HC Deb 26 May 1988 vol 134 cc601-20

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

9 pm

Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle)

The rules of the House never cease to bamboozle and amaze me. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who had the Adjournment debate, made his speech at 6 am. I came in tonight prepared to wait until at least 10 pm. Not only do I find that it is only 9 o'clock, but I have a hour and a half in which to speak. I have not yet got into the habit of some other hon. Members of making as little as possible stretch as long as possible, and I do not intend to do that. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) would like to speak in the debate, so I shall not take up all the time. If other hon. Members want to contribute they should feel free to do so.

It is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that you are in the Chair, because I want first to record my thanks to you for allowing this debate to be held so quickly, this being the first time I have applied for this Adjournment debate. I suspect that you, like me, recognise the significance of the statement made by the Minister for Public Transport on Monday 16 May. It was about the Settle-Carlisle railway, and it would affect not only my constituents but people who live all along the line in Eden valley and north Yorkshire. The statement had significance for the rest of the country, too.

There is a great feeling for the line throughout the length and breadth of the country, as my postbag shows. I have had letters about the line from all over Britain saying that it should not be closed. Significantly, the Minister implied that because the line was tourist-led—more tourists use it than do local residents—it was not really a significant part of British Rail's operations and therefore could well be sent out to the private sector. The significance of that will not be lost on the House. It was said that areas other than commuter areas—for example, those in west and north Wales and in Scotland, particularly the Fort William to Mallaig line—that depend on tourism could find British Rail saying that it does not want to run them. British Rail is always saying that it does not want to run lines, and the Government have said, "But you must run them." The significance of the statement—outwith the suggestion in this week's issue of The Economist that tourist lines could be privatised—was that tourist lines could be abandoned by British Rail but would be supported by the Government. It is important that we should debate the matter tonight.

I shall concentrate on one or two incorrect statements that the Minister made on 16 May. The first is a small matter. Hon. Members will remember that the Minister refused to give way when I challenged him on one point. He said that no members of the public were present at the public meeting in Carlisle. That is perfectly true; I remember it well. But the point that he did not make was that his Department did not advertise the meeting. It is little wonder that nobody attended.

The other point that the Minister failed to make was that he met a large number of city and county councillors from Carlisle, Cumbria and Eden. As Max Boyce would say, I know because I was there. At that meeting, Cumbrian representatives told the Minister, "We want the line kept open and under the British Rail system." There is no doubt that, when he went to Carlisle, the Minister was told that the line should stay open.

The Minister made another inaccurate statement. He said that 80 per cent. of the people travelling on the line were tourists and that that was insignificant. I do not understand why tourists are not people. Perhaps the Minister can explain. Over 30 per cent. of people travelling on the line are local residents and will be greatly affected. It is significant that, in 1983, only 90,000 people travelled on the line. In 1987, 360,000 people travelled on the line. The number of local people using the line has increased tremendously. More local people use the line now than at any time since the war. Since the closure deliberations began, eight stations have been re-opened. Local demand is strong.

The Minister incorrectly quoted the efforts being made by local authorities and the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Association to put money into the scheme. He said that local authorities had offered £500,000 as a capital sum, while withdrawing their previous annual support. That is simply not true. Instead of offering £70,000, local authorities are offering £237,000 this year, £237,000 next year, and £166,000 in 1990–91. That is a fact. I have discussed the matter with council officers. It was churlish of the Minister to denigrate the local authorities.

The local authorities feel aggrieved. They understood that the Minister got everything that he asked for. The Minister went along to the local action committee and said, "I need £500,000 to be able to save the line." After some arm-twisting, north Yorkshire local authorities came along with £500,000. The promise was confirmed by Councillor Bill Cameron, who is a great friend of mine. He had a telephone conversation with the Minister on 29 February, when he was told that £500,000 would save the line. The Minister shakes his head, but I talked to someone who was in the room when that was said.

Despite the bad blood that could well have been created by the Minister, the local authority and the action committee met yesterday and decided that they were prepared to keep their offer of £500,000 and the revenue consequences on the table and to give that money to a private organisation provided that there was no reduction in the service being provided. I hope that the Minister will consider that proposal and discuss it with the local authority. The local authority should be applauded. These are difficult times. My county council has just been within half a per cent. of being rate-capped, yet it could find a considerable amount of money for the line.

I want to look briefly at the so-called privatisation plan for the Settle-Carlisle line. Having read the leaked letter from the Secretary of State for the Environment to the Secretary of State for Transport, I think that we should call it the Ridley plan. It certainly could not be called the Mitchell plan. Many of us believe that he does not support the views put forward from the Dispatch Box on Monday 16 May. There are those hon. Members who think that he may resign over this matter. I am not one of those who had any confidence in the suggestion that the Minister would resign, but I do believe that he is not too enamoured of the plan that has been put forward.

Let us look at the plan in some detail. How much private money has been committed to it? I understand that Grand Metropolitan Hotels has put forward £25,000 and another £25,000 has been put forward by Scottish and Newcastle Breweries. I cannot find any more money from the private sector in the statement. That makes a total of £50,000 on offer from the private sector.

Let us look at what has been offered by the public sector for the so-called privatisation. English Heritage has offered £1 million of taxpayers' money. The local authority has offered £500,000 of ratepayers' money. The Development Commission has offered £100,000—again, public money. The Countryside Commission has offered another £100,000. Then we come to the most bizarre offer of the lot from British Rail. Usually when an organisation sells something, it expects money for it. But in this case the Minister has said that British Rail is prepared to pay a dowry of, I think, £850,000. In my experience, dowries are only paid at weddings. It seems that on this occasion a dowry is to be paid for a funeral. I have never heard of that before.

Therefore, we have £50,000 from the private sector and over £2.5 million from the public sector. Despite that, there have been no takers.

In the letter dated 8 March, the Secretary of State for the Environment said: I am sorry that we have not yet found a private organisation or trust able to take on the line. That is despite all the public money that is available.

The fact is that under the scheme that has been outlined the line can never be viable. If it is taken outside the British Rail system, the income from the diversions on that line will be lost. I understand that there have been over 350 since the proposal to close the line was put forward. That means that there will be a loss of income. If the Settle line is lost, it will cause great inconvenience to those who travel on the west coast line. There will also be a loss of freight under the proposals put forward, so there will be a loss of income there. There is also the loss of the parcels service. We are reducing the income without putting any more in. Therefore, there is no doubt that the private sector will not be able to take that line on.

Even supposing a package could be put together, the Minister's time scale for the closure of the line by 31 March next year would mean that no package, whether private or public and private, could be put forward in that time. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South will elaborate later on whether a Bill could allow privatisation to continue.

I hope that the Minister will reconsider the timetable and extend it for a year, and that he will allow interested parties an opportunity to work together on a new package. I hope also that he will return for further discussions with the local authorities and with the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Association. Finally, I shall be grateful if the Minister can persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who will ultimately take the decision about the line's closure, to journey from the south of England and travel on the Settle-Carlisle line. Answers to parliamentary questions that I have seen show that since becoming a Minister—I do not know about before—he has not travelled on the line, even though he may ultimately take the decision for its closure.

I have not been too belligerent this evening. I hope that the Minister will accept the points that I have made about the time scale and about further discussions with the local authorities, and will say that the Secretary of State for Transport will be on the first train on Monday morning.

9.15 pm
Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who is at the northern end of the Settle-Carlisle railway, for allowing me time to speak in his debate. He will agree with me that those of us who wish to see the line remain in existence do so not out of any party political motives. We all have links with the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Association and with the various support groups that have tried to sustain the line and find solutions to its problems. They have all placed their activities on a non-party political footing. I am a vice-president of the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Association and I know that several Opposition Members share that distinction. In our debate on how to save the railway, it is perfectly possible to have a legitimate disagreement, but not about the motives of one side or another.

I confess that, like many others, I was once a train spotter. When my family moved from the midlands to Ripon, I train-spotted at Ripon station. That was almost a definition of optimism, because almost nothing went through Ripon station—even when there was a railway line there. The one time that a Mallard went through, I missed it because I was in the waiting room at the time, to my great regret. Ripon station has now disappeared and will shortly become part of the Ripon ring road.

Everyone would acknowledge the very special status of the Settle-Carlisle railway. I must say to my hon. Friend in all honesty that I do not believe that it is useful to make comparisons between it and other railways in the United Kingdom. The Settle-Carlisle line goes through some very beautiful scenery, it is an impressive engineering achievement, and it represents a unique journey for those who make it. That journey is made through one of the United Kingdom's most dramatic industrial landscapes, and when some of the great steam engines are to be seen pulling trains across that landscape, the scene one witnesses is almost poetic.

All of us are committed to maintaining the railway, and we are all concerned about the fate of the people who work for it. In the case of my own constituents, those who work on a stretch of the line between Settle and to the north, to the Cumbrian border, are affected. We are anxious that the voluntary work undertaken at the stations on that line by the friends of the railway and by other organisations should be justified and that those people will see a return for their efforts—not in financial terms but in the sense of the line remaining in existence.

In making those comments, I speak not only for myself but for right hon. and hon. Friends representing constituencies in the north-west. They include my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), and my hon. Friends the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller). They all have a keen interest in the line and will continue working at making a success of the Government's proposals.

We must remember one salient factor, which is that British Rail wants to close the line. Sometimes, I get the impression that the Government are seeking to force a closure down the throat of a reluctant British Rail. All the arguments about the diversion of traffic from the main west coast line suggest that British Rail was anxious to keep the line open and that the Government were hostile, but the debate starts from the point that this is a line that British Rail applied to close.

Only four options are open. The first is simply to close the line: plenty of other railways have been closed. Why not close it, take the political flak, put our heads over the parapet and be done with it, hoping that after a while people will no longer remember? After all, the A65 in my constituency, which follows the course of the Settle-Carlisle railway, is being improved substantially, so the possibility of alternative transport is real enough. That, however, is not an option that I favour, and I shall fight it, because I believe that it would renege on the character of the railway and of part of the United Kingdom's heritage.

If it were merely a question of heritage, I should be less concerned, but this is a heritage that can still be profitable as an educational, tourist and economic tool for a part of the world that is losing its traditional economic activity. Agriculture is under pressure, and tourism is now its life blood. The saving of the line is linked with other issues, such as Sunday trading, which are essential to the economic welfare of my constituency.

The second solution would be to subsidise the line. Let us simply leave it with British Rail and give British Rail some money. That would make life extremely easy for me, and for my hon. Friends. We could all defend it. After all, money is being spent to restore the Albert memorial, a piece of masonry that does not serve much purpose for anyone. The Settle-Carlisle line actually forms a useful function.

The trouble is whether it could be guaranteed that, even with the money, British Rail would continue to operate the service with good will and enthusiasm. When I have travelled on the line I have gained about as much information, and about as much sense of its uniqueness, as I did when travelling into Liverpool street from Bishop's Stortford this morning. The train was 15 minutes late, of course.

British Rail is not developing the line for tourist purposes. Passengers do not receive a scrap of information about what they are passing through. As has been said, that is not the function of the line, but perhaps it ought to be. Perhaps the ideal solution would be to allow British Rail to exploit some of its resources. Certainly it is not doing so now. Travelling on the line is about as exciting as a suburban railway journey.

The local authorities have made offers, but they have attached conditions to them, two of which I consider unfortunate. The first is that the line should continue to exist for 20 years. That is a long time, which it would be difficult to guarantee in almost any sphere of economic activity. The second is that the line should remain in the sole ownership of British Rail. In other words, that solution consists of thrusting money into British Rail and asking it to sustain a service which it has said repeatedly that it does not want to maintain. I do not think that that is a genuine solution either.

The third option is partnership between British Rail and private enterprise. But what private company will join forces with British Rail knowing that it wants to close the railway—that its heart is not in it?

So I come to the fourth solution, which is genuinely to seek to exploit the tourist potential of the line: to refound it on an entirely new basis, which means finding entirely new capital. This is why I adopt the solution of privatisation. I do not adopt it out of any sense of ideology, or because I assume that the line must come into the private sector, or because I feel any instinctive hostility to the public sector. I do so because I think that in these circumstances privatisation offers the best long-term future for the line to exploit its tourist potential and the various stations and other assets associated with it.

I should like to make several points very forcefully to the Minister. First, the passenger traffic figures have been improving consistently, and I am not convinced by British Rail's argument that there is bound to be some ceiling on that traffic. That depends on the facility and the frequency of the service which it provides on that railway. If it was operated with a view to its potential, there would be more traffic.

Secondly, what happens now? Is the Minister sitting at his office waiting for people to knock on the door and ask to buy the line? It is not clear what is to happen now. I have not had outlined—at least to my satisfaction—a structure of welcome for private investment. Given the time scale put forward, it is incumbent on the Government to outline what structures for the reception of private capital and for privatisation are envisaged. Otherwise, people will not know what they are bidding for or in what they are being asked to become involved.

In other privatisations certain dowries have been given. One recalls the recent merger between Rover and British Aerospace in which there was a significant write-off of debt which can only be described as a dowry. There was a similar massive write-off of debt in the privatisation of British Airways.

I hope that there will be no ideological opposition to the proposal. If things are ready to go but require a little assistance, I hope that there will be no ideological opposition to finding that little bit extra to get the railway line up and running as a private enterprise.

I agree with the hon. Member for Carlisle that the time scale is short. I impress on the Minister the urgent need to extend the deadlines so that there is genuinely sufficient time to discuss the structures of the privatised operation so that the first bidder will not be the only bidder and that we can genuinely try to get this bold scheme off the ground.

Above all, we need the Government's active proselytisation of the project. I understand that up to now the Minister has been occupying a quasi-judicial role in adjudicating British Rail's application for closure, and that he could not simultaneously canvass for private enterprise capital. That would have been at odds with the function which he had to fulfil. However, now we know the direction in which we are going, unless the Government are willing to sell the project and to canvass for it along with my right hon. and hon. Friends and other hon. Members who will be doing the same, how will potential buyers have the confidence that we have our hearts in the project and that we are determined to set up this line with a new future rather than see it condemned to a lingering demise?

I say most forcefully that in the north-west we are committed to saving the railway. We attach not only a psychological value to the railway—although one should never underestimate psychology in political and economic affairs. We attach a material importance to it. We believe that it can become the spinal column of the tourist development of the north-west route through the dales and into the Lake District. We consider that it is an asset waiting to be developed and used. We call urgently upon the Government to put their shoulder to that very adventurous project so that we have a Settle-Carlisle railway which has a future and which can serve local people and be a catalyst to the economic development of that region. If that happens, I and my children will live to see the Mallard and the Sir Nigel Gresham hauling those trains across the Ribblehead viaduct, and train spotters of the future will be able to watch the great engineering achievements of this country in action.

9.28 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). When the Minister announced that he was minded to close the line, the hon. Member welcomed that announcement. That seems at odds with his avowed claim to want the railway to run. It is also extraordinary that he rejects all forms of subsidy, but he does not mind the commuter lines in London and the south-east and virtually every other public passenger service that British Railways operates being subsidised.

The line is not the private pleasure railway that the Minister suggested in his announcement on 16 May. It is the last main line to Scotland. It is a major part of the main line route comprising 72 miles of double track. To close it would be an act of organised corporate vandalism as a result of a conspiracy between British Rail management and the Government, who are holding a pistol to British Rail's head.

The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said that if British Rail wants to close a line, we should accede to its request. That would be a dangerous precedent. There are other railways that British Rail management might find it inconvenient to run. If it goes along to the Minister and says that it wants to close a line, the Minister is supposed to have a duty to look at considerations other than the convenience of British Rail management.

The Settle-Carlisle railway should be retained as part of British Rail. As I have said, criticisms can be advanced against British Rail, but if the Government refuse closure and require it to operate the line and to provide money for some of the structures, it is the only body with the expertise and competence necessary to operate a line of such length and complexity and with such massive structures.

The Minister says that British Rail cannot promote tourism—although it promotes railway services for tourists year in, year out—yet the fact is that, as the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon conceded, since 1983 passenger journeys have soared from 93,000 to 300,000 per annum. The reason for that is that British Rail appointed a man to organise the closure of the line. In fact, he was enthusiastic about keeping it and he promoted it with vigour and verve.

I wish that British Rail had used some of the £250,000 that it spent on Filofaxes and free British Rail car park passes for hon. Members on promoting the Settle-Carlisle line. Hon. Members are cosseted enough. That money would have been a real boon to tourism. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon objects to the subsidy from British Rail that has been handed to him in the form of a free car park pass and a £70 Filofax.

Mr. Curry

I have not had them.

Mr. Cryer

If the hon. Gentleman has not received his car park pass and Filofax, they are probably on their way, because my understanding is that every hon. Member will receive them.

If British Rail has the resources, it can promote railway lines extremely effectively in conjunction with such sympathetic bodies as the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Railway Association. I should like to pay tribute to that association because over the years, as a voluntary unpaid organisation, it has given up untold hours to organise meetings to promote the line and to keep it in the front of people's minds. It helped the development of increased passenger revenue and increased use of the line. Such an association is not unique to the Settle-Carlisle railway. Such bodies operate on other lines and it is a way in which people can become involved and help British Rail. That association has helped to promote a magnificent railway.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has mentioned the difficulties of the Government in finding a private body to take over the line. The Secretary of State for the Environment wrote a confidential letter on 8 March which has been a boon to those who want to retain the line. In the letter he said: I am sorry that we have not yet found a private organisation or trust able to take on the line. Therefore, the Government have been looking. At least one major civil engineering firm has been involved in some sort of negotiation with British Rail midland region over the past few years.

On 16 May the Minister claimed that the revenue under British Rail was about £1 million per annum and that operating costs were £2.7 million. He said that the railway was costing a lot of money and that the Secretary of State was minded to close it. The revenue estimated by the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Railway Association is £1.725 million, which is rather different from the figure that British Rail has produced. BR excludes revenue from diversions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle has pointed out, there were more than 300 in the past fiscal year. Again, BR disputes the figure, but BR has not been watching the trains from its management suite. The members of the association have done that scrupulously.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)

So that I have the figure correctly, could the hon. Gentleman repeat the level of expenditure that is claimed?

Mr. Cryer

Yes. The association says that the revenue is £1.725 million. BR excludes revenue from diversions. There were more than 300 of them in the previous fiscal year. I am told, although I think it is incredible, that the figure also excludes revenue collected by guards from tickets sold on trains. I have no confirmation of that, although I understand that the revenue is put into the general pool of BR revenue.

Revenue from other BR regions has not been satisfactorily defined by BR. For example, fares paid by passengers travelling from London to Leeds are not credited if the passengers go on to the Settle-Carlisle railway by joining a Carlisle train at Leeds. The fares are not suitably credited by BR in order to increase the revenue of the line. The friends association says that they should be allotted to the Settle-Carlisle railway because they stimulate traffic to and from the line from other parts of the United Kingdom. That is agreed by all of us, but how much revenue is in issue? BR has the figures. An expert of the Settle-Carlisle association has asked BR for the details, and provided information, but BR has been somewhat reluctant to give such figures.

The Minister would do well to remember that the story of the line starts from the attitude of British Rail. We understand that BR is under financial pressure, and is therefore looking for some service that it can cut out to diminish costs. BR diverted the London to Glasgow express several years ago and ran them from Nottingham to Glasgow. Then BR stopped those routes and diverted trains away from Leeds and through Manchester. The largest source of revenue from the Nottingham to Glasgow express run was via Leeds. That source of revenue is no longer available to BR.

The diversion of freight trains is done to remove revenue and not, as BR claims in its financial case, to close the Settle-Carlisle railway, because of air brake train load operation. That factor does not make very much difference, because the Settle-Carlisle line is able to take all classes of trains, air brake-operated as well as unfitted and fitted freights. They can all operate well over the line.

BR says that the access Blackburn to Hellifield route has a long-term future for freight traffic. It would have an even better future if it was linked to a long-term freight future for the Settle-Carlisle line.

The Minister gave the operating costs as £2.7 million, whereas in its December 1986 financial case for the closure of the line BR gave a figure of £778,600. I dare say that the Minister has incorporated in his figure an annual allowance for replacement or maintenance of track and structures.

The comparison with other railways that the Minister quoted on 16 May was fallacious. The North York moors and the Severn valley railways are roughly 15 miles long apiece. They are operated largely by volunteers with only a skeleton paid staff. Both lines operate under a light railway order. The Minister does not yet know, although I have questioned him extensively, whether the privatised Settle-Carlisle line will operate under a light railway order or a Private Bill that is promoted through the House. If he is making the comparison with the North York moors railway, say, and proposing that it should be considered for light railway operation, that means that he is considering a 140-mile round trip at an average speed of about 24 miles an hour—not exactly the most stimulating of journeys for a day out for a family.

The Settle-Carlisle is a 144-mile round trip railway and any prospective purchaser will obtain 21 viaducts, 14 tunnels and 325 bridges. They take some maintaining. As part of the national network, with diverted traffic and through traffic, that can be justified, but I beg leave to doubt that any private organisation would be willing to take over a total of 21 viaducts, 14 tunnels and 325 bridges. It is something of a tall order

I know something about operating railways. I was the founder of the Keighley and Worth Valley light railway. I have done every job on a railway, from cleaning out the toilets to plate laying to driving an engine such as the Evening Star. There simply is no comparison between operating a 10-mile round trip, even on a full-scale main line standard railway, and a 150-mile round trip on a railway that is notorious for its gradient up the summit at Aisgill. That sort of arrangement, it seems to me, cannot possibly be carried out under the amateur status of the railways that the Minister has proposed.

If this fanciful notion were adopted, the Settle-Carlisle could take men and women, materials and locomotives on to its track at the expense of existing established preserved railways such as the one between Keighley and Oxenhope, the one near Skipton, the North York Moors railway, and so on. There simply are not the locomotives and the experienced personnel to go round for the sort of scheme that the Minister has in mind.

From his answers to questions, the Minister does not seem to have a structured plan for the operating method, the track provision and the running rights connected with the privatisation. There is the notion, for instance, of British Rail taking out all the long-welded track. That would have to be replaced, so the proposed dowry from British Rail is not all that good. The Minister has a department, the railway inspectorate, which looks at track, because the weight of the track determines the running speed of the line and the axle load of the locomotives that go over it. If the weight of the rail is diminished, that places a permanent way restriction on the railway and means that the running speed of trains is reduced, which makes the journey potentially rather boring, as the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon says he has experienced.

Where would the locomotives, for example, be maintained? The Department of Transport and the railway inspectorate rightly demand high standards of safety, and that means locornotive maintenance, carriage sheds and workshops. The Minister's own departmental inspectorate would not allow steam locomotives to operate into Carlisle under the electrified system because steam locomotives and overhead wires are kept separate.

So there are all these enormous operating problems, which do not exist if the line stays part of British Rail, because British Rail has the operating facilities and it is part of a through network. The enormous investment in maintenance facilities and locomotives that would be required in a privatisation scheme is not, of course, required for operation by British Rail.

We are talking about a railway that is providing about 300,000 or 350,000 passenger journeys each year. We agree that the railway has been used extensively for diversions when the west coast route has been closed for repairs, maintenance or blockages. I understand that the proposal to widen the west Cumbria line for diversions has been scrapped by British Rail. British Rail has tried desperately not to use the Settle-Carlisle line for diversions, but I have in my mind a timetable of diversions over the Settle-Carlisle line because of work on the west coast route, which was expensively electrified several years ago. If the Settle-Carlisle line is closed, passengers can expect to spend a minimum of one and a half to two hours on a bus journey between Carlisle and Preston. If it is a busy period, such as holiday time, and there is a breakdown, they can look forward to spending many more hours in a bus on the M6 between Carlisle and Preston.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon that more time is needed to consider the hardship circumstances, about which the Minister has said that he is returning to the transport users consultative committee to obtain further evidence. Since the TUCC hearings commenced, there has been a change in the pattern of diesel multiple unit provision, which has been helped by local authorities. As the figures show, more people are using the trains, which means that there is potential for more hardship arising from closure. I hope that the Minister will say that he is willing to give more time to the TUCC, if it requires it, to ensure that it obtains correct and adequate information.

The local authorities are interested, deeply involved and want the line to be retained. They are governed by financial considerations, but have, as the Minister rather scathingly acknowledged on 16 May, said that they are prepared to help by giving £500,000. As I understand it, there have been no negotiations about whether the local authorities were prepared to modify the conditions that they attached to the giving of that £500,000. They are willing to consider conditions such as an all-year-round service, frequency of services to be at least the same, journey times to be approximately the same, and any altered railway ownership to be subject to proper TUCC procedures, with the line remaining an integral part of the national railway service, with no separation and division. The local authorities have spent many hours and much money promoting the railway and are willing to enter into negotiations with the Department of Transport to consider what developments can be made, bearing in mind the amount of money that they can provide is limited.

If the Minister is saying that the Settle-Carlisle line is predominately a tourist one, that therefore it is subject to different criteria and should be closed if we cannot get a body to promote tourism more effectively than British Rail, I warn hon. Members representing other constituencies that there are lines with greater tourist participation than the Settle-Carlisle line. About 90 per cent. of the passengers carried on the Kyle of Lochalsh-Inverness line are tourists. According to the Yorkshire Post, other routes in north Wales, Devon and Cornwall carry more tourists than the Settle-Carlisle line. What will happen if British Rail says that it does not like running those lines because they carry tourists—who, after all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle said, are people? The Minister and the Government are supposed to be promoting tourism and leisure. They keep saying that we are receiving increased overseas earnings from tourism. Here is an opportunity to retain a railway that is enjoyed by a number of tourists, but between 30 and 40 per cent. of its passengers are local people.

The Minister said that only 20 per cent. of the passengers were local and therefore subject to hardship. The Friends of the Settle to Carlisle Railway Association believes that the figure is much closer to 30 per cent. and, indeed, on the top side of that. As the Minister knows, people who travelled on the now successful Dales Rail trains, which were introduced in 1975, were included—after considerable argument—in the category of those who were entitled to object on the grounds of hardship.

We must bear in mind that the Settle-Carlisle railway runs through some wild and beautiful country, from the Aisgill summit into the softer country in the Eden valley. If that railway is closed, the number of cars and buses will increase, to the point where the very countryside which people visit to enjoy is changed. People do not want that to happen. The car has given people great freedom and enjoyment but they recognise that it causes enormous problems. One problem is the changing shape of the countryside because of the needs of the motor car, which, incidentally, are extremely expensive. Access by rail is speedy and unobtrusive and will not destroy the countryside that people want to see.

As the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon pointed out, people travel on the Settle-Carlisle line and enjoy it. What is wrong with that? The Minister spoke with a light sneer as though it were just a railway for archaelogical historians. It is a beautiful and entrancing line. We spend much money on retaining artistic treasures. The magnificent Tate gallery is down the road and the national gallery and national portrait gallery are at the end of Whitehall. They cost a lot of money and are subsidised. Every local authority has a subsidised museum because such museums contain things created by men and women that we like to enjoy. The Settle-Carlisle line is in that category.

Thousands of people helped to build the line and run it and devoted their lives to it. It is a thing of beauty. We should not be afraid of saying that people who ride on the line enjoy the sensation. We should welcome that and say that, for that reason and because of vandalism in the 1950s and 1960s, when anything vaguely Victorian in construction was replaced, it should be preserved. We recognise the achievements of many of our forebears, and the Settle-Carlisle line certainly falls into that category.

The Department of Transport—some would call it the Department of Road Transport because of its apparently careless attitude towards railways—is prepared to spend £750 million to allow increased lorry weights, which are soon to be demanded by the EEC as we move towards the internal market of 1992. Apparently, the Department baulks at a relatively small sum for the Settle-Carlisle line. British Rail's financial case for closure put at £420,000 a year the cost for renewal of track and structures.

I emphasise the fact that this railway provides for local people and for tourists. It is a spendid, beautiful railway. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and I were downcast by the thought that this railway could come to an end, abandoned, a wilderness, without any use beyond a few photographs of what once was. This country has abandoned 13,000 route miles of passenger railway. This has gone too far. The Minister talks about a major main line railway being up for closure. I believe that the railway can have a useful place.

British Rail is the best body to operate the line. I accept that there is a case for other bodies to develop and promote the railway in conjunction with British Rail, so I accept that the Minister has a point when he says that other organisations can assist. The line must be part of British Rail; I have mentioned many of the operational difficulties that would arise otherwise.

I believe that together, the local authorities, the Friends of the Settle to Carlisle Railway Association and British Rail can make the future of this magnificent railway something worth looking forward to. The Friends of the Settle to Carlisle Railway Association has offered to help develop a scheme, and I think it has much merit.

I hope that the Minister will find it possible to suggest a longer period to consider the problems and the retention of the railway. I hope that he will say that he wants to keep the railway and that he agrees that, given time, good will and proper negotiations with the local authorities, that aim can be achieved.

10.1 pm

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)

The time constraints on Adjournment debates are usually much tighter than they are tonight. I had certainly intended to attend the debate but I had not expected to have an opportunity to speak, and I am grateful for that.

It is significant that the Government Whip who has been there throughout our proceedings, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), has a considerable interest in the line. Furthermore, the Government Chief Whip, who also sat through most of the debate, has an indirect interest in the subject, as his constituency is on the Blackburn-Hellifield line.

When the Minister made his statement, I said that people would be more than disappointed by it. I thought that to use that word would be to understate the feelings of those interested in the line and in railways in general, and I was absolutely right. Many people have expressed their views to me in very strong terms. Many believe that in his statement the Minister was really saying that the line would close, although he did not put it so bluntly, and that he was proposing an option that might not be realised. I do not believe that that is what he was doing; I hope it was not.

The package could perhaps work, but I do not believe that it is the right or the best solution. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who has a great knowledge of these matters, have explained clearly why it is not the best option to pursue. I have written to the Minister on the subject many times in the past few years because it is a matter of great concern and interest in Lancashire. STELLA—the Support the East Lancashire Line Association—which has a considerable interest in that line and now in the Roses line connecting Preston with Yorkshire, also strongly supports the Settle-Carlisle Line.

I hope that the Minister will think again and come forward with more positive proposals. I hope that he will place a requirement on British Rail to maintain the line and provide it with assistance to do so. We must consider the needs of those who live along the line. I do not believe that bus substitution would be the right solution—at least at certain times of the year. For those who live along it, the railway is a lifeline, and they have a right to ask that it be maintained.

My hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle and for Bradford, South mentioned diversions, as I did when I questioned the Minister earlier this month. We know that it does happen on occasions. We know that the figure of 300 diversions has been disputed by British Rail. However, whatever the figure is, it is clear that, if that diversion is not available, the west coast line at certain times of the year will have major problems—the failure of power lines or the weather over Shap or other things—which will cause difficulties without a diversion.

The Minister said that that would be a matter for negotiation, but it depended on the right track being available to run the rolling stock that British Rail would have available. I do not believe that that is an adequate solution, because we need to be sure that British Rail has that diversion available in its ownership to use when it needs it. Those are two important points.

The other important point is tourism.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment lapsed without Question put.

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

Mr. Pike

All the areas in the north are becoming much more tourist-oriented. It is an area of potential. In Lancashire and Yorkshire, we believe that it is something that we can develop to create jobs and prosperity in the area. We must also accept, because of our weather and other things, that we are not talking in the main of people coming for long-stay holidays, but are examining targeted package holidays—for example, to Bronte land in Haworth, which is not far from the Settle-Carlisle line and my constituency. Many other industrial heritage sites in Yorkshire and Lancashire could attract tourism. Withou.t any doubt, the Settle-Carlisle line can be one of those attractions. It is a remarkable engineering feat of the Victorian era. It passes through beautiful scenery. We should develop it to its full potential.

The Minister trod a dangerous path when he implied that British Rail was not the appropriate body to be involved in developing a tourist attraction and was riot interested in tourism. Hon. Members have said that there are other lines to which that argument could be directed. I believe that we must tell British Rail that it has a job to make that line and develop its tourist potential to the full. It could form a vital part of the attractions in the north-west regions, in Lancashire, Yorkshire and Cumbria. It could at the same time provide that vital fallback of a diversionary route. It would also play an essential role as a lifeline for the people who live on the route through which it passes.

10.3 pm

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)

I am glad we have had the opportunity to discuss the Settle-Carlisle line. As a number of points have been made during the course of the debate, I will deal with them in the sequence in which they were raised.

The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) follows in the footsteps of his predecessor, who used to sit frequently at that end of the Chamber and constantly raise with me the question of the Carlisle-Settle line, rather than the Settle-Carlisle line. I understand why he should follow in his predecessor's footsteps in that way.

The hon. Members for Carlisle and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred to the number of tourists using the line, and various references that I had made to the fact that they exceed local transport needs. They suggested that that meant that all the rural lines were at risk, and especially mentioned lines in Scotland. I shall give them some reassurance. First, I have recently talked to the general manager of ScotRail, who tells me that he has no proposals to bring forward any long rural lines to be closed in Scotland. I was up there last week and know that. that is the latest news on that situation.

I should add that I went to the west Highland line for the signing of a contract between Alcan and British Rail, which flowed from section 8 payments in excess of El million which I had sanctioned. The fact that that investment has been made in that line and, moreover, in new sidings and rolling stock, and that radio signalling has, just been installed on the line involving considerable investment, is as good an indication of the long-term security of that line as it is possible to give. I hope that hon. Members will not wish to frighten people in other parts of the country by suggesting that there are any parallels. I give that assurance in relation to Scotland.

Mr. Cryer

The line that the Minister is talking about was considered for closure by British Rail, which shows how wrong it was about that line. I hope that that is a parallel for the Settle-Carlisle line.

Mr. Mitchell

As a debating point, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that, but I do not think that it takes us much further forward.

Mr. Martlew

The Minister has given an assurance about Scotland, but two other areas have been mentioned in the debate. One is the west country—Devon and Cornwall—and the other is north and west Wales, and their problems. Will the Minister give that assurance to those two areas also?

Mr. Mitchell

I can only say that I have no proposals from British Rail for closures in those areas. I just happened to make it my business while I was in Scotland to find out whether there are any such proposals. Therefore, I can give a positive assurance in that respect. I am perfectly open and frank with the House, that such matters are for British Rail to bring forward if it feels that a line does not warrant being kept open. I am not aware of any proposals in the Department at present in respect of Wales or Devon.

In relation to the meeting in Carlisle to which the hon. Member for Carlisle referred, I should reply that nobody turned up. If my recollection is correct, the meeting was called by the local authority. It was certainly not called by my Department. The other meetings which were called in the same way and on the same day at the moot hall in Appleby, and in Settle, were well attended. I have vivid recollections of the extremely careful and well organised way in which the meeting at the moot hall in Appleby was conducted by the town's mayor, with each section of the community having a spokesman brought forward to explain the effect that the closure of the line would have on that part of the local community—whether young people, the middle-aged, the elderly, and so on. That was part of the consultation process at an early stage. My recollection is that the interest in Carlisle was not as great along the line, but perhaps that is not wholly surprising.

The hon. Member for Carlisle claimed that I was inaccurate in my assertion that 80 per cent. of the users of the line were not using it for normal transport purposes. I refer him to the information provided as a result of researches by Cumbria county council. Table 8 refers to "journey purposes for all trains" and shows 1.4 per cent. using it to and from work; during work, 2.1 per cent.; to and from education 2.4 per cent.; shopping and personal reasons, 6.4 per cent.; and social visits, 7.5 per cent. I make that 19.8 per cent. So perhaps I should not have said that 80 per cent. of those who use the line are leisure travellers because those using it for other purposes—to and from holiday, for instance—all add up to the 80 per cent. I am perhaps slightly inaccurate—there is a 0.9 per cent. figure for other purposes. I cannot know exactly what those are—

Mr. Martlew

The point I was making was that the latest figures show that 30 per cent. are local. I said that, since the closure debate began, eight stations had been reopened and were used by local people.

Mr. Mitchell

I am very much aware of that. It is one reason why we have asked for a restatement by British Rail of the financial case up until November and the TUCC is to consider any new evidence of hardship. That would give an up-to-date position. The hon. Member for Carlisle is perfectly correct, that we must presume that the figures have changed since the closure was first proposed. It is right that the case should be updated by British Rail.

I turn next to the local authorities' offer. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Carlisle and for Bradford, South for saying that the local authorities are prepared to be more flexible than they were when they announced their position. As yet, they have not come to me, so I do not know the degree of flexibility to which the hon. Member for Carlisle is privy. However, in due course we shall learn more about that and there will be time for the Secretary of State to take it into account, along with other matters.

I understand why the local authorities feel aggrieved. The following are the stringent conditions on their contribution: that British Rail continue to maintain and operate the line; that the line's future be guaranteed for … at least 20 years: that the contributions are a 'one off' payment and that no further requests for financial support should be made; that the Revenue Support contributions already agreed for the next two years will not be extended beyond that period. It is significant that the local authorities' generosity was watered down by these conditions, but it would not be fair to say that their restrictions were the determining factor.

The contributions from the private sector have not been as great as we had expected at one time, so we must take into account both the fact that the local authorities hedged their terms with such severe conditions and the fact that the number of contributions that it was thought at one time would come from the private sector have not done so. I should take this opportunity of saying that there has been more generosity in this respect than the hon. Member for Carlisle allowed. He said that there had been two offers of £25,000, but Hansard for 16 May shows that there were generous offers from

  • "BACMI Members:
  • ARC Ltd., Chipping Sodbury, Avon
  • Tilcon Ltd., Knaresborough, North Yorkshire
  • Hargreaves Quarries Ltd., Pickering, North Yorkshire
  • Castle Cement Ltd., Peterborough, Cambridgeshire".
  • —[Official Report, 16 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 684.]
A large number of members of FeRFA, too, are in the business of supplying a form of material that is significantly involved in structural renovation. In addition to that, there are contributions from BarFab Reinforcement of Smethwick, British Steel Corporation, Redcar in Cleveland, and Servicised Ltd. of Slough, Berkshire. There is a long list. I pay tribute to them and the members of FeRFA which are prepared to provide materials at reduced cost towards repair of the Ribblehead viaduct. That significant capital expenditure led British Rail to bring forward the closure proposal in the first place.

We are inviting the TUCCs to give us up-to-date information on hardship during the course of the summer and to state how they think that guaranteed alternative bus routes can best be provided. It may be that the provision of a bus service from Settle to Giggleswick, which is not far—I have walked it—would be one way of helping at the Settle end of the line, and that a service from Appleby to Penrith, where one picks up the fast electric trains on the west coast main line to Carlisle, would be a considerable help to Appleby. The length of journey time—part of the way by bus and then by the high-speed train—from Penrith to Carlisle is not much different from the slow journey time on the Settle-Carlisle line from Appleby into Carlisle.

There are options. I inform my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and those who are involved in journeys between Appleby and Settle that there may well be some difficulties in finding any suitable alternative, but, on average, only about half a dozen people a day make that journey. It is difficult to justify spending well over £1 million on that item of hardship. I have received several letters, and I shall of course carefully examine the cases in which hardship is involved.

The hon. Member for Carlisle referred to the British Rail dowry. He suggested that it was normally given at weddings and that this matter sounded more like a funeral. I could not disagree more. It appears to me that there is a prospect—I go no further, because these are early days—of a wedding between the private and public sectors. The House would welcome that.

The hon. Gentleman made a point about loss of income from British Rail diversioons. That matter is yet to be played for. If the line is useful to British Rail as a diversionary route—it says that it is not essential to it—presumably it has a price. That price could be negotiated between a private sector successor company and British Rail for the availability of the line for diversion purposes.

The hon. Gentleman referred also to freight. A freight service currently operates to the gypsum private siding at Newbiggin and the Ministry of Defence siding at Warcop near Appleby. They are served from Carlisle.

As long as British Rail Freight has a use for those sidings and for that service on that line, and as long as that is a viable proposition for British Rail Freight, there is no reason why, if Cumbria county council wishes to negotiate with British Rail for the running of a service at its own cost between Carlisle and virtually Appleby, which is where those sidings come to, there is no reason why it should not do so. But that is not a matter where the generality of taxpayers should be asked to foot the bill if it is shown—studies are to be provided by the TUCC—that another alternative by bus and train is equally good. The county council may not find such a proposition attractive, but at least the opportunity is there, and the hon. Gentleman would wish me to draw attention to it.

The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have asked me for my view about the line. Each of us has a heart and a head. My heart is with those hon. Members who would like to see the line kept open because of its scenic beauty, because of all it holds historically and because of the opportunities, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon referred, of great engines going on it and the emotion that that generates.

But at the same time one has to be hard-headed about an expenditure by British Rail of about £2.7 million a year and an income of only £1 million a year, or just under. I think that what we have proposed is the right mix of heart and head and I hope that time will demonstrate that to be the case.

Like me, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon has an obvious affection for the glorious scenery through which the line runs and the fact that it is the last great main line in Britain to be built with pick and shovel. Its history is remarkable, not least because when the House passed the Bill to ensure that it was built, those who promoted it decided they did not want to go ahead with it because they could do a deal with what is now the west coast main line and did not want to duplicate it. But they then found that they had to go ahead because of the procedures of the House at that time.

The hon. Member for Bradford, South said that the Government were forcing British Rail to close the line. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon said that it almost sounded as if the debate was about the Government forcing British Rail to close the line. I could not deny that suggestion more forcefully. British Rail wants to close the line. My hon. Friend is right when he says that British Rail is not interested in running the line. It is not part of its network in terms of its long-distance work. It is a loss maker with a huge potential liability in the Ribblehead viaduct and with local services, demand for which is wholly inadequate to maintain the line. There is also tourism, to which I shall return.

Mr. Cryer

Will the Minister acknowledge that while British Rail management might be looking through the accountants' books to save every penny, the people who operate the line are dearly attached to it, spend their lives on and want to see it kept open?

Mr. Mitchell

I do not doubt that, but the reality is that those who are running British Rail do not see the line as part of their network. They have electrified the west coast main line to give a fast low-cost operation which runs broadly parallel with the line. It enables them to provide services at much lower costs than they ever could on the Settle-Carlisle line because of the low cost of operating electrified services once the high capital costs have been paid up front.

My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon rightly referred to the various options. One was to close the line out of hand, which we have not done. Another was just to give the line the money—but it is very difficult to justify the level of expenditure involved against the local need. My hon. Friend also made the point that British Rail was not successfully developing the line for tourism and that it was about as exciting as a suburban ride. I have to say that I think he is right. There is enormous potential for a specialist operator.

Mr. Cryer

indicated dissent.

Mr. Mitchell

The hon. Member for Bradford, South may shake his head, but he referred to the amateur efforts of lines such as that with which he has been associated. However, many lines—such as the North Yorks Moors line and the Severn Valley line—show a degree of professionalism in attracting visitors, and the hon. Gentleman should not mock them for being amateur.

Mr. Cryer

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mitchell

No, I have done so several times. I have a lot of ground to cover.

Mr. Cryer

I did not say what the Minister claims.

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Cryer

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

It is not a point of order—it is a disagreement.

Mr. Mitchell

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will return to the content of his speech in a moment. I must finish dealing with the comments of my hon. Friend first—[Interruption.] I certainly did not intend to offend the hon. Gentleman, and I shall return to his comments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon was saying that one can take a horse to water but one cannot make it drink. One can give the line to British Rail but one cannot make it develop the line as a tourist attraction when British Rail does not have that skill. British Rail is in the business of conveying people from A to B, which it does increasingly effectively and efficiently. It requires a totally different skill to develop a tourist attraction—a day out for the family during which they can ride on the line and see what goes on.

My hon. Friend also asked what will happen now. He wondered whether I am just going to sit on my hands. British Rail has promised to be positive and helpful to any private sector operator coming forward with sound proposals for keeping the line open. A special project manager for that purpose will be appointed by British Rail in the next few weeks. I hope that anyone thinking of coming forward in that way will make themselves known to the project manager at the British Rail Board, Euston house, Eversholt street, London.

As to the points made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South, unfortunately the amount of time I have left does not allow me to give as much attention as I would like to the matters he raised, but I shall do my best. He queried certain figures I gave relating to revenue. British Rail says that it is currently running at just under £1 million, whereas the line's local supporters say that revenue is £1.725 million. It is that kind of detail which needs to be clarified. That is a principal reason why the Secretary of State for Transport is allowing a further period, until the autumn, for the updating of figures, so that we may be sure what the latest position is and that a decision is not taken on figures which are out of date.

The hon. Member for Bradford, South, also claimed that fares collected by ticket collectors on the trains were not included in the revenue figure. We shall cover that point, together with the question of diversions. As to contributory revenue, British Rail takes the view that the amount of contributory revenue for conveying passengers from London, say, to Leeds before they travel on the Settle-Carlisle line is about offset by the costs which British Rail will incur in the longer term in carrying those additional passengers. The hon. Gentleman may or may not warm to that view, but it is one to which British Rail adheres very strongly.

The hon. Gentleman said that there was no comparison with the private sector operated and preserved lines. I wish to make the point absolutely clear. What British Rail identifies as the future operating costs of the line, if it is radio-signalled or single-tracked, is £2.1 million a year, less whatever contributions come in towards the Ribblehead viaduct. Let us call it £2 million a year. That is the revenue already achieved on the Severn valley line—[interruption.] We are not talking about the operating costs. British Rail can run the line with £2 million income, and Severn Valley alone can generate that sum in the private sector. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider what lies behind that, and the specialised skills that people who run the—

The Motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.