HC Deb 25 May 1966 vol 729 cc679-90

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

1.23 a.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrew, West)

I wish to raise the question of certain rail closures which are pending in Renfrewshire, and especially the stations of Lochwinnoch, Kilbarchan and Milliken Park. I thank my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his unfailing courtesy to me on this question in the past and for being present at this late hour.

A large number of stations in Renfrewshire were scheduled for closure in the past, and they were not closed. We are very pleased about this, but certain exceptions were made and some closures have taken place and others are pending. They are taking place against a triple background.

First, there is the question of development in Renfrewshire. Hearings are taking place this week to discuss the future development of Renfrewshire, involving new towns and new industries. These future projects have to be kept in mind when considering the situation. All this involves the question of an integrated transport system. Therefore, this is the wrong time to be closing any stations in this area in Renfrewshire.

Secondly, the situation has to be considered against the background of the whole complex and difficult problem of Glasgow and the industrial conurbation of the Clyde Valley. Renfrewshire is involved in a Glasgow transportation study which is now in progress. For this reason, too, therefore, this is the wrong time to proceed with these closures.

Thirdly, the situation has to be examined against the background of the policy statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. We were told that there would be no closures unless new enterprising and imaginative ways of keeping the line open had been tried and failed. I do not know what has been tried in terms of these stations. There has been nothing new or imaginative so far. We were told also that closures would not be allowed which would interfere with planning or would cause social or economic damage. One recognises the social, economic and planning problems which closures cause. They would not agree to the closure of lines just because they did not meet certain profit margins.

This, of course, has been the basis of the main arguments put forward by British Railways for the closures. We are, therefore, dealing with a situation in which, in the words of the Minister of Transport in the House on 18th May, we are dealing with a railway system which has certain irremovable social obligations to the community…—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 1355.] It is those social obligations with which I am concerned.

In the first case—for I am dividing it into two—I take the loop line through the villages of Kilbarchan and Lochwinnoch and through the Ayrshire village of Kilbirnie. While that is not in my constituency I should say that I have consulted very closely my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) on the problem of Kilbirnie, and it is closely tied up with any comments I may wish to make about Lochwinnoch and Kilbarchan. In this case the main argument which has been adduced has been the cost of maintaining the loop line. A figure of £115,000 has been quoted to me earlier by British Railways as the cost, but I have heard a possible figure of £70,000 mentioned. Indeed, the cost appears to be rising as pressure against the closure is maintained, but it would now appear that these figures are in any case irrelevant because we have heard that the line is to be retained for freight traffic.

Is this the case? Because if the line is to be retained for freight traffic the main argument for closure based on cost goes, because the main argument was the cost not of the station but of maintaining the line. I want an answer particularly to that question. These stations have not so far closed. If they are to remain for freight traffic I can see no reason for their not being operated for passenger traffic, too, because we should not then be involved in major cost, and, indeed, we would be saved the £3,000 estimated cost of reopening the substitute station at Lochside. Therefore, both there and at Kilbarchan there is opportunity of fulfilling the obligations advocated by the Minister of Transport.

Certainly, the proposed alternative of a bus to Lochwinnoch and only two commuter trains in the morning and evening do not meet the needs of this community. There has been a grave suspicion on the part of many people in the past—I am not blaming the present Government for this—that the services have been allowed to deteriorate so as to pave the way for closure. I believe that the right and positive policy would be to reopen increased passenger traffic and freight traffic from both Lochwinnoch and Killarchan.

At any rate, the alternatives proposed are inadequate. From conversations I have had there is no doubt about that. The proposed future development of Lochwinnoch should be brought into consideration, the possibility of a new town being built there and in Killarchan. The question of the nature of the village and its unsuitability, as anyone who knows the village will agree, for increased bus traffic through that narrow and very beautiful street.

In this connection, the proposed alternative here of a bus on to Johnstone is just not "on". The idea that people will take a through bus all the way to Paisley and Glasgow and not take a train is just not "on". By the closing already of Milliken Park station we have pushed many people to walk down to Kilbarchan station as an alternative, and we are proposing to close Kilbarchan. So the two examples I am using appear to be very closely linked, and what we are now proposing is to close, also, the alternative which people have been using.

I should like to quote a letter from a lady representing an organisation there. She writes: In conclusion, I would add that during December of last year I approached British Railways in Glasgow with a view to our 'Rural' having their annual outing by train, and asking suggestions of different places they could offer to take us, but was regretfully told this could not be done. About four or five weeks ago I received through the post a circular from British Railways suggesting it was better and more economical if we were arranging an outing to go by rail. That is typical of the reaction of the villagers there.

It is worth pointing out that the Kilbarchan receipts have risen between February, 1964, and March of this year by 40 per cent., from 872 to 1,352 per month. There was a rapid jump in the last month from 1,107 to 1,352, which shows the effect of the existing closure of Milliken Park.

I do not think that the line should close, but, if it does, the alternatives are quite inadequate and unimaginative. In closing Milliken Park, it is clear that British Railways have made a mistake. In the letters that I have received from British Railways and even from the Ministry of Transport, there are indications that there is a suspicion in their minds that such a mistake has occurred. The line is in use. It is a fairly busy line, and it runs right alongside a new housing scheme at Little Corseford. It would be an ideal situation for a new station if none existed.

The receipts are quite extraordinary. I have not seen such a dramatic increase anywhere. There were 179 tickets issued at Milliken Park in February, 1964, and there were 1,232 issued in March, 1966. That represents an eightfold increase, and there has been a threefold increase in the number of season tickets issued. The reason for that is the housing scheme that has gone on alongside it, but that is only about two-thirds occupied. Out of 650 houses, only 400 are at present occupied. A third of the scheme still has to go up, which will mean a further addition to the already dramatic increase in the number of passengers carried. On top of that, within 10 or 15 minutes' walking distance from Milliken Park there is to be a new housing scheme at Spateston. That will comprise 1,000 houses, and three-quarters of the occupants of them will be Glasgow commuters.

Receipts are eight times up, with a quarter of the Spateston and Little Corseford schemes completed, making an annual passenger number of 15,000. That number has risen from 2,000 in a year, and it is reasonable to expect that it will grow to about 50,000 by 1969-70. From my discussions with British Railways, I should have thought that that was a satisfactory number, even on the basis of their economic costings.

There is no case for this closure to take place, and I do not want British Railways to have to suffer the costs that would be occasioned by closing and then reopening it when they eventually see their error. The line is already breaking even. I have been told by British Railways: Our staff and terminal costs alone at Milliken Park are of the order of £2,000 per annum before even thinking about a contribution to track and signalling expenses or train running costs. In any case, they have to go up; so the costs are £2,000. But, in telling me that receipts have gone up by about 345 per cent over. 1963, British Railways say that they are of the order of £2,000 in 1965, so that by last year the station was breaking even. There is no immediate argument for the closure at all.

I reminded the Minister that in a letter to me the Ministry wrote, If as a result of the Greater Glasgow Transportation Study it would eventually turn out that a station here had a real part to play in the transport system of the area, she —that is, the Minister of Transport— would not expect the Board to resist the restoration of services. This is quite pointless. The station has been closed for a month and it would be a simple business to reopen it. Reopening should occur now before further closure and before traffic damage is done. The alternative of travel to Johnstone in the same town by bus and then transfer to a train is not "on" in the area. People will not do this, no matter how neat it looks on a map. The combined fare will be 4s. 7d. a person, by bus and train, to Glasgow and back.

I have complimented the Minister on her dealings with me, but I must emphasise that British Railways will not meet us. We have asked on many occasions for a meeting on this closure—the town council, local tenants' associations and myself have asked. I hope that the Ministry will bring to bear such pressure, as they can to ensure that we get such a meeting to thrash out the whole question.

I expect a better answer tonight from the Ministry than I have had so far because on the second matter I feel that we have an unanswerable case and on the first matter there is a case for thinking and for an imaginative approach. I want an assurance, therefore, that there will be further approaches regarding an improvement in the loop line or proper alternatives before the closure of the loop line. I expect a statement from British Railways about the immediate reopening of Milliken Park in line with the Minister's view about social policy—and not only social policy but the existing economic viability.

I have also been told by the experts of the roads division that the increased road traffic as a result of these closures would add only about the equivalent of two years' natural growth, but two years' natural growth means that in two years' time we shall have had four years' natural growth, and no one can predict the road traffic situation which we are likely to see in the period to 1970, which we are now pulling down to 1968. Certainly, none of us can predict this in terms of Renfrewshire, which is subject to development of all kinds. I therefore hope for a sympathetic reply from the Ministry.

1.38 a.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson (Renfrew, East)

I am glad of this opportunity to support the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) in his plea, particularly in relation to Milliken Park station.

I emphasise that while this station is in his constituency, this development group is of an entirely new scheme concentrated on an old village in my constituency. These people are entirely dependent on the local transport, because this is a completely new community. How lucky, one thought, that the community would have an existing station on its very doorstep—Milliken Park. When the train service is stopped it means that they go literally in the opposite direction to get back to where they were. This accounts for the very high fare which the hon. Member mentioned.

Like the hon. Member, I have had much correspondence with the Ministry on this subject. I have had many letters from my constituents. It is a fallacy to say that the bus service fills the gap n any way. Not only does it go in 'he opposite direction in taking the majority of people to their work in Glasgow, thereby adding to the cost, but it does not run in definite conjunction with certain trains, and this is particularly true for those who are not members of the commuter population but are perhaps going to do their shopping.

In view of the development of Renfrewshire, which we all know will take place, we have to recognise that the existing community of 400 houses will grow to a community of 600 houses with, along the road, a further development even larger in size. When we add these two together, when we accept the figures which my hon. Friend has quoted, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will understand that it is the future position which we are concerned about and that he will feel able to reopen this station, which already exists and has the services which the public have shown that they wish to use.

1.40 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris)

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) has raised this subject, because it gives me, once again, the opportunity to illustrate to the House how the procedure for considering closure proposals operates. I should congratulate my hon. Friend on the tenacity with which he has fought these matters. Since I came to my present office in January, we have had a number of meetings and a large amount of correspondence. There has also been correspondence with the hon. Lady. My hon. Friend has certainly fought like a tiger on this issue.

In some respects, I shall tonight be re-emphasising what my hon. Friend has learned from me or direct from the Board in correspondence, but this is inevitable in presenting the arguments on both sides fully. It may give several hon. Members who are interested a greater insight into individual circumstances. I do not intend to take up time in dealing with the future policy setting of closures as a whole. My hon. Friend has indicated my right hon. Friend's views. This matter is central to the Government's whole railway policy and it will be made clear in the Minister's forthcoming White Paper.

I believe that the general outline of our procedure for dealing with closures and the role of T.U.C.C.s in advising on hardship and the important part now played by the Economic Planning Councils will be largely familiar to the House. Instead, I should like to concentrate on the specific issues raised in the debate.

The first point is that these proposals were not considered in isolation. I have said on other occasions that we try always to consider closure proposals in relation to the general railway and transport pattern of the area and the history of the closures with which my hon. Friend is concerned bears this out. Milliken Park, Lochwinnoch and Kilbarchan were all considered in the context of a wide range of services using St. Enoch terminus, Glasgow. As hon. Members may recall, it was as part of his decision on these proposals as a whole that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Tom Fraser) refused permission in present circumstances for the closure of the East Kilbride, Kilmacolm and Canal lines.

I should like to deal only with Milliken Park, because it was this station about which my hon. Friend was most concerned. It is a station on the main Glasgow—Ayr line, on which the services are being retained. When he came to look at this station last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton had before him the advice of the T.U.C.C., who had reported that no hardship would be caused to the small number of users of the station. He also had the benefit of the views of the Scottish Economic Planning Council and the Scottish Development Department.

Even so, he and my predecessor in this role, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) went carefully into the position and all the alternative facilities which would be available to these users and they concluded that, because of the frequent bus services through to Glasgow, and also the possibility for transfer to rail at Johnstone, facilities were adequate, even if they might cost a little more to the user.

My right hon. Friend therefore gave consent to the closure in December last year, without requiring any extra bus services as a condition. This is the statutory position. Consent has been given to closure under the Transport Act of 1962. The hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) is familiar with that Act, because she voted for it. From then on, the date of closure and any question of reopening became essential matters of judgment for the Railways Board in the light of their commercial judgment. I stress that as we are now looking at this matter in the post-closure period, these are essentially matters for the Railways Board.

My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the implications of the large-scale development now under way at Milliken Park. We are grateful to him for doing this and it is right that we should be constantly reviewing our decisions in this way in the constantly changing world of transport.

Because of the scale of this development and the importance which my right hon. Friend attaches to it, I asked the Board to take a special look at the prospects for Milliken Park Station to see whether, after allowing for every possible economy, it considered that it might be viable to retain. The Board gave the matter a very thorough re-examination but, as my hon. Friend knows, it could not, in the end, justify retention.

This is, of course, a matter coming directly within the Board's responsibility. It is a matter for its judgment and decision. There are no reasons, either of hardship or of regional economic planning, which would give the Minister the right to seek to override its judgment. But because of my hon. Friend's concern, I have studied the Board's explanation carefully indeed and I am bound to say that I think it was right. I have also consulted the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) and he would not dissent, either. I will go into some of the reasons.

My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West said that Milliken Park is near viability and that, as the development proceeded, it would have become profitable. I agree that this is an important issue. Use of Milliken Park certainly rose in the last year before closure and some of this rise can be attributed to commuters from the new development. But the crucial question is by how much more could it have been expected to increase.

The Board has concluded that in its judgment it would not have increased by enough to basically alter the financial future. It has calculated that the two-thirds or so of the houses on the Little Coresford Estate so far occupied have produced about 25 more regular users, and these were the houses nearer the station. The Board estimates that another 15 might have come from the remaining houses. But it does not expect, and I agree with the Board in this, that the Spateston development would have greatly added to the number.

I am sure that nearly all the travellers towards Glasgow from that area not using their own transport would have chosen to go to Glasgow by bus, either right through or changing to rail at Johnstone. They would have preferred this to a walk of up to 20 minutes to the station. In saying this, I realise that there may sometimes be difficulty in boarding the through buses on the A 737, but it seems likely that, as the estate is developed, the bus operators would find it worthwhile to seek a licence to operate from it direct.

My hon. Friend suggested that by closing Milliken Park the Board will lose nearly all its revenue because people will not be willing to transfer from bus to rail at Johnstone. This, too, is clearly a crucial factor. It is central to the Board's commercial decision. If travellers do use this route, the Board can keep most of its revenue but save all its costs. Last year receipts at Milliken Park barely equalled the direct station costs, with no contribution to track costs or signalling.

No one can yet be certain what Milliken Park travellers will do, but the Board believes that bus to Johnstone and then rail will prove very attractive. It will save up to 17 minutes on a 47-minute journey, assuming that the bus will leave on time, and in some cases it will be as quick as the train journey from Milliken Park, and take travellers to a more convenient point in Glasgow. I have asked the Board to find out what route the Milliken Park travellers finally adopt and I will keep my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady fully informed. Because of the tenacity and vigour of my hon. Friend in dealing with this matter, I have familiarised myself with the details of this issue and have asked for this special study to be made.

On the question of congestion on the A737, I do not wish to imply that there is no congestion on this road. We have obtained a special report from the chief road engineer in Scotland, and he has confirmed that, by comparison with other roads, this road is not overloaded, and that any increase in traffic resulting from the transfer of rail passengers would not really be significant.

So much for the present. The Board has looked very carefully at my hon. Friend's points but, as a matter of comrnercial judgment, has decided to close Milliken Park and to concentrate its efforts on providing a good reliable service from the railhead at Johnstone. This is the Board's responsibility, and we could not challenge its decision.

But what of the future? What safeguards are there against this station ever being needed again at any time in the future? I would not like my hon. Friend or the hon. Lady to think that, now that the closure has been effected, my right hon. Friend will take no more interest in transport services in the area. On the contrary, she has deliberately had the attention of those responsible for the Greater Glasgow Transportation Survey drawn to this particular closure. Until the results of this important survey are available, we simply cannot foresee the transport needs of the area with complete certainty.

I said in my letter to my hon. Friend of 27th April, and I repeat the assurance now, that, should these studies reveal a future need for the station, it would be possible to reopen it. I have no doubt that the Board would be willing to reinstate it in those circumstances, as it is reinstating Lochside. As a final safeguard, I should add that the Board could not dispose of the site of the station without the Minister's specific consent. These are specific steps which we have taken in this matter.

I have concentrated on Milliken Park because I know that this is what most concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West, but I want also to deal with the situation at Lochwinnoch and Kilbarchan. The circumstances at these two stations are quite different from Milliken Park. They are not on the main line but on a loop line ten miles long but parallel with and very close to the main line. This loop is one of the curiosities of railway history, a gigantic and costly monument to an age which did not believe in planning. The Board intend to close the loop completely. By so doing, it will save itself, and the taxpayer, no less than £115,000 per year, over half of which is directly attributable to the passenger service.

Consent was given to the closure of Lochwinnoch and Kilbarchan—and of Kilbirnie, the third station on the loop—by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton at the same time as for Milliken Park. In this case also, of course, he had the advice of the economic planning council and of the T.U.C.C. The committee had advised that considerable hardship would result from these station closures because of the extra journey time for the 100 or more commuters using each of them who would have to transfer to bus and who would be subject to traffic delays.

It was with this advice particularly in mind that my right hon. Friend required, as a condition of closure, the provision of——

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

Adjourned at seven minutes to Two o'clock.