HC Deb 07 November 1967 vol 753 cc983-96

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

10.15 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes (Ashford)

In raising the subject of the Kent and East Sussex Railway I would begin with an apology to the Parliamentary Secretary. He was good enough to agree to a meeting tomorrow to discuss this subject with myself and other colleagues, many of whom have shown a close interest in the subject. Meanwhile, this Adjournment debate, which, in view of the volume of Parliamentary interest in the matter, I sought as a matter of urgency, has arisen. On balance, I think it probably best that the Parliamentary Secretary and I should talk this out publicly, but I tender my apologies to him for any discourtesy of which he may feel I am guilty.

This railway has a long and fascinating history and to tell the whole of recent events would take a long time. I must confine myself to the essentials in order to remain within the compass of this short debate. The railway is that running between Robertsbridge and Tenterden, a distance of 12½ miles. As part of the British Railways system its passenger service ended in 1954 and its freight service in 1961. Since then the Kent and East Sussex Railway Association, which boasts 1,200 members has been working to reopen it. In 1965, the purchase price for this railway was agreed at £36,000 and a deposit was paid in 1966, and the application made to the Ministry of Transport for a Light Railway Order.

All the objections to this were heard, or so it was thought, at the public inquiry in March, 1967. The Ministry's inspector who conducted the inquiry recommended, with certain reservations, that the line might be reopened, and in April the Association was able to report that the full price for the enterprise had been raised. Locomotives and rolling stock had been assembled, track maintenance had been advanced, all due, I would like to stress, entirely to the efforts of members of the Association. It was to operate the line partly as a public service, partly as a freight service and partly as a joy ride for enthusiasts.

In September, the Minister clobbered these expectations by announcing her refusal to grant the Light Railway Order. She did so on three main grounds. The first was doubt as to whether sufficient financial reserves existed to meet possible emergencies, secondly, fear lest railway level crossings, particularly the A.21 crossing at Robertsbridge, would then or subsequently hinder traffic, and, thirdly, fear lest, 10 or 20 years ahead, the weight of traffic might require dual carriageways, thus involving over-bridges and a cost of some thousands of pounds to taxpayers.

In a nutshell, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary agrees, I have given the objections fairly. The Minister felt that the inconvenience would outweight the advantages. At this stage, I and a great number of other hon. Members found ourselves involved, due to the interest and enthusiasm of members of the Association. In passing, I am bound to record that the reactions of leading members of the Association to this decision and the way that they swung into action persuaded me that they were surprisingly well-equipped, and I think that the Parliamentary Secretary will not deny this, to meet any emergencies or contingencies which might arise on the railway.

I have practically had to open a separate office to deal with the correspondence arising out of this, and I believe the Parliamentary Secretary has had to do something of the same kind. At least, I am persuaded that these people mean business. There is a disposition by the Ministry, or a section of the Ministry, to think that this railway will serve mainly the tourist trade, and not a very serious purpose. I could contest this if I had time, but this at least might be said. Here, we are exercising ourselves about recreation for people in the countryside and elsewhere, yet we are about to consider a very large Government Bill on this subject, upon which it would be out of order for me to comment upon now. What possible sense does it make to destroy an amenity like this and then to pass through Parliament a Bill designed to recreate for people the sort of amenity that this railway provides?

I come now to two separate and distinct issues which are the nub of the affair. The first, and, perhaps, the least important in principle, is the response of the Association to the Ministry's objections. Taking the difficulties on the roads which might arise 10 or 20 years hence and accepting this point, as it does, the Association suggested that there might be a light railway order for a limited period of, say, ten years. Secondly, as regards current difficulties at level crossings, the Association conducted surveys, and its figures are greatly at variance with those of the Minister. The Association has even timed the delays incurred at the different crossings and it is fair to say that they are measured in seconds rather than in minutes.

On finance, about which the Minister was worried, a member of the Association has indicated willingness to stand surety against contingencies of the sort feared by the Minister. The name in question is known, I believe, to the Minister but not to me. The assets of the Association are hardly negligible. It has acquired quite a lot of land and has track and rolling stock. If the worst were to happen, I think that the penury which the Ministry seems to fear would be obviated.

I will not argue the exchanges in detail. Suffice it to say that these people have replies which carry considerable weight. They are respectable arguments. They are not the bleatings of a disappointed body of the kind with which all hon. Members become familiar. They are a substantial reply to the Minister's objections and misgivings.

I am sorry to have to go on to say that the Association's replies fell on deaf ears, not because they were inadequate, but because in reality the Ministry had passed the point of no return. It had assumed that familiar posture which, when it suits them, Ministries adopt when they are judges in their own cause: "The case is closed. No further discussion will be entertained."

I acknowledge that the Parliamentary Secretary, with his unfailing courtesy, replied at great length and in great detail to myself and many other hon. Members who wrote to him with the counter-argument. None the less, the fact remains that the Minister refused to do business with the railway. It is fair to ask, as I now ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary: why was this?

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's courtesy, but not so much tribute, perhaps, to his logic. On a critical point—the long-term future of the railway—the Ministry came up with this gem of Whitehall evasion: The idea of an Order for an experimental period of years, although at first sight attractive, is, in the view of our legal advisers, doubtfully acceptable. That wins an honoured place in any Whitehall museum.

Later, the ground was shifted a little and it was said that the Railways Board did not find the proposal acceptable. I must add that the part played by the Board in this buck-passing process has been something less than distinguished. I accept that the Board has other anxieties and preoccupations. The fact remains, however, that it sold the track, or proceeded to do so, to a contractor. On this point I must say no more, because the matter is the subject of proceedings elsewhere and I must not pursue it.

I return, however, to the second and, in my view, much the most important issue which all this raises. The principal objections raised by the Minister to which I have just referred were raised after, and not at, the inquiry. On this point, a group of young people who have produced a rather good report on the affair have commented that It seems that there has been some serious irregularity in procedure on the part of the Ministry. It is accepted that Ministers can always seek information after an inquiry on which to base their decision, but if that information is of substance they should at least inform the interested parties and give them an opportunity to make representations on it before announcing the decision.

The weighty arguments, as they seemed to the Ministry at least, about dual carriageways, and bridges, and the financial liability of the company, were not matters raised at the inquiry. Nor has the Ministry been willing to discuss these matters with the company since the inquiry. The Ministry could have made an order subject to conditions. That would have been one way round. The Ministry could have persuaded British Railways to accept a lease, and although I am told that they do not want to, we know perfectly well that if the Ministry were to tell British Railways they ought to they would.

Therefore, it comes to this, that on the evidence offered the inspector thought that, broadly, a case had been made out; of the three main objections raised by the Ministry, subsequently advanced, in order to justify a contrary decision, two were irregular and one was not even discussed.

This really will not do. What is at stake here is not only a railway which will gladden the hearts of many people and which may be a public service. What is at stake here, to an extent, is the behaviour of the Ministry. It has done what Ministries will always do unless they are checked in this place, and they do it over and over again, and that is, to attempt on an even issue to swing the balance with bland arguments they calculate none will challenge, and by methods which, to say the last of it, are dubious, and this is really where the House of Commons has suddenly to say "Stop", because that is really what we are here to do.

I myself think it possible that the Ministry may have better reasons—I think it is possible—than it has advanced for this decision. Talks—the Parliamentary Secretary knows this—have been going on with the French about the structure which will be needed on this side of the Channel for the Channel Tunnel and other developments. I am not going to say that any motorway is planned in this region, but it could very well be it is, or that there will be a road structure to which this railway would be embarrassing, but if it is so it does not excuse the irregularities of the Ministry.

If there are major policy decisions for goodness' sake let the Ministry say so, and not come to a decision for what, to anyone who has studied the case, appears to be the wrong reason.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be frank about this. In some ways, I think, the Ministry had bad luck. Nine times out of ten it could have got away with all this, irregularities and all, without too much fuss. but it has been surprised, as, indeed, I have been, by running into a set of really determined and really rather competent people who have set about the matter and decided to raise hell and have aroused the interest of about 40 Members, at least, of this House, and on both sides of it; and that is really what democracy is about.

It is because I think that their case deserves a wider hearing that I have raised this matter in this way. Whatever the Ministry has done at least the manner in which it was done has been exposed. The Ministry has behaved shabbily, and I hope that it will have the sense to think again.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

Very briefly, I should like to support everything my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has said. I have many constituents who are interested in this matter, and they have pestered me in the very finest sense of the word; and I welcome being pestered in the way they have done it. At this time, when the Government are suggesting very large sums of money should be spent on a transport amenity, namely, inland waterways, which I wholeheartedly support, I think it deplorable that they should not support this venture which is not only an amenity but also an economic passenger and freight line.

I would also support very strongly the final question mark in my right hon. Friend's speech, when he wondered if there was a policy reason, such as infrastructure for the Channel Tunnel. If there is some such reason not yet given, let us have it plainly now.

10.30 p.m.

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

The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has made a gracious speech, in the course of which he offered his apologies. May I assure him that none is needed. I should be the first to appreciate that, whenever a Parliamentary opportunity of this kind comes along, no one should look a gift horse in the mouth.

The right hon. Gentleman has been a doughty fighter on this issue, and I am quite aware of the need which he has seen to set up a special office to deal with the correspondence which he has received. I can assure him that I think that he is right, and it is a matter which is engaging the attention of a great many people in the Ministry of Transport as well.

Tonight's debate is the climax of a campaign waged for two months with energy and resources by a group of railway enthusiasts seeking to reverse the decision by my right hon. Friend the Minister not to grant a light railway Order to permit the reopening of this line. Every possible avenue of approach has been tried. There have been letters and telephone calls to officials. There have been letters to me from the right hon. Gentleman and from a very large number of other hon. Members. I wish that there were more of them present tonight.

There was even one letter to my right hon. Friend purporting to come from one of her constituents, although it was disowned by that constituent later. There have been standard circular letters to Members of Parliament. There has been an adroit use made of the Press, radio and television, and even resort to the High Court for an injunction to prevent British Railways from carrying out their intention of selling the track.

No doubt all this is wholly admirable in terms of democracy, and I congratulate the enthusiasts. As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is what democracy is all about. The case might usefully be studied by those who take the view that the people of this country are helpless pawns in the hands of the bureauracy. However, in our admiration for the pluck and determination of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents, we must be careful not to get the basic issues out of perspective.

The main objections—the road delays, and the prospect of bridges—were all discussed at the inquiry. At all events, I want to try to remove some of the emotional irrelevance which has become thickly encrusted round this affair, and to set out clearly and simply what the Minister"s position is in relation to light railways, why she decided not to grant this light railway order, and, finally, why, in spite of all that has been said during the last two months, she does not propose to reverse or modify her decision.

The Light Railways Act of 1896, as amended by later legislation, lays upon the Minister of Transport the duty of deciding whether a light railway should be allowed to operate. She does that after finding out all the facts, both by local inquiry and such other means as she thinks necessary", as the Act puts it, and after taking the best advice available to her about the operational, financial and safety aspects of the proposals.

There are three important general points which I should like to make before turning to the details of this case.

I hope that I need hardly say that my right hon. Friend is in no way opposed to the operation of light railways as such. On the contrary, hon. Members will know that there are several light railways operating in different parts of the country, some run by private railway associations and preservation societies, and some by industrial firms, and many of them have been given considerable technical and legal help by the Ministry. I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman about the strictures which he made against the Railways Board, because it gave substantial help in this case.

Nevertheless, running a light railway is not a basic constitutional right. The case for being allowed to do so has to be established in the light of all the circumstances.

The second general point which I make is that the Minister's function is not simply to arbitrate between the railway promoters and anyone making a formal statutory objection. Still less is it to rubber-stamp the recommendations of the inspector whom she may, if she chooses, appoint to hold a fact finding inquiry. The Minister's function is to weigh up all the pros and cons, whether expressed as statutory objections or not, and to decide whether the public interest is best served by allowing the railway to operate.

Third, there is no specific provision in the light railway legislation for the making of temporary Orders permitting the operation of a railway for a limited number of years. One of the basic purposes of a light railway transfer Order is to transfer in perpetuity the obligations in respect of bridges, level crossings, and so on, which are associated with nearly all railways. That is why authorising a light railway is a serious step which cannot be taken in a spirit of hoping for the best but only in the light of all the factors and interests. Once made, the Order cannot be revoked or amended except on request.

Now, in considering the Kent and East Sussex Railway, it was clear from the outset that there were appreciable problems. The line, as the right hon. Gentleman knows far better than I do, crosses no fewer than seven roads by means of level crossings—one on the A.21, one on the A.229 and two on the A.28—and numerous bridges over waterways, drainage being of great importance in this low-lying agricultural area.

As early as May, 1966, the light railway company, which had approached the Ministry for preliminary guidance, was warned in writing that any proposal to reopen level crossings over these busy main roads would be bound to raise grave objections. Many other lines of light railways can be run safely and without inconvenience to road users if the aim is simply entertainment or historical interest.

But reopening a line with problems like the Kent and East Sussex Railway could be justified only if there were a clearly established public transport need, sufficient in scale to outweigh the disadvantages to road users, and the risks to the landowners and drainage authorities if the company were to prove unable to meet its heavy financial obligations.

The company chose to ignore the warning that the proposals to reopen these level crossings would cause difficulties. Indeed, I doubt whether the ordinary members of the Association, who went on contributing their voluntary labour and their cash, were told of the risk that their efforts might be abortive. There was this clear warning.

However that may be, the application for a light railway Order was made in November, 1966 and, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, the inquiry was held in March, 1967. The evidence presented at the inquiry was exhaustively assessed by the Ministry's technical experts, including railway inspectors, highway engineers and legal advisers, and the case was then carefully considered, in turn, by myself—because I was fascinated by this application—by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and by my right hon. Friend, whose decision not to grant an Order was announced on 4th September.

We had expected an immediately indignant reaction, but some of the comments made by the railway supporters, although successful in confusing those unaware of all the factors in the case, did not bear close scrutiny.

Mr. David Webster (Weston-supermare)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Morris

No. My time is limited, and I must say what I have to say. I have already allowed two hon. Members to speak.

For instance, the "Press release" circulated to Members of Parliament stated that no mention had been made at the public inquiry of the possibility that bridges might have to be built at great public expense to eliminate the level crossings. In fact, this was mentioned by the spokesman of Kent County Council in paragraph 125, and again by the inspector in his final comments in paragraph 160.

Similarly, great indignation was expressed because the Minister did not at once agree to reverse or modify her decision in the light of so-called "new evidence" produced by the railway promoters. But what does this "new evidence" in fact amount to? On the financial side, it was suggested that the chairman of the company, a man of private means, would be prepared to act as financial guarantor to an unspecified extent.

But this highly personal arrangement, however generous, does not offer any really satisfactory permanent answer to the doubts about the company's finances, about its estimates of revenue and costs, and about its resources of management and manpower, which were repeatedly expressed during the inquiry by the spokesmen of both Kent and East Sussex County Councils, by the spokesmen of the Kent River Authority, by two of the important landowners, and by the inspector himself in his report.

Mr. Webster

Were we not told yesterday that we ought to listen to the debate on railway finance, and that if an area wanted to keep a railway going it must be prepared to pay for it? This is a complete contradiction of what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Morris

There is no contradiction at all. In fairness to the right hon. Member who raised this subject, if the hon. Member will allow me to proceed with the argument he will find that there is no inconsistency at all. On other occasions, perhaps we may discuss other issues.

On the road traffic side the railway company made much of the fact that only on the A21 was delay to road traffic likely to be immediately material, and it produced details of a census carried out on the road during last summer. This census showed peak traffic flows of 12,000 vehicles a day—admittedly rather less than the figures quoted by the county council and the Ministry. I leave to hon. Members to say whether this piece of new evidence weakens the case.

The railway promoters have rather disingenuously used the fact that neither of tile two county councils, as highways authorities for the roads in question, formally objected to the railway being reopened. But the spokesman for East Sussex County Council made it clear that, having objected to the closure of the passenger service in 1954, the council would find it, as he put it, "embarrassing" to oppose it reopening. Nevertheless, he expressed considerable doubt as to whether the promoters had all the abilities and assistance they would need to run the railway satisfactorily and the assistant county surveyor referred to the "pile up" which would be produced by the estimated level crossing delays of two or three minutes on the largely un-directional road traffic to and from the coast on the A21. That is in paragraph 117.

Mr. Deedes

These were doubts by the county council, not objections.

Mr. Morris

Similarly, the spokesman for Kent, the other county council, said to interruption to traffic at the three level crossings in Kent was "undesirable", but that the council would not object if there was public need for the railway. He asked that the Minister should be thoroughly satisfied on this point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] I am anxious to put the case as fairly as I can. In other words, the county council was, quite properly, relying on the Minister to do her statutory job in deciding whether the public need for the railway was really enough to justify the doubts and difficulties which ran right through the evidence at the public inquiry. It was not the job of the county councils to come to a firm view. Nor was it for the inspector to make the final decision. His view was that more financial information should be obtained from the company in the hope of resolving some of the doubts which had been expressed and so enabling a form of order to be discussed with the promoters. This further information was obtained, but it did not, in our view, remove any of the doubts about the company's financial prospects.

On the all-important point of public need, the inspector's considered view was that there is a public demand, slenderly amounting to evidence of a public need, but of a strength which could not prevail against serious objections on wider public grounds to the railway being reopened. That is in paragraph 157. In my right hon. Friend's view there were and are such objections. The interests of road users, taxpayers, landowners and drainage authorities must be allowed to prevail over the desire of the promoters to operate a railway which would not in the main perform a serious public transport function. The Ministry has been criticised for not holding discussions with the promoters to find some sort of compromise solution, but what would have been the point of it? We should simply have been deluding these people into thinking that all that was needed was some form of words.

The right hon. Member has advocated a leasing arrangement and the company has mentioned 10 years as a suitable period. There are three simple reasons why this superficially attractive solution in fact was not practicable. First, I have sought legal advice and I am told that if a light railway Order were made, to sanction the transfer of statutory responsibilities for the duration of a lease there would be difficulties about dealing with these responsibilities when the lease expired.

Secondly, the Railways Board is not prepared to lease the line and has, in fact, entered into a contract to sell it. Thirdly and most important, the problems of delay to road traffic are not remote and distant. They would not begin in 10 years. Anyone who knows these roads in summer will agree that the problems are here and now. In fact, no application is before the Minister, although the promoters have repeatedly announced their intention of making one. But in fairness to them and to the Railways Board, I make absolutely clear that my right hon. Friend does not pro- pose to exercise a lady's prerogative of changing her mind. She does not on the facts before her intend to make a light railway Order, whether temporary or permanent, conditional or unconditional, for the reopening of this stretch of railway.

I am sorry that I must disappoint—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock 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 a quarter to Eleven o'clock.