HC Deb 29 January 1970 vol 794 cc1869-78

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

11.8 p.m.

Mr. John Brewis (Galloway)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the threatened withdrawal by the Ministry of Transport of the grant for the Euston-Stranraer boat train. Many hon. Members know Stranraer as the Scottish terminal of the short sea crossing to Larne, whence there is a good railway service to the City of Belfast. Every year the great advantages of the short sea crossing are becoming more apparent to travellers with commercial interests seeking a comfortable and convenient route to Ireland.

Since 1960, two new ships. "The Caledonian Princess" and "The Antrim Princess", have been operating on the crossing. Business is increasing so rapidly that a third new ship is under construction and will be delivered early next year.

In 1969, 550,000 passengers used the crossing and the roll-on roll-off facilities attracted 25,000 commercial vehicles. The profit, which must now be approaching £1 million a year—and this figure must be kept in mind when considering what follows—makes this the most profitable of all British Railways shipping services.

Local people on both sides of the North Channel who man the ships and contribute so much to the service are naturally extremely proud of its success, one element of which is the London train, which enables a businessman to leave his Belfast office at 5 p.m. and be in London by breakfast time the next morning. The train is also essential to the Post Office parcels service to Belfast, which carries on average 1,000 mailbags every night.

The service is well known and long established. Formerly, the train went on a direct route via Dumfries, but this line was closed in 1965. When the then Minister of Transport gave his consent to the closure, he made it a condition that the Euston-Stranraer train should continue to be run. In his letter of 17th July, 1964, to the Railways Board, the then Minister wrote: I consider that an overnight service between London and Stranraer on schedules similar to the present ones and connecting with the morning and evening boats must continue. I have been assured by the Railways Board that such a service can be provided by an alternative route". That passage in the Minister's letter was scheduled as an appendix, as it were, and the condition was in no way limited in time.

Since 1965, a train has run via Girvan and Ayr and has joined the main Glasgow line at Mauchline. The new route has meant hardship to travellers in Galloway, but has brought notable advantage to the people of Ayrshire, who now have a direct overnight sleeper service from Ayr to London. Apart from the local people, it has been a boon to transatlantic air passengers when fog at Heathrow has meant their airliners having to be diverted to Prestwick.

Imagine the consternation in South-West Scotland and Northern Ireland when the present Minister of Transport chose 18th December, the last day of the Session before Christmas, to announce in a Written Answer that the grant for the service was to be continued for only a further six months.

Equally sinister seemed the Minister's silence on the continuation of the grant for the Stranraer—Ayr line. True, in relation to the train, the right hon. Gentleman said that future arrangements for providing the train were being examined, but without a railway line what could that mean but some form of express bus? People also commented on the lack of capital expenditure in recent years at Stranraer Harbour Station, where the waiting room and toilet facilities are sub-standard for the huge number of passengers who pass through it.

Since then I have been grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for to some extent allaying our anxieties about the Ayr—Stranraer line, though he will agree that should the London train be discontinued, the extra allocation that would have to be made in the grant for track and terminal expenses would put its longterm future in serious jeopardy.

In his letter to me, the Parliamentary Secretary raised further fears by suggesting that the condition on running the London train might be waived in the "changed circumstances of 1970". Nobody to whom I have spoken can imagine what these "changed circumstances" might be. I referred to the notable profit of the short sea route. Some of the extra traffic has, naturally, gone to the train. According to the Minister's announcement, six months' running of this train requires a subsidy of £83,000. It would be interesting if the Parliamentary Secretary could provide a breakdown of the accounting figures used in calculating his Ministry's grant.

I would be surprised if this train did not cover its movement costs. Indeed, my information is that it does so and that it makes a contribution to indirect costs. If the Parliamentary Secretary can confirm this, then does the £83,000 refer to track and signalling costs, terminal costs, administration and interest?

Assuming that the answer is in the affirmative, then this must refer to the use of the main line track from London to Ayr, and, as I mentioned, the line from Ayr to Stranraer. It must also refer to a proportion of the costs of Euston Station; and surely the point here must be that these sums would continue to be incurred even if there were no Stranraer train. It would be debited to other British Railway services. The suggestion that by not running this train the Government could save, perhaps, £166,000 a year is, therefore, completely illusory.

The real point at issue, though, in this debate is the discontinuance of the train, and the threat contained in the Parliamentary Secretary's letter of 8th January to waive the condition that this train should continue to be run. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can give a better explanation of what is in his Minister's mind than he has done heretofore. As I cannot speak again, I must tell him frankly that if the condition is waived, and the train is eventually taken off, it will be a shameful betrayal of the people who use the service both in Scotland and in Northern Ireland.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Henry Clark (Antrim, North)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) on raising this subject. It has been discussed on a number of occasions in the House, and both he and I are familiar with the discussions with the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, which body came down with a quite definite verdict that the railways should be kept open, and it was decided that one railway should be kept open.

Now there is a threat to that railway service; in particular, to the night service from Euston to Stranraer, and thence to Belfast. This is a service which it is, perhaps, easy to say is being replaced by air transport, and is, therefore, no longer necessary, but if that is said I would put the Parliamentary Secretary right by saying that the service is of vital importance to Northern Ireland as well as to Galloway.

In the first instance, it is a very important tourist route to Northern Ireland, both from the South of England and from the North-East. The night train through Stranraer to meet the Larne boat provides a route by which a very considerable number of tourists reach Northern Ireland throughout the summer months. Even more important, though less dramatic, is the fact that the night train in the reverse direction allows those who produce vegetables and other perishable goods in Northern Ireland to put their goods on the London market early next morning.

When the question was asked at the transport users consultative committee meeting, "What happens to perishable goods if the railway does not continue to run?" the Town Clerk of Lame gave the simple answer, "Those goods perish." I suggest that the continuation of the night service to meet the Larne—Stranraer boat is of vital importance to Northern Ireland.

I do not need to remind the Minister of the real difficulties in Northern Ireland for our tourist industry and other industries at present, and the real threat of increasing unemployment. I suggest that any Government which in circumstances such as the present take any action which is likely to damage the economy of Northern Ireland is hurting us when it hurts most. I suggest that this is the wrong moment too for such consideration as this.

11.17 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown)

Although my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray) usually deals with railways matters, he has asked me to apologise for his absence. He is, however, pleased that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) has raised this question, as it presents an opportunity to explain the reasoning behind my right hon. Friend's decision about the grant payable under section 39(1) of the 1968 Transport Act for the Euston-Stranraer boat-train service, and to remove misunderstandings about the other rail passenger service to Stranraer.

Incidentally, I want to say how pleased I am to be supported by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office. His presence is a clear indication of the interest of the Scottish Office and of its jealous guard of Scottish interests.

First of all I would like to clear up one important point; the examination of the Euston-Stranraer boat-train service is in no way a threat to the rail service between Glasgow, Ayr and Stranraer and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend has already given this assurance in writing. Two separate grant-aided services are involved—Glasgow to Ayr and Ayr to Stranraer. The Glasgow to Ayr service has just been given a grant for the three year maximum period permitted by statute, that is until the end of 1972. In December, 1968, the Ayr to Stranraer service was given a two year grant, covering the years 1969 to 1970. The Railways Board will no doubt submit a new application for the Ayr to Stranraer service later this year, and for the Glasgow to Ayr service in 1972. Until these applications have been received and studied it is impossible to be definite, but at present we see no reason why fresh undertakings to pay grant should not be issued in both cases for a further period when the current undertakings expire. I repeat, therefore, that there is no threat at all to what is the more important of the two passenger services to Stranraer.

The Euston-Stranraer service consists of one overnight train from Euston to Stranraer on Sundays to Fridays inclusive and one from Stranraer to Euston on Mondays to Saturdays inclusive. The trains convey sleeping cars and connect with the steamer services to and from Lame in Northern Ireland. The rail service operates over the West Coast main line to Crewe and Carlisle and then diverges at Gretna Junction and follows the route via Dumfries to Mauchline where it branches westward to Ayr before proceeding in a southerly direction to Stranraer.

As part of his consent to the withdrawal of passenger services for the direct line between Dumfries and Stranraer in 1964, a previous Minister the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) imposed a condition requiring the Board to run an overnight through train from London to Stranraer connecting into the early morning boat-train to Lame, and an overnight through train service from Stranraer to London connecting off the evening boat from Larne. The Railways Board have been operating the service via Carlisle, Mauchline and Ayr since 14th June, 1965.

Hon. Members will recall that the Government set up a Joint Steering Group in 1966 to study, amongst other things, a system under which the Railways Board could be relieved of the burden then placed on its accounts by continuing to run unremunerative but socially necessary passenger services. As a result of the Group's recommendations provision was made in the Transport Act, 1968, for grants to be made to the Railways Board for unremunerative railway passenger services meeting a social or economic need. These grants became payable from 1st January, 1969, when general deficit financing arrangements ended.

Towards the end of December, 1968, the Railways Board submitted an application for grant for the Euston-Stranraer boat trains and in view of the condition which I have just quoted, imposed when the Dumfries-Stranraer service was withdrawn, an undertaking to pay grant was given for one year expiring on 31st December, 1969. The amount of grant payable in that year was £178,000. The £200,000 figure originally quoted was subsequently reduced by adjustments in respect of grant for surplus track and signalling facilities under Section 40 of the Transport Act, 1968, and by a reduction in the interest elements following the write down of the Board's capital debt.

The grant calculations are based on the recommendations of the Joint Steering Group which were accepted by the Government, and take account of longterm costs that the Railways Board incur in respect of each service and the earnings directed related to it, with depreciation charges based on replacement costs.

For grant purposes, where more than one service makes use of a section of route or station, the method of allocating the costs of these facilities is that which was already used by the Railways Board for passenger profitability studies. Adoption of this method was recommended by the Joint Steering Group. Owing to the considerable distance over which this service operates-454 miles —a substantial part of its costs are in respect of allocations for track and signalling facilities and to a lesser extent stations shared with other services, both passenger and freight. For example, only £2,800 of the total cost of Euston Station is charged to this service—less than half of 1 per cent. of the total. The total annual costs, for track, signalling and stations shared with other services, amount to £7,363,000, and the allocation to this service is £140,000, or 1.9 per cent. On the West Coast main line—that is the 311 miles from Euston to Gretna Junction—the smallness of the share borne by this service is even more pronounced. The total track, signalling and station costs are £6,407,000 but only £73,000 or 1.1 per cent. is allocated to the boat trains. The section of line where the service bears a significant allocation of the costs is the 59 miles from Ayr to Stranraer, over which there are only five other passenger trains in each direction daily. The total costs here are £352,000, of which the share allocated to the Euston-Stranraer service is £44,000, or 12.5 per cent.

The hon. Member for Galloway asked for the breakdown of the grant. The figures are as follows: movement costs, £229,000; terminal costs, £11,000; net track and signalling costs, £114,000; interest and administration, £64,000; total costs, £418,000; earnings, £253,000; leaving a grant of £165,000.

Mr. Brewis

Does this mean that every time a train runs it is debited with something in the nature of £50 in interest and £75 for administration? This seems quite absurd.

Mr. Brown

I have got quite a bit to say yet, and I do not want to start doing mental calculations.

No one is saying that withdrawal of this service will result in real savings worth £165,000, which is what the hon. Gentleman intimated. All grant-aided services bear a share of costs which are joint with other services, and we are well aware that some part at least of these joint costs would be transferred to other services. Withdrawal of the boat-train would, as the hon. Member says, mean that the Ayr to Stranraer passenger service would have to bear a further share of these costs, as of course would the freight trains over the same route. But these are all matters which we and the Railways Board would have in the front of our minds in considering whether or not the condition should be waived and, if it comes to a closure proposal, whether the service should be withdrawn. They do not, however, mean that we should not examine the present situation.

The hon. Member says that 550,000 passengers used the Stranraer-Larne ferry in 1969, but a minute proportion of these passengers used the Euston boat train. The average number arriving at or leaving Stranraer on the trains on winter weekdays is less than 30, and even in summer the average is only just over twice this figure. The number of passengers joining and alighting from this train at Stranraer has fallen by about half since 1963. This rail service now performs a very minor rôle in travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. These are the changed circumstances to which my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred in his letter to the hon. Member.

Mr. Brewis

Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that earnings last year had increased as compared with the previous year?

Mr. Brown

Really, I cannot go into details of earnings at this time of night. I think that we shall have to continue this debate in correspondence, or perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend will do so with the hon. Member.

There are two other rail-sea routes between Euston and Northern Ireland—those via Heysham and via Liverpool. The former has one train each way Mondays to Saturdays and the latter one train each way daily. These rail services are part of the Railways Board's commercial network.

The hon. Member also asks what alternative arrangements, other than an express bus, could be made for conveying these passengers if the train did not run. It is primarily for the Railways Board to suggest alternatives, but I understand that there are several possibilities which the Board is now examining.

It seemed to my right hon. Friend that in these circumstances the need for the condition attached to he 1964 closure decision should be re-examined. Such reconsideration would in any case have been sensible six years after the condition was imposed, even if the service were not giant-aided. We intend, therefore, to consult the Scottish Economic Planning Council, of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is Chairman, and the Transport Users Consultative Committee for Scotland, as well as the Northern Ireland Government. But before we initiate this consultation, it seemed to us essential to discuss with the Railways Board, which is currently preparing its plans for the West Coast main line timetable from May, 1971, onwards, how the continuance of a sleeper service to Stranraer might fit in with those plans. I hope that we shall have a view from the Railways Board within the next few months, and this will then enable us to determine the basis on which we should consult the bodies I have already mentioned.

The hon. Member for Galloway will see from this that we have as yet taken no decision that the condition will be waived, and it is quite impossible to give him any indication at this stage of what the Board would subsequently decide to do about this service, even if it were waived. I repeat, however, that it is by no means certain that the train will not continue to run whatever our decision on the future of the 1964 condition.

The hon. Member complained about conditions at Stranraer Harbour station. I am glad to be able to tell him that the Railways Board plans to start work on renovating the station later this year. This, I hope, will give him some fresh hope.

I understand that the announcement about the examination of this service has given rise to some anxiety in South-West Scotland and in Northern Ireland. This is understandable, but in so far as the anxiety concerns the Glasgow to Stranraer service it is totally unnecessary, and in so far as it concerns the boat train itself it is at least premature. I hope that the explanation I have given of the circumstances which led to this examination will remove these unnecessary anxieties and allay the fears of the hon. Member for Galloway and the hon. Member for Antrim, North, and, indeed, of their constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.