HC Deb 07 February 1992 vol 203 cc630-6

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

2.33 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springburn)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to Mr. Speaker for the opportunity to put this Adjournment debate before the House. I am grateful, too, to the Minister for Public Transport who is here to reply to the debate. I took the liberty yesterday of putting to the Minister the case that I am about to make now, so that there might be a chance of as full an explanation as possible on the proposed closure.

The Eastfield railway locomotive depot is in my constituency, Springburn. It employs 120 highly skilled engineers, fitters and electricians. The depot is sited on the main Glasgow to Edinburgh railway line. Given the recent announcement to build the European freight terminal at Mossend, the men are deeply shocked at the decision to close a maintenance depot with such an excellent reputation. It was felt that with the opening of that terminal more maintenance depots would be needed.

The work force has an excellent record of industrial relations. Many members of staff have received commendations from the British Railways Board. Many of the staff have worked in the industry since they left school and, in some cases, their fathers worked in it before them. In fact, traditionally, people have worked in the railway industries in my constituency for many generations. At one time in Springburn 11,000 people were employed in railway engineering, but I am sad to say that that is not the case now. If the proposed closure goes ahead only one railway facility will be left—the British Rail Maintenance Ltd. depot, formerly the British Rail Engineering Ltd. workshop. However, even that facility has been reduced to a tenth of its original size.

The Minister will be aware of the concern in the railway industry at the decision by British Steel to move its limestone transportation from rail to road. That decision has been taken despite the fact that the Minister has stated that the Government are doing everything that they can to take freight transport from the roads to the railways because of the environmental consequences of such a change. It appears that the Government are a bit half-hearted about getting more freight work for British Rail. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), who is present, would agree that if more and more freight goes off the railways, more and more jobs in railway maintenance will be lost.

The work force wants to know what the future might hold for them. Obviously, their first wish is for the depot to be kept open, but in the event of common sense failing to prevail, what guarantees will be given to them about relocation?

I know that the Minister may not have all the answers today; perhaps he can write to me to let me know whether BR, if it cannot find similar work for that work force, is prepared to retrain and locate within the travel-to-work area? A recent memo issued by the management stated that no new posts would be created at the Ayr, Motherwell or Grangemouth depots. If that is true, how will it be possible to relocate the work force of Eastfield?

Mr. Thomas McAvoy (Glasgow, Rutherglen)

First, may I say how much I admire the way in which my hon. Friend is putting the case for his constituents? The recent rail crash at Newton has made maintenance a topical issue in terms of British Rail's responsibility. What does my hon. Friend think about the effects of apparent rundown of maintenance facilities given that maintenance is such an important factor in terms of rail safety?

Mr. Martin

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I shall refer to the Newton railway disaster and to Bellgrove in the context of railway safety.

The Minister will be aware that the terms and conditions of employment in the railway industry stress the importance of relocation and retraining. I hope that he will comment on that issue and that, if he does not have positive answers, we shall hear further from British Rail.

At the best of times redundancy is worrying. In my area it is disastrous, for I represent one of the worst unemployment blackspots in the United Kingdom. Indeed, when the figures were last given, my constituency was number six, near the top of the list of worst unemployment areas. As I say, redundancy is worrying at any time, but it is disastrous at a time of high unemployment and in an area in which there are few jobs to go round.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen referred to safety. Bellgrove railway junction is in my constituency. Some years ago, when the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was Prime Minister, a terrible crash involving fatalities occurred there. It was due to the single junction, which has now been phased out. At that time the right hon. Lady gave me every assurance in the House that railway safety would become a top priority for the Government. Similar comments were made at the time of the Newton railway disaster last summer. That disaster occurred in my hon. Friend's constituency, although one of the drivers who died was a neighbour of mine, as he lived only a few minutes from my home.

Hon. Members are not unused to attending funerals, some of which are sadder than others. I had never attended a sadder gathering than the funeral of the young driver, Mr. Scott, who lived in my area. Not only did his workmates have the harrowing experience of attending his funeral, but within an hour they had to be at the funeral of the other driver.

Evidence showed that railway safety was at fault and that the technology of the single junction was the problem. We are all anxious to see safety standards improved. It would surely be for the advantage of all to keep open a depot such as that about which I am speaking and which has a skilled work force. It seems pointless to make promises about safety if, at the end of the day, we allow a depot such as that to be closed.

My purpose today is not simply to talk about assurances for the men. That is a vital issue and I have made the case for such assurances being given. Everyone in the community wants the depot to be kept open and, in that context, I could not do better than put to the House the points that the chairman of shop stewards, Mr. Larry Kerr, put to me yesterday. I asked him what, if he was in my shoes standing before the House, he would say to hon. Members. He faxed to me the 18 points that he would stress. He stated that there was potential for total maintenance and servicing of class 156-158 and that it was the only location in Scotland (other than BRML) capable of class 08 shunter heavy maintenance lifts … the only location in Scotland (other than BRML) capable of locomotive bogie lifting for wheel set and traction motor repairs. The shop steward said that it was capable of carrying out all modification work presently carried out at RETB … and fitting to class 37 locomotives. He said that the closure of Eastfield would mean that "West Highland" locomotives would have to be maintained at Thornaby in Teesside or at Inverness, and that, in order to be maintained at Inverness or Teesside, the locomotives would pass Eastfield. It is galling for workers if they see work going past them on its way to another depot. I am anything but a nationalist. I despise some elements of nationalism, which almost seem fascist. However, previous debates have shown that all movement of work to south of the border fuels the nationalists' case.

The shop steward said that the depot was capable of fuelling any class of locomotive or multi-unit and was ideally sited on the Glasgow-Edinburgh main line. He said that it contained provision for breakdown recovery, and facilities to cope with disasters. God forbid that such emergencies should occur again, but the Eastfield depot was involved in the Polmont and Bellgrove disasters and the Newton train crash.

The shop steward said that the depot carried out serious collision damage repair that would otherwise have to be done at a main works. He said that it contained a painting facility and was currently working on InterCity locomotives. The depot can carry out locomotive body work refurbishment and is a central location for "booking-on" train crew.

He said that all staff were CI trained in mechanical-electrical interchange. He said that the depot had potential for locomotive power unit changes, and maintained line-clearing snow ploughs. He said that it was recognised by senior technical and engineering management as an essential facility, the work of which could not be easily or reliably taken over by other depots.

The shop steward's report said that the complex comprised: (a) 12 covered repair roads (b) of which 5 have overhead cranes (c) 2 heavy repair … roads (d) fuelling/servicing roads (e) 2 covered roads capable of accepting complete 156 or 158 trains sets for repair (f) recently upgraded safety systems". The depot is in the process of applying for BS 5750 standard. It has an excellent industrial record.

The shop steward stated that the depot had the potential to carry out any sort of British Rail work, perhaps under the proposed T and RS grades restructuring.

That was the case set up by the shop steward. I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Rutherglen and for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) will agree with that case. They both have constituents who work in the depot, and I am sure that they would agree that it would be a loss not only for Glasgow, Springburn, but for railway engineering throughout Scotland were the depot to close.

Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde)

As my hon. Friend knows, the Glasgow to Ayrshire line and the Glasgow to Gourock and Greenock line run through my constituency. Anyone who knows of the great knowledge and expertise that have been built up at the Eastfield depot will agree that to lose that depot would be disastrous for Scotland.

Mr. Martin

I thank my hon. Friend for that point.

I plead with the Minister to use whatever influence he has to call on British Rail to think again about the Eastfield railway depot.

2.49 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman)

With characteristic courtesy, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) informed me yesterday of a letter that he had received from Mr. Lawrence Kerr of the works committee. I have read that letter; it was helpful to be briefed on some of the points that the hon. Gentleman wanted to raise. If I cannot answer all his points in the remaining time, I will write to him.

There is no difference between the hon. Member for Springburn and myself in wanting to pay tribute to the skill of the men at the maintenance depot. They have a creditable record and it is right that we should record their hard work and skill in helping British Rail to achieve the status of one of the best maintained railways in the world.

The Eastfield depot is situated two miles north of Glasgow Queen Street station, on the main line from Glasgow to Edinburgh. It has been the main heavy locomotive maintenance depot for Scotland for many years. Its role has been diminishing in recent years, largely because of changes in British Rail's fleet composition. In 1986 the diesel locomotive fleet in Scotland stood at 235. Now it stands at 98, with further reductions forecast as new electric trains and smaller and more powerful diesel locomotives are introduced.

One advantage of the modernisation of the passenger fleet over the past few years has been the reduction in maintenance costs. Less work is now needed to maintain the fleet. Modern sprinter trains, including class 158s, have been introduced, replacing locomotive-hauled services and older multiple units. On the freight side, the introduction of new heavy-haul diesel class 60 locomotives has both reduced the number of locomotives requiring maintenance and the amount of maintenance needed by those that remain.

Another contributory factor has been a decline in freight flows, mainly relating to the past rundown of steel-making facilities in Scotland. The closure of Eastfield depot therefore also reflects a reduction in the requirements for locomotive maintenance for the railway's freight business in Scotland.

I understand that BR has had Eastfield's position under review for some time and that last year it looked at a number of options for the future of the depot. As part of that review, all BR businesses were consulted but no prospect of alternative extra work for Eastfield emerged. After careful consideration of long-term requirements, BR came to the conclusion that closure was the most cost-effective solution.

This is purely a business decision by British Rail, not one for Ministers. The hon. Member has raised a number of detailed points concerning the views of the work force, but I must stress that the day-to-day management of the railway and the deployment of railway staff are entirely matters for the British Railways Board. I can, however, tell the hon. Gentleman that having read the detailed letter, I will correspond with the chairman of British Rail, Sir Bob Reid, and send him the letter to make absolutely certain that all the points made by the works committee are understood and taken into account in BR's decisions.

I understand that the depot will probably close later this year. The exact date will be set by BR after consultation with the work force and BR's freight customers in Scotland. About 120 staff will be affected by the closure. BR has said that it will do its best to avoid compulsory redundancies and will make every effort to provide alternative jobs, retraining within the railway industry and relocation assistance if required. Advice and counselling are, I understand, now being made available.

It is the intention of British Rail to keep as much work as possible in Scotland—at the depots at Motherwell, Ayr, Grangemouth and Inverness, for instance. Some heavy maintenance will have to go to Immingham on south Humberside and Thornaby on Teesside.

In addition to ensuring that the chairman of British Rail sees the letter from the works committee, I will take a personal interest in events as they unfold to ascertain what British Rail is doing to avoid compulsory redundancies, to institute retraining, and to help with relocation, including financial assistance when appropriate. I will take a personal interest and I will ask the chairman of British Rail to inform me of progress so that Ministers are aware of what is happening.

Mr. Michael J. Martin

I am heartened by the Minister's assurances, which I am sure will be appreciated by the work force. There is also a worry about what will happen to the land. The Minister may not be able to give me an answer now, but perhaps he could write to me.

Mr. Freeman

I was aware of that concern. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that.

It may be helpful if I comment briefly on the two points that the hon. Gentleman raised—the consequences for freight business in Scotland and rail safety. I do not believe that the closure of Eastfield will affect the ability of British Rail's freight business to move new freight traffic in Scotland. The closure of Eastfield will reduce the cost of providing a freight service to Scotland and so make British Rail's freight operations more efficient. The Government believe firmly that the rail freight industry should operate without subsidy. In order to attract more business away from the road and on to the rail, it must operate in an efficient a manner as possible. The managers of rail freight distribution and bulk train load freight must make sure that the maintenance facilities that they have are not only commensurate with the business that they are doing but are run as efficiently as possible.

Nor do we believe that closure will affect the establishment of the intermodal channel tunnel terminal at Mossend, which will enable business throughout Scotland to take full advantage of the rail freight services that will be available between Scotland and the continent. The situation at Eastfield needs to be seen against the wider background of British Rail's investments in Scotland. The channel tunnel terminal at Mossend is a joint venture between BR, AMEC Regeneration Ltd. and the Lanarkshire development agency. Total investment in the fully developed site, including the construction and equipping of the terminal, will be in excess of £250 million. This new development will have the potential capacity to generate up to 8,000 jobs, and is expected to handle 400,000 tonnes of intermodal freight traffic annually.

There has been some speculation that the decision to close Eastfield depot was taken so as to utilise the land for other developments. I must emphasise that the closure of the depot results solely from an excess of maintenance capacity. This must be cut if the freight businesses are to remain competitive. It is too early to say what subsequent use will be made of the land. It is intended that some accommodation on the site, outside the depot buildings, will be used by BR administrative and technical staff to support the remaining engineering activities in Scotland. However, I will make further inquiries, write to the hon. Gentleman and keep him abreast of the developments on the land.

I am well aware of the concern felt by hon. Members about single-lead junctions at Bellgrove and Newton. An inquiry on Newton is under way and the inspector has not yet concluded and prepared a detailed report for the Secretary of State. I can give the House an assurance that any recommendations from the inquiry will be acted upon. The Department of Transport does not believe that British Rail has neglected its responsibilities for running a safe railway. This year, it will spend £200 million on safety—a substantial increase on last year and the year before. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that a safe railway, which means safely maintained rolling stock, is essential for the good operation of the railway.

Although closure of the depot is a matter for British Rail and not Ministers, it is related to the capacity of maintenance facilities, not just in Scotland but throughout the country. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I will draw the letter prepared by the convenor or chairman of the works committee to the chairman of British Rail, so that it is aware of all the various factors that have been cited. I will take a personal interest in how the staff at the works are treated—there is a difference between the salaried and works grades. There may not be many opportunities for those on salaries at some of the other sites in Scotland. They might have to look further afield within British Rail. There may well be opportunities, however, for those on wages. I hope that compulsory redundancies will be avoided. I know that British Rail will try very hard to ensure that that is the case.

I also gave the hon. Gentleman an assurance about the land. There is concern about what might happen to the facility, if it is closed, as is the intention. I shall keep the hon. Gentleman informed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.