HC Deb 28 April 1970 vol 800 cc1037-8
19. Sir G. Nabarro

asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has obtained of loading per track mile for Crewe to Glasgow electrification to be carried out at a cost of £25 million and average loading per track mile established Euston to Crewe, 158 miles, compared with the 263 miles Crewe to Glasgow; and what is the economic return on the latter.

Mr. Mulley

As I explained to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) on 24th March, the publication of detailed information about this investment project would not be in the commercial interest of British Railways.—[Vol. 798, c. 1186–7.]

Sir G. Nabarro

While not wishing to probe that, would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that electrification of long-distance railway lines is only commercially viable and successful where the routes are very heavily loaded, as between London and Crewe, Liverpool and Manchester and Birmingham but that between Crewe and Glasgow the loading is relatively very light'? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that this high investment of £25 million for the latter route will be a commercial proposition?

Mr. Mulley

I assured the House at the time that I made the statement that I would look carefully into all the figures and forecasts. It was shown on a discounted cash flow basis that there will be a return of at least 10 per cent. and possibly more with the economies that will be effected as well as the increased traffic we hope to attract.

Mr. Ronald Atkins

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the inconsistency of hon. Members opposite who on the one hand are forever demanding increased investment for British Rail and on the other hand are complaining every time he makes a favourable railway investment decision after careful consideration? Is he aware that I deeply sympathise with him?

Mr. Mulley

I have noticed this and I only wish that it were confined to this one subject. My hon. Friend knows that very often there are bitter attacks on the level of taxation coupled with simultaneous demands for additional burdens on the Exchequer.

Mr. Michael Heseltine

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the questioning from this side of the House on this scheme arose directly from a question to the Minister from his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), who presumably had access to all the figures and was obviously very surprised by the Minister's decision to go ahead?

Mr. Mulley

I do not undertake to read the state of hon. Members' minds and to know what prompts them to ask questions. My right hon. Friend asked a very proper question about what the return would be. As I have assured the hon. Member, in writing and in the House, my right hon. Friend had left the Ministry before the latest assessments and figures came in.