HC Deb 12 May 1970 vol 801 cc1205-14

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

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg (North Fylde)

The subject of this debate is the imminent closure of the Poulton-le-Fylde to Fleetwood railway passenger service in my constituency. This involves the closing of the 'Thornton Cleveleys, Burn Naze and Fleetwood passenger stations. It is not my intention to chide the Minister in this debate. I am much more anxious to convince and persuade him that this passenger service should continue in existence.

As I understand it, the service is due to close on 1st June. What I am asking for is a reprieve at the eleventh hour. There is not time in this debate to outline the full history of this passenger service closure. Suffice it to say that it was bitterly opposed by the Thornton Cleveleys and Fleetwood councils, by those using the line, by many local organisations, and, not least, by the National Union of Railwaymen.

A public inquiry was held on 1st May, 1969, by the Transport Users Consultative Committee, which was fully attended by objectors. Indeed, it was one of the best attended inquiries I have ever seen; and in my profession I have seen many inquiries. On 23rd May, 1969, the inquiry reported to the Minister that the withdrawal of this train service would cause hardship to a number of people who use it to reach their employment, a small number of people would suffer a great deal of hardship, the remainder hardship to a lesser degree, inconvenience would be suffered by people who travelled to the area for holidays, etc. That is as published in the Press hand-out. It concluded: The Committee cannot see any means of alleviating the hardship. As the Minister knows, I wrote and asked him if a copy of the full report of the inquiry could be made available. I am told that this is a confidential document between the Minister and the consultative committee. For the life of me, I cannot see why. In a planning inquiry the inspector's report is published in full. In a court of law the judge's conclusions are given in full. All we get in this case, after a full day's hearing of a great many complaints, is a Press statement of nine lines.

If justice is to be seen to be done, I should have thought that the people of my constituency were entitled to see the report in full; because, after all, the consultative committee is supposed to represent travellers' interests. So why should this be kept secret?

On 26th February, 1970, the Minister consented to the withdrawal of the service and said that he was not prepared to give grant-aid to keep the service open. I appreciate that the Minister has to be careful about the way he handles public money, and I would expect him to ensure that any money granted to keep the service open should be well spent. He has the public interest to consider, and I respect that. Equally, I have the interests of my constituents to consider, for I believe that they will suffer considerable hardship if the closure takes place.

The Minister wrote to the town clerk of Fleetwood in April, 1970. I cannot be more specific about the date, because that is how the Minister's letter is dated —just " April, 1970 ". The letter ended in these terms: In the end the Minister came to the conclusion that, nothwithstanding the report by the North Western T.U.C.C., the social needs of most of the present users of this rail service could be met adequately by strengthening the bus service, with particular reference to the needs of commuters. Moreover, there did not appear to him to be really strong economic reasons for continuation of the passenger service. In these circumstances, the Minister did not feel that he would be justified in paying grant-aid for a service between Poulton and Fleetwood even when account was taken of the possible cost reductions. They were the Minister's reasons in April. What are the reasons why he should have a change of heart now?

First, the situation has changed, because since the inquiry the pattern of railway travel in the Fylde area has been altered. From his letter of 26th February, I believe that the Minister took these changes into account, but I also believe that he did not attach sufficient weight to their impact, which has been to make Poulton-le-Fylde a much more important station, and with the improved main line services at Preston, to which, as a regular user, I am glad to pay tribute, British Rail can attract more people than ever to its services. An efficient feeder service from Fleetwood to Thornton Cleveleys would surely be a further attraction. At a time when British Rail services are proving more attractive, it is strange that this feeder service from Fleetwood should be closed down.

The financial effect on the new services to Blackpool North also appears to have reduced the amount required to operate an all-day service on the Fleetwood spur. The first figures which we were given showed that this would cost, first of all, about £90,000 and later £120,000, but I now understand that British Rail could operate a full day's services for £55,000. I further understand that negotiations are likely between the two local authorities involved. Fleetwood and Thornton Cleveleys, and that, in certain circumstances, the local authorities might be prepared to contribute from the rates a substantial sum. I am convinced that they could not bear the whole cost of £55,000, but would it not be possible for the Minister at this stage to join these negotiations, to see whether the burden could not be shared among the Minister, British Rail and the local authorities, with a tripartite agreement which would keep the rail service open?

Second, it is wrong for British Rail to close this service before it has tried to operate it on a cheaper basis than at present. British Rail knows that it will have the full co-operation of the National Union of Railway-men. Indeed, I would like the service run as the union suggests. After all, the union members know their jobs. It seems defeatist that British Rail has not tried to run the service differently before it closes it, really trying to make economies.

Third, the passenger possibilities at Fleetwood are still developing. We expect to have an Isle of Man steamer service and a steamer ferry service to Barrow, and both could induce further passenger potential. Both Fleetwood and Thornton Cleveleys are improving their resort facilities, and it would clearly be a tragedy for them if the closure hindered this development.

Fourth, and perhaps most serious, is the employment situation in Thornton Cleveleys and Fleetwood. The kernel of the problem is that the statistics show that there are just not enough jobs in the two towns to provide work for the unemployed. In December, 1969, there were 581 people in Fleetwood chasing 50 jobs, and in Thornton Cleveleys there were 458 people chasing 10 jobs. In the wider travel-to-work area in which we are now included for unemployment statistics, we had 3,689 people competing for 145 jobs.

It is clear that since North Fylde is neither a development area nor an intermediate area the creation of extra jobs there will be very difficult. The only help we get, which costs nothing to the Government or anyone else, is that we can have i.d.c.s. with reasonable speed. Our unemployment is well above the national average and has been for some years. It is a persistent problem, and if we are to get these people back into employment we cannot afford to close the rail service which would help them to commute to jobs further a field. It is obvious that if there are not enough jobs for the travel to work area itself, the people must go outside. If the jobs will not come to the workers in my constituency, the workers must go to the jobs.

The rail service will be of particular importance if, as we hope, new jobs are created by the new town at ChorleyPreston—Leyland. and this will be a new growth point in the area if people are enabled to reach the area, and the best way by far would be rail. Indeed, looking at the long term, it would seem that with huge population developments in that area it would be wrong at this point in time to close this link line to Fleetwood.

There is no real feeling of certainty in the constituency that the proposed new bus service alternative will be effective. We have a guarantee for two years: what happens at the end of that time is in the lap of the gods. My constituents have written to me to tell me that they are not at all certain that the Ribble bus services can supply the new services required because of the already great strain on its existing resources. If these bus services did break down before the two years were up we could be in a very difficult situation indeed.

I believe that the reasons I have given are good and cogent ones why a further attempt to avoid this closure should be made. Once the service is lost it may never be regained. As I have said, my constituency has a difficult employment problem to solve, and it will not be easy to do it. I believe that the existing rail service to Fleetwood and Thornton Cleveleys plays an important part in the unemployment problem, and with our present situation it is essential that nothing be done which would worsen the position.

I repeat that we have no Government grants or aid of any kind in the Fylde, and to that extent we are on our own, but there is something that could be done by the Government to help us, and that is to postpone the rail closure. Other parts of the country receive help. The development areas have far lower unemployment figures than those in my constituency. Other industries receive help. I do not believe that it is too much to ask that the Government should now help an area of high unemployment, as my constituency is, by keeping the rail service open.

I appeal to the Minister even at this late stage to see whether by means of talks between himself, the local authorities—which are prepared to contribute—and British Rail this line so deeply vital to my constituency cannot be kept open.

10.53 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Albert Murray)

I am glad that the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) has raised the question of the Minister's consent to the Railways Board's proposal to withdraw all passenger services between Poulton and Fleetwood. I realise that it is of much concern to his constituents, and I hope that I can answer some of the points he has made. My hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis), and St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), have also, over many months, urged strongly the retention of this service. I would also like to mention the constructive proposals put forward by the Joint Fylde Branches of the National Union of Railwaymen.

Hon. Members will know that under the provisions of the Transport Act, 1968, and in the light of our overall railway policy, it is for the Government to decide in cases such as these whether it would represent value for money for them to provide a specific grant for the retention of an unremunerative passenger service. In making a decision, my right hon. Friend takes full account of all social and economic factors.

The basic facts of the case are as follows. Up to 4th May most of the trains from Fleetwood ran as far as Kirkham, where connection was made with the main service between Blackpool and Manchester, which then ran to Blackpool South station. But, as a result of an extensive review in the autumn of 1968 of a large group of rail services radiating from Preston, the Blackpool services now run predominantly from Blackpool North Station. One effect of this has been that a good service to Preston and Manchester is now provided from Poulton station, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which is only about one mile from Thornton, where the station is, and seven miles from Fleetwood by road. The Railways Board announced some time ago that if the Minister gave his consent to its closure proposal it would build a car park for 50 cars at Poulton station.

The total daily number of people using Fleetwood, Burn Naze and Thornton-Cleveleys stations has been about 750. Up to 75 of these have used the rail service to travel the 2½ miles from Fleetwood to Burn Naze, where there is a large I.C.I. works. These people can be as well catered for by bus. In the summer about 400 people daily have used the rail service off-peak for occasional travel such as shopping.

It has been argued that the service is essential for holiday travel to Fleetwood or onward by the hovercraft service to the Isle of Man. But there is no evidence that substantial numbers use the rail service for this purpose, and there appears to be no other economic reason which would justify retention of a passenger service. In any case, there are extensive long-distance coach services to Cleveleys and Fleetwood from the West Riding, East Lancashire, the S.E.L.N.E.C. area, the Midlands and London.

The most difficult problem, which has exercised us greatly, concerns the regular longer-distance rail commuters, of whom there have been approximately 200 on weekdays—about 100 to Preston, 80 to Manchester and a further 20 to other places in S.E.L.N.E.C. or Merseyside. Of these 200, about 150 live in Thornton-Cleveleys, and the remainder in Fleetwood; and some of them live quite a distance from the railway stations.

There are already regular bus services between Fleetwood, Thornton-Cleveleys and Poulton railway station. The journey times of these buses vary between 28 and 32 minutes, depending largely on whether they take the direct route or the longer route via Thornton-Cleveleys station. If allowance of 10 minutes is made for bus-rail interchange at Poulton station, the overall journey times from Fleetwood to Preston and Manchester in the peak would be increased from about 40 minutes to a maximum of about 60 minutes, and from just under 90 minutes to a maximum of about 115 minutes respectively. From Thornton-Cleveleys the comparable maximum increases in journey times in the peak would be about 15–18 minutes. My right hon. Friend in taking his decision realised that the longer journey times would not be welcome, particularly for those travelling from Fleetwood to Manchester or Merseyside. Nevertheless he did not consider that this would involve real hardship.

However, we have examined most carefully the possibility of retaining a modified rail passenger service between Fleetwood and Poulton at an acceptable grant-aid cost, despite the fact that the present level of earnings does not even cover the movement costs. It was assumed that in order to achieve maximum economy the line would be singled and that Fleetwood, Burn Naze and Thornton-Cleveleys stations would be unmanned and pay-train working introduced instead.

The three possible services we have considered are an all-day service consisting of 18 trains each way, an alternative service of five trains each way each rush hour, and a peak-hour only service of three trains each way each rush hour. The annual grant-aid required for these services would be £55,000, £46,000 and £42,000 respectively, compared with £123,000 for the longer Kirkham—Fleetwood service. These costs have been calculated on the basis used for all grant-aided services. They take account of the fact that freight services will continue to run over the line. The joint track and signalling and terminal costs have been allocated between the passenger and freight services in accordance with the published formula so that each service bears its fair share of these costs and neither profits at the expense of the other.

Since the case for retention of a rail passenger service between Fleetwood and Poulton rests in the last resort on the needs of the 200 or so longer-distance weekday commuters, this means that an all-day service could be provided only by paying an annual grant equivalent to about £275 for each one of them. This seems excessive given that, in my right hon. Friend's judgment, most of these commuters will not suffer more than insignificant inconvenience if they have to rely in future on an improved bus service which would link with the new rail service at Poulton.

It was with real regret—and I say this most sincerely—that my right hon. Friend concluded that on this occasion he must dissent from the conclusions of the North-Western Transport Users' Consultative Committee.

Moreover, it remains most important to limit public expenditure where possible. If the Government spend money, which comes from the taxpayers, on grant-aiding rail passenger services for which there is not a strong social or economic need, there is less money available for other desirable projects, many of which also meet social and economic needs.

It was for these reasons that my right hon. Friend gave his consent to withdrawal of the rail passenger service subject to the provision of certain additional buses. The routes and timings of these buses were worked out with great care so as to take account, in so far as was practicable, of the individual needs of displaced rail passengers.

Since the Minister's decision, Fleetwood and Thornton-Cleveleys councils have backed their strong protests with the practical action that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. They have offered to provide grant-aid equivalent to a penny rate—which, taking the two councils together, is about £10,000—for an all-day service. But as the annual cost of this service would be £55,000 there remains a gap of £45,000.

The Minister does not feel that he would be justified in bridging this gap. The most that he would be prepared to consider—and this is not to be taken as any kind of promise—would be an amount equal to the estimated loss of contributory revenue, together with the amount of these costs that will fall to be reallocated to other grant-aided services following the withdrawal of this one. In total, this would amount to only about £9,000—which would still leave £36,000 to be found.

I realise that the provision of this further amount would impose a heavy burden on the ratepayers of Fleetwood and Thornton-Cleveleys, and their councils may well consider that it is not practicable. But the decision on whether a rail passenger service is to continue between Fleetwood and Poulton on this basis effectively rests with them. As I have said earlier, my right hon. Friend does not think that there is a case for his meeting this cost.

This has been a difficult and complicated rail closure case. The various factors have been examined in great detail and with great care. At the end of the day, it was the Minister's conclusion that the social and economic need for this passenger service was not sufficient to justify his refusal of consent to the Railways Board's closure proposal.

In saying that, I would also like to pay a tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he presented the case.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Eleven o'clock.