BEDFORD (RAILWAY SERVICES) (Hansard, 23 November 1972)

§ Mr. W. Benyon (Buckingham)

I am fully supported in raising this subject by my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings).

As the hour is late I will dispense with the background, which is well-known to the Minister. Suffice it to say that the proposal is to remove the passenger rail link between the established city of Bedford and the new expanding city of Milton Keynes—a line which serves one of the fastest growing areas in the country. The service is reputedly losing £173,000 per year.

The main point is that British Rail claim to have looked into the future and to have found no substance for the increased viability of the line that many of us consider will occur as a result of the massive development which is taking place in the area. Yet they are keeping the line open for freight traffic, which would seem to indicate that they see a future requirement here—particularly as it necessitates retaining the track, level crossings and signalling. However, there are so many uncertainties surrounding the whole traffic picture that no crystal ball, however sophisticated, can show the true position. In the case of the Colchester-Sudbury railway line, the Minister of Transport announced a two-year delay before closure to give those concerned plenty of time to make the necessary adjustments and to allow local authorities time to decide whether to support the service. Such a policy would seem to be even more necessary here.

Consent to the closure was given in June this year on condition that certain 1736 bus services were provided instead. The hearings before the Traffic Commissioner are scheduled for 29th November, yet the discussions between the consortium of local authorities covering the area served by the line and British Rail have only just begun. Therefore, I was sorry to receive on Tuesday a letter from my hon. Friend saying that the Department was not prepared to vary the directive under which the bus company has made this application. These hearings may prove to be totally unnecessary if a satisfactory formula for continuing the service can be achieved, and it seems unfortunate, that they cannot be delayed. But I accept what my hon. Friend has said.

In this connection, I submit to my honourable Friend that the local authorities concerned have acted with considerable despatch and efficiency considering the difficulties facing them. They could not know before the Minister's decision was announced whether he was contemplating closure, or a deferment for a number of years; nor could they enter into negotiations with British Rail to make an offer of grant aid until this decision was made. This brings me to another aspect of the present situation. The impending reorganisation of local government will make the county councils transport authorities for their areas, and it does seem somewhat short-sighted to take a major decision like this without giving these new authorities a chance to consider the matter.

I now turn to the so-called Cooper Brothers' formula used for determining the savings to be made by such closures. In a letter to me in August, my hon. Friend referred to … the considerable difference between the financial figures quoted in the decision letter of the grant cost of retaining the service on the one hand and of the savings to be achieved by closing it on the other". He went on: Of course, the two figures are not com parable. The grant cost includes an allocation for fixed cost and provision for long-term replacement liabilities, while the other figures are concerned with the rail resource savings in the next few years. Of course, this is so—the first figure is £173,000, and the second £59,000, rising to £82,000—but when it comes to deciding how much local ratepayers should or 1737 should not pay towards keeping a service such as this open, the latter would appear to be the correct figure. It seems grossly unfair that local authorities should be asked to bear a share of the cost of, for instance, Euston Station and other overheads incurred by British Rail on a national basis. I hope I can have my honourable Friend's assurance that an offer on this basis will receive favourable consideration.

It is my contention that the viability of this service can be improved over the next few years, particularly if certain operating changes are made which will make the service more attractive to travellers. As I say, the whole area is expanding rapidly and this must have an effect on traffic receipts. But even if this were not so, I urge my hon. Friend to look carefully at certain local environmental factors—the great difficulties, for instance, of replacing this service by buses and the fact that, even if this were done, the service would be grossly inadequate to many of those who use the rail link at the moment and, indeed, could not serve certain communities at all. But, even more important, the inadequate roads between the two centres are already heavily congested. It will be years before improvements can take place and a further traffic burden in these circumstances is unacceptable.

This brings me to the wider question. Obviously, a major review of the whole rail network is in hand. A number of speeches in this House recently have questioned the cost benefit comparisons between road and rail, and nowhere is this more significant than in the case we are discussing. I am not appealing for this line to be kept open as some last link for a dying community, but rather as a holding operation in an area of exceptional growth. It would be a tragedy if a premature decision were made in this case before the full national review is completed and local requirements become clearer.

To sum up, I would prefer the Secretary of State to rescind his decision to withdraw grant aid and allow the line to continue in operation for two years. Failing this—if the traffic commissioners grant a licence to the bus company, he should delay a decision on the inevitable appeal until discussions between the consortium 1738 of local authorities and British Rail are complete.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will make it clear whether he accepts the actual cost savings as an appropriate charge for local authorities to bear.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) for raising this matter as it enables me not only to deal with this particular closure proposal but also to explain some of the processes which we have to undertake before reaching a decision on rail passenger closures generally.

Every proposal by the Railways Board to withdraw rail passenger services from a particular station or from a line is published in two local newspapers on two successive weeks, and any user of the line affected or any body representing such users can object in writing, within the six weeks objection period, to the appropriate Transport Users Consultative Committee. The Committee considers these objections, usually by holding a public hearing, and reports to the Secretary of State on the hardship, if any, which it considers the proposal would cause and also any proposals for alleviating the hardship. At the same time it is open to local authorities, the railway trade unions and others to make representations to the Secretary of State on matters other than hardship.

We also consult other Government Departments for their views on the proposed closure, and ask the appropriate Economic Planning Council for their opinion of the economic consequences which closure would entail. When all this information has been received, it is considered very carefully before a decision is finally given and we pay particular attention to the real savings in national resources which would be effected if the service were to be withdrawn.

As far as the rail service between Bedford and Bletchley is concerned, the closure proposal has a long history. In 1964 the Railways Board published a proposal to withdraw rail passenger services between Oxford and Cambridge, and the section between Bedford and Bletchley forms the middle part of that line. Consent to the complete closure 1739 was given in 1965, subject to the provision of rail replacement buses. But although bus services were provided between Oxford and Bletchley and between Bedford and Cambridge, the road service licences for the central section were refused because the bus operators could not provide the necessary crews and an appeal to the Minister of Transport by the bus company against the refusal of the road service licences was unsuccessful. As the Railways Board was unable to fulfill completely the conditions attached to the consent to the closure proposal, it was unable to withdraw the Oxford-Cambridge rail passenger service, and in 1967 the conditions of consent were varied so that the two outer sections between Oxford and Bletchley and between Cambridge and Bedford could be withdrawn.

Late in 1970 we were advised by the bus operators that the staffing position was likely to have improved sufficiently by the spring of 1971 to allow provision of a rail replacement bus service between Bedford and Bletchley, without detriment to existing bus services. However, in view of the long interval which had elapsed since consent to the previous closure proposal was given, it seemed inappropriate for that consent to be implemented even if the special rail replacement bus services could be provided. Accordingly, in December 1970, the Railways Board was notified in the usual form that it was unlikely that grant aid would be renewed at the end of 1971 unless a closure proposal had first been refused. The Board published a proposal to discontinue all passenger train services between Bletchley and Bedford involving the closure of Bedford St. Johns and nine intermediate stations.

As the rail service crosses the boundary between the East Anglian Transport Users Consultative Committee and the East Midland Transport Users Consultative Committee, objections were received by both. The two committees held a joint hearing to consider these objections, and later reported jointly that the withdrawal of the train service would cause hardship to some passengers and inconvenience to others, but the committees felt that the hardship could in the main be alleviated by the provision of the proposed additional bus services.

1740 Other representations were received, mainly on the grounds that improved east-west transport facilities were needed, rather than a reduction of these facilities. I note that my hon. Friend stressed that. This was given the most careful consideration before the eventual decision on the closure proposal, as were the observations of the South Eastern Economic Planning Council.

The Government were of course aware of the fact, which my hon. Friend properly stressed, that this area contains rapidly expanding communities which must be provided with adequate public transport facilities. But the evidence was that only some 450 regular travellers were involved each day, although total usage in each direction was about 900. By providing no less than 15 extra buses in each direction from Monday to Saturday it was felt that the needs of these travellers could be met, and at the same time a useful saving made. From all the advice received it did not seem that the future development of the area would be significantly affected by the closure.

In actual cash terms the rail service was being subsidised to the extent of £173,000 per annum from public funds. The costs that would actually be avoided in the future if the rail service was discontinued—as opposed to those assessed for the purposes of grant—are estimated at £82,000 per annum of which £59,000 would be saved in the first year after closure. Additional costs for renewals estimated at £46,000 between 1972 and 1976 would also be saved. So the closure of this rail service would represent a considerable saving in public funds and real resources without imposing hardship on the existing users.

However, before the eventual decision was reached, the local authorities who were concerned with this rail service wrote to the Railways Board in March of this year to initiate discussions on the possibility of providing grant aid themselves to retain the service. These discussions were however somewhat protracted, and did not seem likely to produce the quick result that was hoped for. Meanwhile the Railways Board was continuing to bear the full cost of the service. Consequently it was decided that it would not be right to delay the decision on the proposal any longer. Consent to the 1741 proposal was accordingly given on 22nd June, subject to the provision of a limited stop bus service of 15 buses each way between Bedford and Bletchley. I note my hon. Friend's comments in this connection.

This did not preclude the negotiations between the local authorities and the Railways Board continuing. Before the train service could be withdrawn the alternative bus service would have to be provided, and this meant that the statutory applications for road service licences would have to be made and determined. These applications have now been submitted and the Traffic Commissioners for the Eastern and the East Midland Traffic Areas will be holding a joint public inquiry into them on Wednesday and Thursday of next week. I cannot, of course, anticipate what the decision of the commissioners will be, but even if the bus licences are granted it will still be some little time before actual bus services are provided and the rail service withdrawn. I know my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear this because of the arguments he has advanced about the timing.

There should, therefore, be time for the local authorities concerned to conclude their discussions and make an agreement with the Railways Board, should they wish to do so.

It has been suggested that owing to the absence of a key British Railways official these discussions have been delayed. However I am assured by the Railways Board that other officers are available who are fully qualified to carry on the negotiations.

It has also been suggested that it is unfair to the local authorities that they should be asked to pay a grant which exceeds the savings which could be made if the service were withdrawn. However this grant, like others for unremunerative passenger services, represents the actual long-term costs. It covers, in addition to marginal costs, a fair contribution to the inescapable overheads of the service.

1742 My hon. Friend has also commented that when the new counties come into being in 1974 they will be better equipped to consider the merits of rail services. I hope that the effect of the relevant provisions which the Government have enacted through the Local Government Act will show that this is true, but decisions on railways and for that matter in other areas of the public sector cannot be set aside until the new local authorities have established themselves and been able to take a view on a subject about which the Government already have full knowledge. The Government are, in fact, entirely persuaded that further support for this service at the taxpayers' expense would not be justified.

It has been pointed out that closure of the Colchester-Sudbury service was deferred for two years. However the circumstances here were very different both as to alternative bus services and also in respect of the findings of the TUCCS concerned. The decision in each case was taken on its merits.

I think it fair to emphasise that whatever difficulties of co-ordination there may have been the local authorities have already had some eight months since the discussions began, and indeed it must have been clear to them long before that the service would be in danger unless they were prepared to save it. I think my hon. Friend can hardly claim that they have been unduly rushed. If they can now conclude a satisfactory agreement they will have our good wishes. But I do not think it would be right to delay the normal processes to allow yet further time at the taxpayers' expense.

I have noted carefully the points made by my hon. Friend, and I appreciate his concern in the matter, which I know is shared by my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) and Bedford (Mr. Skeet).