the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Rids-dale) will be extremely grateful to him for having raised this matter. The principal part of it concerns the Brightlingsea line and is, therefore, in his constituency, but the gratitude will extend beyond the borders of his constituency and into mine. Many people at Colchester are affected. They view with considerable alarm the way in which this matter has been handled. My hon. Friend has dealt with the situation so ably that I need say no more. We regard the handling of the last stage of this sad affair as being an example of most extraordinarily cavalier treatment both of my hon. Friend and the people concerned as users of the Brightlingsea line.

This debate also touched on the matter of transport more generally in north-east Essex and I should like to say that in many respects transport between this part of the country and London has made excellent progress. My hon. Friend would agree that certain parts of the area are very well served. My own constituency has a magnificent train service, of which we are very proud. But there is from time to time a lack of flexibility in the attitude of British Railways, to which my hon. Friend has referred. The thing which is alarming us concerning transport, particularly into the north-east Essex area, is the possibility, which there appears to be, of some tampering with the fares structure, which may rise. There might be no longer, for example, cheap day returns.

I would exhort the Government to make absolutely sure that in things like cheap day returns, which enable people from my constituency of very limited means to come to London for the day and have a day out and to visit us in this place, and to have a day's shopping in London, the present fares policy of British Railways does not inflict greater hardship on these people. As the Minister wishes to reply, I will just reiterate my gratitude to my hon. Friend for initiating this debate on a constituency matter which also has wider aspects for transport to this part of England.

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

As you may be aware, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have been Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport for only a short time and I am now answering the second of what may be many Adjournment debates. One of the most striking impressions of my present office has been the enormous and widespread pressure by Conservative Members for the immediate and total reversal of the policy of the Conservative Minister of Transport.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King)

Order. Will the Parliamentary Secretary speak a little louder? The reporters find it difficult to hear.

Mr. Swingler

I will be very glad to repeat that. One of my striking impressions has been the widespread demand by Conservative Members for the immediate and total reversal of the policy of the Conservative Minister of Transport.

Mr. Ridsdale

rose—

Mr. Swingler

I will give way in a moment. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the tragic story, and he has been supported by his hon. Friends, of the closure of the Brightlingsea-Wivenhoe railway. In view of the tone of the hon. Member's speech, I must make it clear at the outset that this is a matter for which we have no responsibility. This tragic story to which he refers is one which arose in the last few months, but the main point about it is that it was a consent given by the previous Minister of Transport on the basis of the proposal brought forward by the Railways Board under the Beeching Plan, for which hon. Gentlemen opposite voted. After the statutory inquiries had been made, the previous Minister consented, the closure was carried out several months ago in June, and, moreover, the Railways Board, under the administration of the former Minister, was encouraged to proceed to a contract to dispose of the track and the assets. The first point, therefore, which I wish to make is that that was the situation that confronted us at the time when the right hon. Gentleman made his demand to the new Minister, within a few days of my right hon. Friend taking office, that he should forthwith reopen the railway service which his right hon. Friend had consented should be closed.

Mr. Ridsdale

I just want to make it plain to the Parliamentary Secretary that I am not interested in what he said about the past; I am concerned about promises his party made before the General Election and during the General Election, that it was the intention of the Labour Party to reopen the railway line.

Mr. Swingler

We come therefore to what I hold in my hands—the Labour Party's General Election manifesto, which says: Labour will draw up a national plan for transport, covering the national networks of road, rail, and canal communications properly co-ordinated with air, coastal shipping and port services. The new regional authorities will be asked to draw up transport plans for their own areas. While these are being prepared, major rail closures will be halted. That is what the Labour Party said at the General Election in its manifesto, and 16 days after my right hon. Friend took office he announced at this Dispatch Box the policy, which we are now implementing, that major rail closures will be halted pending inquiries into the future economic and transport planning required in the regions.

Moreover, my right hon. Friend brought forward a proposal for altering the administrative technique for dealing with these proposals of the Railway Board so that instead of the Board's proposals going straight away to the T.U.C.C.s, with the elaborate and expensive procedure for investigation, they are sifted first of all by the Minister of Transport so as to define those which we consider to be proposals for major rail closures and to invite the Railways Board to withdraw them.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith (Glasgow, Hillhead)

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the criteria on which the Minister decides whether or not it is a major railway?

Mr. Swingler

We shall have plenty of opportunity, I trust, to debate this, but the criteria were made very plainly by right hon. Friend in his statement on 4th November. It is a question whether the closure proposal is one which will jeopardise economic and regional development and whether the railway is one which might be essential and indispensable to carrying out transport plans. It is on that basis that the Minister would exercise his judgment.

The fact is that it took 16 days to consider and to consult on how that policy was to be carried out and how the pledge in the Labour Party General Election manifesto was to be implemented. This was done in the House on 4th November by my right hon. Friend, but of course it was clear that this could not be retrospective and that the statute put on the Statute Book by hon. and right hon. Members opposite provided no power for the revocation of ministerial consent and no power at all for going back on the closure proposals to which the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) had attached his name—like the proposal carried out this year to close the line which we are now discussing.

As for that line, that was a tragic story in the tragic past of the Tory Administration which the people disposed of on the 15th October. We wished to make a beginning. There were 127 closures to which the Conservative Minister of Transport had given his consent. It was of course utterly and physically impossible for the new Minister to review or declare himself, or go back on those proposals.

Unfortunately we had to accept that position and a new policy, explained by my right hon. Friend on 4th November, was carried out from that point. It meant therefore that where not only a service had been closed but the Railway Board had begun and completed negotiations for contracts to dispose of the track and assets we had to accept that position. My right hon. Friend said that where no commitments had been entered into by 4th November then from that point the Railways Board, in agreement with my right hon. Friend, would retain the track as long as it was necessary while regional surveys are carried out.

The hon. Gentleman complained about the alternative facilities available. So far as I am aware, the only point he has put to my Department is a demand for the reopening of the railway service, the closing of which concerned the former Minister of Transport. If there is dissatisfaction about the alternative facilities from the hon. Gentleman or the local authorities concerned—and if they have any proposals on how they can be varied or further measures taken to improve them—my Department will be pleased to consider them in a constructive and swift manner to see what can be done.

So far as I am aware, we have received no such proposals and no volume of complaint. However, if there are such feelings we will be pleased to consider anything that can be done, by administrative means or by negotiation, to provide better alternative services for the people of the area.

We have made it plain in our policy that through the new planning machinery being established by the Government we intend to survey the transport needs of the country. If it should become clear that that involves in the future the restoration of rail services in some areas which have been totally deprived of rail services, we will then ask the House for the necessary powers, to see that action may be taken.

Mr. Ridsdale

Following what the Minister said about alternative services, does he consider it right that a seaside town like Brightlingsea should be without proper bus services on Bank Holidays and Sundays?

Mr. Swingler

I am not aware that that is the situation, but I would be obliged if the hon. Gentleman or the local authorities in the area would put to the Ministry or the Traffic Commissioners any specific complaints they have about transport deficiencies; and then we will give the matter our speedy consideration.

As to the rating of Parkeston Quay in Harwich, this is not a matter for my Department but for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I understand that representations have been made on this point and I am informed by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that proposals have been put forward to alter the rating assessments of British Railways Board property in the district. At the moment these proposals are the subject of investigation and negotiation and I am informed that the Board is now carrying out investigations into the statutory history of this case and the charging powers relating to the docks to try to enable it to bring the matter to a conclusion either by agreement or before the appropriate court.

I understand, however, that the valuation officer has lodged objections to the proposals put forward, but if agreement cannot be reached by negotiation the next step will be for the matter to go to the local valuation court, from which there is a right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal and then, if necessary, to the Court of Appeal on a point of law.

The matter is somewhat complicated and is really one which the hon. Gentleman should take up with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who will endeavour to let him know as soon as possible about developments arising from these negotiations. The less I say about this at the moment the better because this is, in a way—since it may come before the Valuation Court—a matter which is sub judice.

I will conclude by saying that if the hon. Gentleman will look at the roads programme for the area he will see that a considerable amount of—

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

Adjourned at half-past Four o'clock.