HC Deb 15 March 1967 vol 743 cc671-82

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

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East)

In the British Railways network map issued today there is the statement that The system must not only provide freight and passenger services which are commercially sound but must also meet the needs of social and regional policy as decided by the Government I want particularly to stress the word "regional" because tonight I want to contend that British Rail in recent years has not paid any consideration to the Government's regional policies for the north of England when deciding what development shall or shall not take place in that area. It is not making such considerations very significant in its decisions being taken at the moment; and furthermore, it does not appear likely to take into consideration the Government's policies for the region, in future unless some Ministerial intervention is made.

There are two major development areas in the north, the Northern Development Area and that in central Scotland. What disturbed some of us a few years ago was when in British Railways Map 21 it was made clear that the east coast run to Scotland, particularly that part between Newcastle and central Scotland, was not to be developed. At that time, some of us were already becoming apprehensive that in British Railways' thinking Newcastle-upon-Tyne was not terribly significant in terms of future development. In the last few years, when we have seen the tremendous speed-up of, for example, the rail services between Manchester and London, which has brought those two cities nearer together, Newcastle, and, for that matter, parts of Scotland relatively speaking have been getting further away.

More recently, we have seen what I have described elsewhere as a series of Beeching-type hatchet operations which, added together, make a pattern. A few years ago, the South Tyneside electric line was terminated and replaced by diesels which many warned would give slower, less frequent and less satisfactory services than the electric trains. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will probably want to mention that.

We learned a lesson from South Tyneside north of the river and when we saw the plans for the end of the electric services there, and we fought them from the beginning, not with any conspicuous degree of success I regret to say. But we fought because we forecast, correctly, that when the electric service terminated, this month, the new service would be less satisfactory. We have already seen that the trains are slower and less convenient for the travelling public, especially mothers who want to put perambulators on the train. But, more important than that, most of the stations along that line will have a 33 per cent. cut in the number of trains which stop in the towns and villages in future.

All this rundown of services is taking place in the middle of a conurbation which is steadily becoming more integrated and in which the Minister of Housing has been considering creating a large new city of a million people. Therefore, if the old electric lines and the old electric stock on the system were out-of-date, in terms of future development of this conurbation it would have been a good thing to think in terms of increased capital investment and improved services, instead of providing the kind of diesel cast-offs which other areas have found redundant.

More recently still—and I do not intend to say much about this, because there was an Adjournment debate on it only about a week ago—there has been the proposed transfer of staff from the chief accountant's department at Newcastle to York and Peterborough. This was a decision taken by British Railways, a responsible public body, shifting staff from a development area to outside a development area, in complete contradiction to everything which other Government Departments are trying to do, which is to shift work to development areas.

Then we had the action this week to shut down the British Railways wagon sheet factory at Newcastle. There is no time now, but it would be interesting to go through the long and protracted correspondence which I have had with Sir Stanley Raymond, Chairman of British Railways Board, on this subject. In all sincerity, I must say that I have yet to see convincing accountancy evidence that there was an economic case for shutting down this factory, but, even taking British Railways' own argument that future wagon sheet coverings would be pvc/nylon sheets, in terms of regional policy British Railways would have been well advised to have established a brand new factory for this purpose in the Newcastle area rather than concentrating the work and shifting it to Horwich and Worcester outside the development area.

As for motive power depôt staff, I have never seen so many disillusioned and frustrated men as those railwaymen who work in these depôts in the Northumberland area. There is a possibility, or a probability, of the closure of the Heaton power depot and the run-down of staff at Gosforth and Blyth, and a transferring of the staff to places outside the development area, possibly in the West Riding of Yorkshire.

I am fully aware that steam trains are going—we are not Luddites who do not want to see modernisation on British Rail. We believe that Britain Rail's future planning was in no way coordinated with the Government's economic objectives for the North of England. It should be planning investment and expansion rather than constantly telescoping and running down, and moving staff out of the region.

I do not know if British Rail is aware of this, but the Northern Region contains 5.7 per cent. of the insured working population of the country. Yet, the Industrial Development Certificates granted to the region by the Government account for over 20 per cent. of the new jobs being created. We welcome this. I believe that the region is unique in that it is a region where this year more houses will be built in both the private and public sector than last year. In terms of this rapid expansion in private sector housing, it is doing distinctly better than any other part of the United Kingdom.

The point is that there is a tremendous economic future being planned for the region by the Government, yet at the same time British Rail is taking decisions which presume just the opposite. I know that the argument is constantly raised by British Rail that it has to cut back on uneconomic services. I know of no public transport system which is economic. If public transport road users had to pay for all the capital costs of road development, for renewal and repair, and for traffic control, there would not be a public service operator left in the country.

We object to the accountancy yardstick being used for this region, when it is based upon figures collected by British Railways in the period 1962–63–64–65, when it was in the depths of a recession. We want British Rail to re-cast its policies and to gear its efforts to the expansion of the region which the Government are planning. If we had used this Beeching yardstick in this region in the 1930s, when freight was light, because unemployment was heavy, and when the population was leaving the area, we would have butchered the railway system and in the 1940s the region could not have responded to the challenge that the war effort demanded of it.

Precisely the same historical sense should be shown by British Railways now. It should look at the Northern Region as an expanding economic area and see it as one of the most energetic and expansive areas of the United Kingdom. When hon. Members raise this point with the Ministry—and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be more helpful—we are told by officials that this is a managerial problem and beyond their direct control, it being a semi-autonomous public corporation and all that. When we go to British Railways and complain, it says that it has certain statutory obligations, certain rules and regulations, determined by the Legislature and the Ministry, and that we should no blame it for these decisions.

This kind of "buck-passing" has to stop. About a fortnight ago the Newcastle Journal carried an editorial which was extremely sensible. It said that it was right that Members of Parliament should complain about a run-down in their areas when they were hoping for development, but that they should stop directing their fire at British Railways, and direct it instead at the Government.

It is not my intention to embarrass the Government tonight. It is precisely because of the success of the Government's economic policies in this region that we now ask them to face the responsibilities which they have in the Ministry of Transport for at least making sure that British Railways "get with it" and realise that there is a future in this region. We cannot plan regional policy effectively on the basis of British Railways acting independently and ignoring the long-term prospects of Government policy.

We believe that the Minister was right to establish a conurbation transport authority to co-ordinate regional and other transport in this country. I think that this was the first major step towards improving transport services on Tyneside and the northern area generally, but, in the meantime, while these bodies are being established, and doing their research and investigations, there is a need for the Minister to indicate, through whatever channels are available—and I always think that whatever the legal position the usual channels are the most effective—the need to halt rundowns, closures, cut downs and restrictions in development, and to say to British Railways, "We have future economic plans for this region which make it advisable for you to recast your policies for the North of England". In other words, there is a need for railway policy to knit in with the Government's regional policies.

I have tried to put the case as reasonably and dispassionately as possible. I am using language and phraseology which is radically different from that understandably used by the railway workers on Tyneside. They are the most frustrated workers that I have met in recent months, and one might say in passing that something needs to be done to improve labour relations in this industry in the area, because things have been far from satisfactory during the last few months.

There is considerable feeling in the area, not only among workers, but consumers, because here we have a corps of men and women who are trying to develop a line of policy in one direction, with a public body which my constituents see as the Government, whatever the constitutional position may be, doing something quite different.

This is why an early day Motion was put on the Notice Paper, supported by almost every back-bencher in that region, expressing deep concern about the developments which were taking place. I have no desire to overstate my case. It would be unfair and wrong to do so, but I say in all sincerity that one cannot effectively plan the region's economy if the transport authorities do not knit in with the economic policies which are being developed.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop (South Shields)

I propose to intervene for only a moment or two to confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) has said, and in particular to emphasise the point that we want an efficient and modernised transport system on Tyneside and in the North-East, because our experience on the south side of the river is as my hon. Friend has indicated.

We had the change-over from electric to diesel. We did not altogether object to that. It was done on grounds of economy, and we could understand it, but since then we have had a steady rundown of the services available. There is no service on Sunday, there are no late trains, and so on.

There has been a general deterioration of the stations and of the facilities available for passengers, with the result that we cannot expect to attract the kind of traffic which we ought to be able to attract in an area like this where there is a considerable number of men and women going to work, going back home, and also travelling to the coast for recreation. I emphasise that our experience on the south side of the river amply confirms what my hon. Friend said, and I hope that action will be taken very soon to deal with the situation.

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West) I intervene to emphasise this fact of a public body acting in what I say is direct conflict with the Government's policy on regional development. I want to make particular reference to the movement of the Chief Accountant's department from Newcastle down to York with the merger of the Eastern and North Eastern regions of British Railways.

There is no good reason for any movement of staff from the development area to York, which is outside it. Though the headquarters of the old L.N.E.R. had been at York for generations the chief accountant's department, with a hundred or more jobs involved, had always been in Newcastle. I do not get any pleasure at all when my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour speaks of only 100 jobs; those jobs are extremely important to an area with over 4 per cent. unemployment at the present time.

I seldom agree with the Newcastle Journal, but I agree with the leader to which reference has been made. If we get the stock answer from Minister and junior Ministers that this is a matter for the management of British Railways, it is high time that the Government examined the legislation to see whether they can have more say in the management than is now possible.

12.1 a.m.

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

I have to thank my hon. Friends for the reasonable way in which they have put their case tonight, as they did last week on some of these issues. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) that the very success of the Government's economic policy for the northern region is one of the main causes of his anxiety to ensure that our transport policies march hand-in-hand with the needs of an expanding region. An indication of the Government's concern that economic and transport policies should march together is the presence this evening of my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. This shows the significance and importance we attach to ensuring that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing.

I think that I dealt adequately in a previous debate with the movement of staff. I concede that 100 jobs are to be moved from Newcastle to York, but I am sure that my hon. Friends will accept it from me that there are also 1,000 jobs being moved from London to York. This is all part and parcel of the re-organisation of the whole region, stretching from beyond Newcastle down to London: I sympathise with the personal problems of those involved in the movement, and I know that the unions concerned are at present negotiating with the management on the subject. Nevertheless, the movement must be seen in perspective.

The wagon sheet factory is a matter for management. What is happening there is a result of technological change—change from the use of tarpaulins to lightweight one-man p.v.c. sheets.

Reduction in motive power staff is occurring in various parts of the country in and out of the development areas, and results from the change from steam traction to other forms of traction.

The rest of my hon. Friends' anxieties were connected with the need for transport to be adequate for the area as a whole, both internally and externally. Rail transport has three vital roles to play in the integrated transport system which is being planned for the country. These are, first of all, high-speed passenger services between main conurbations and city centres; secondly, highspeed movement of full train-load freight and, thirdly, commuter services into conurbations.

All three rôles exist on Tyneside, and I shall hope to persuade my hon. Friends that we do look at Tyneside in relation to the rest of the country; and that British Rail is to the fore in providing services to match the needs of this important development area. It is very important that transport should match these needs. My Minister is well aware of this, and anxious to ensure that the northern region has a fair crack of the whip.

Let me deal, first, with the external services—and with the passenger side to begin with. Passenger services between King's Cross and Tyneside are among the finest in the country. Through daytime services between Newcastle and London have recently been increased from 11 to 13 each day in each direction, and four of these are scheduled to take less than four hours—in fact, including a record 230 minutes—for the 268-mile journey.

These services have benefited over the past few years from track relaying and strengthening of the permanent way with long welded rails, and modern signalling equipment; and, with the introduction of diesel traction, we have been able to maintain higher train speeds which must be welcome to the traveller, whether on business or pleasure.

So far as freight is concerned, a freightliner depot at Follingsby, near Jarrow, is now under construction and should be ready to go into operation in the autumn of this year. Services are planned to run initially to London, Glasgow, and Birmingham, but there will be capacity for further services to other places according to traffic demands which it is hoped will build up in the future. The new open terminal policy of the National Union of Railwaymen will help forward the rapid expansion of traffic and I am sure that this development will bring great benefits to Tyneside. The freightliner development follows the streamlining and rationalisation of the freight sundries services which the Board has been actively pursuing.

As for what I might term the internal area, the commuting situation on Tyneside has not developed to the stage where rail services are the main means of commuter transport, and although both the north and south sides of the Tyne are served by railway services to the coast, these have not been fully utilised. The former electric services along the south side were dieselised about two years ago, and the north bank services are now also being dieselised. But, these services are run at a heavy loss, and it has been impossible to justify the capital costs of replacing the life-expired electrical equipment. This would have been substantial; the capital cable renewal alone would have cost £100,000.

It has been suggested that the Railways Board might defer dieselisation until the setting up of a conurbation transport authority, but the Board has felt unable to agree to further postponement which, incidentally, would have added substantially to its deficit. The operating loss alone is running at around £120,000 a year and dieselisation will halve this, while overall services will be only fractionally slower than the electric services. The round trip journey will take some 64 minutes, as compared with the 58 minutes of the electric service. This is very little slower, and I hope that the fears expressed about the new service will turn out to be unfounded, and I hope that some people will enjoy a better service once it starts.

There will, of course, be difficulties along the line, so to speak, but British Railways is trying to improve and extend its services to meet the needs of the travelling public. There is, of course, the other side of the coin; the closure of some services. The Board has found it necessary to propose for closure a number of stations served by stopping trains. In particular, the Newcastle-Carlisle line, where the Minister exercised her discretion as to resulting hardship, and consented to the closure of only seven out of the 10 stations proposed.

In the case of the Newcastle-Berwick line, there is a proposal currently before the Minister to close four of the 11 stations on the main east coast line. She will take full account of the advice of the T.U.C.C. and Regional Economic Planning Council before giving her decision. Both main lines are marked in black on the map which was published today as part of the basic railway network for development. I think that this will relieve a great deal of anxiety in the area. Under the Beeching-Marples philosophy, the future would have looked pretty bleak for the country as a whole and, of course, especially for the northern region.

The map published today gives fresh hope to the railwaymen and to the whole of the railway industry. We place great emphasis on the advice—although, of course, the decision must rest with the Minister—of the Planning Council on any issue of closure. The Council is able to take a very broad and long-sighted view of any situation—of future development as well as existing need—and the Regional Transport Coordinating Committee will be an important weapon in ensuring that the transport needs of the whole Northern Region are looked after. I hope that my hon. Friends will go from here tonight knowing that the Ministry is well aware of the importance of Tyneside and the need to provide it with adequate transport.

Mr. Bob Brown

My hon. Friend referred to trade union consultation which had taken place on this merger proposal. It is true that such consultation did take place on the 1,000 jobs moving from London to York but at the time I tabled my last Question on this matter no trade union consultation whatever had taken place about the 100 jobs moving from Newcastle to York.

Mr. Morris

I spelt out part of the situation regarding trade union consultation in the last debate. There was consultation between the T.S.S.A. and my right hon. Friend about the issue of principle involved—the amalgamation of the two regions. Once the decision on amalgamation had been taken, the choice of where the new regional headquarters was to be was one for the Rail- ways Board. I understand that consultations are proceeding between the unions and the Board on this issue, which is one for management decision. But I assure my hon. Friend that, once a decision was taken in the national interest about amalgamation, within that new policy there is adequate machinery for the fullest possible consultation between the unions and the management.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock.