AMENDMENTS AS TO TRANSPORT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES (Hansard, 17 October 1968)

§ Mr. Tom Bradley (Leicester, North-East)

I am astonished that no hon. Gentleman opposite has risen to say something about this matter. The Opposition have made such a song and dance about line closures since they left office that it is amazing that not one hon. Gentleman opposite has risen to speak following the remarks of the Minister of State, which I received with great regret.

I will be brief because time is pressing. This matter is of considerable importance. The Lords Amendment would widen the remit given to the T.U.C.C.s when considering applications for line closures. I would have thought that any action 670 taken to strengthen the machinery of supervision over possible line closures would have been a matter which the House would wish to discuss in greater detail.

In a debate on transport last year I asked my right hon. Friend the then Minister, when she drew up the Bill, to include powers for widening the terms of reference of the T.U.C.C.s. I regret that that was not done. Not only have people like myself, who are actively engaged in the transport industry, been asking for this facility, but the T.U.C.C.s themselves have been asking for this sort of widening of their terms of reference.

In the latest Annual Report of the Central Transport Users Advisory Committee for Great Britain a number of Amendments to the 1962 Act are proposed. Among these, the Committee refers to the limitation of reporting only on hardship factors and the way in which this reduces its usefulness. It also considers that the embargo on considerations of reductions in passenger services should be removed, since it has been held by many people that such reductions cause as much hardship as line closures—and that is what this Lords Amendment is all about.

On 15th July this year my right hon. Friend consented to the closure of the Edinburgh-Hawick-Carlisle line. In his statement consenting to that closure, he said that the size of the grant needed to keep the line open, even if it were rationalised and modified, would not be justified on a value-for-money basis. In other words, the Minister takes into account not only hardship factors but also marginal considerations in terms of cash. If the Minister does this—and we know that he properly does—surely the T.U.C.C.s. should have this sort of evidence before them when discussing the cases which they must consider.

What is the difficulty? Are they not to be trusted with the facts? What is everybody afraid of? I should have 671 thought that there was no great difficulty in the Government reconstituting the transport users consultative committees in order to equip them to examine the financial aspects of rail closures. I know that one of the criticisms made is that only amateurs are levelling these criticisms at the committees, and at the railway authorities themselves, but it is not only amateurs who are questioning railway costings. We now have entering the ranks a former general manager of the Eastern Region, who has gone on record as challenging such costings.

I suggest that the case for doing what the Amendment suggests is now more urgent than ever before. Most of the lines in the network which were hopelessly uneconomic have already been closed and we are now dealing with those cases which are not so clear cut. Indeed, looking at some of the examples, I sometimes wonder whether there was ever a clear cut case.

An example is the Sheffield to Manchester line, known as the Hope Valley Line. We hear that that line is to continue in operation, but it was proposed for withdrawal in October, 1964, Ministry consent to the closure was given in October, 1966, but the alternative requirement which the Minister imposed was so expensive—the subsidy for the bus operators was £38,000, and some trains still had to operate—that a basic railway service was costed. It was then found possible to reduce a loss originally estimated as £210,000 per annum to £10,000 a year. What a mockery this makes of the proceedings before the transport users consultative committee, when the railways tabled their original costings. I know, as many of us do—and I have told the Minister this before—that all railway costings are suspect. They should not be taken at their face value.

If this Amendment were accepted, a T.U.C.C. inquiry would also be able to examine the way in which a line was operated. In other words, the railways should be put under a more searching public test. There have been many allegations in the past of the railways deliberately running down the quality of a service with a view to getting rid of the passengers and so establishing a case for closure. There have also been accusations of restrictive practices on the part 672 of trade unions. If the consultative committees were enabled to examine these matters, those who are convinced that the allegations are unfounded have nothing to fear. The efficiency with which a line is operated is an important factor. Substantial economies can be made by means of the concept of a basic railway service. That has been proved, and is now practised in East Anglia.

In connection with the proposed Edinburgh-Hawick-Carlisle line closure, the Minister said that to retain the line on the present basis would cost £700,000 per annum; that to operate on the present basis to Hawick alone would cost £400,000 per annum, but that, with strigent economies, the service to Hawick could be retained at a cost of £250,000. That means that even on the stretch from Edinburgh to Hawick costs could be reduced by 40 per cent. If savings like this can be made by operating more efficiently it is an important matter. People in the area are entitled to a public inquiry at which they can hear and question all the facts put forward, especially when, as I have already said, in the final analysis the Minister is making a judgment on a value-for-money assessment.

As I understand it, in most cases the crucial factor in determining whether money will be made or lost by closing a line is the amount of contributory revenue a line brings in its feeder capacity to the rest of the network. We have never been able to challenge the railway authorities on their division of receipts between contributory revenue and earnings confined to the local part of the journey. In fact, the organisation with which I am connected has found the railways unwilling to prove that their previous calculations were either correct or unfounded. We are told that it is counter-productive, which is the modern jargon used as an excuse for not doing something because one does not want to do it.

The Amendment does not seek to establish a power of veto: all it asks is that there should be the right to have a full examination of all the facts when a community's line is placed in jeopardy. It is rather regrettable that the Government have been unable to concede the case on this issue.