HL Deb 02 June 1932 vol 84 cc583-90

LORD MONKSWELL rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will them out, and really learning a good deal more about the situation than we do at this moment. I think in that way, if we have not time to get the Bill through another place, we might probably lay the foundations for another Bill next Session, founded upon greater knowledge and after fuller discussion. May I thank the noble Earl for what he has said, and say that his suggestion shall receive the fullest consideration? I will discuss the matter with him and with others.

On Question, Whether the Bill shall now be read 2a?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 8.

CONTENTS.
Lansdowne, M. Ullswater, V. Conway of Allington, L.
Danesfort, L.[Teller.]
Denbigh, E. Exeter, L. Bp. Howard of Penrith, L.
Lucan, E. Lamington, L. [Teller.]
Radnor, E. Askwith, L. Luke, L.
Selborne, E. Banbury of Southam, L. Monkswell, L.
Bayford, L. Rochester, L.
Cecil of Chelwood, V. Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.) Teynham, L.
Hood, V. Clwyd, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E.[Teller.] de Clifford, L. Mount Temple, L.
Howe, E. [Teller.] Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) Wharton, L.
Poulett, E. Lawrence, L.

ascertain and publish full details of the cost of the electrification of the Southern Railway, both capital costs and working expenses; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, a short time ago I was reading a newspaper report of the sitting of the Conference on road and rail transport. According to this report the principal subject discussed that day was the electrification of suburban railways, which it appeared to be assumed would be highly advantageous if a large traffic could be secured. I happen to have devoted a good deal of attention to this subject and the more I study it the more sceptical I become of the advantages of electrification for any kind of surface railway. I am not of course now speaking of underground lines and extremely long tunnels, where electrification has obvious advantages. I wrote to the for itself, and I suggested that be- fore reporting it would be advisable to go fully into the question of the finances of electrification. I was informed in reply that the subject was not within the competence of the Conference to enquire into. Here therefore is the Conference allowing counsel to beg this exceedingly controversial question which, according to its own account, it has no power to examine.

I do not suppose that many people ever expected much from a Conference composed, with the single exception of the Chairman, of people who have been appointed judges in their own cause, but if the Conference has not even the power to enquire into the accuracy of assertions made before it it is hardly justifiable to go on spending public money on proceedings that are a pure farce. I venture to suggest to the Government that instead of allowing the Conference to grope about in the dark they should themselves take action to settle this important point. I can tell the Government that they will find it very difficult to get the figures from the Manager of the Southern Railway. One would suppose that the Royal Commission on transport or the Weir Committee on main line electrification would be in a good position to ascertain the facts. The Royal Commission stated in their Report that in view of the appointment of the Weir Committee they deliberately abstained from any serious examination of the subject and they confined themselves to quoting some highly optimistic remarks made by the Chairman of the Southern Railway which they did not attempt in any way to investigate. The Weir Committee, beyond a couple of evasive phrases of which it is impossible to make head or tail, said nothing.

It is a most extraordinary thing that the cost of electrification schemes, which was obviously the most important thing that the Weir Committee had to enquire into, has simply been slurred over. There is not in the whole Report a single definite figure. What is the explanation of the unwillingness of the Southern Railway and others to give to the public full figures relating to the cost? The inference is that, financially, electrification is a failure and that the persons responsible for it are reluctant to admit the fact. Anyhow, the question of the cost of suburban electrification is one that enters largely into the existing road-rail controversy and it is most undesirable that references to it should be confined to unproved assertions. I hope the Government will do something to clear up the fog which now surrounds this question. It is impossible not to be struck by the attempt that is being made to force the country into railway electrification without any proper information as to the probable result of such a policy.

All the known facts are against electrification. The estimates for laying down the national grid have proved to be absurdly too optimistic. I think the actual costs so far are at least double the estimated costs. It is impossible to find out the costs of the electrification of any surface line apparently because they are so high that the people responsible dare not disclose them—I can think of no other reason—and, finally, we are presented with the Weir Committee's Report, which is to my mind one of the least convincing documents I have ever read. I do not think we need take seriously the statement that the Report is merely intended as a tentative suggestion. It is really a panegyric of complete railway electrification. I do not often agree with the railway companies but I am glad to see that they appear for the most part to be making a firm stand against all attempts to induce them to accept the principles of the Report. I believe that in this they are perfectly and entirely right.

I need not comment upon the wild extravagance and optimism of the financial proposals of the Report, but I should like to point out that at least one radical objection to electrification is simply not mentioned at all. The electric motor is at the present time an extremely crude and imperfect machine which in comparison with any reasonably well-balanced steam locomotive knocks the road about to such an extent as to involve a heavy extra charge for maintenance. So far from this being even mentioned the Report calmly suggests that large economies might be secured by the mass production of electric locomotives. Mass production involves standardisation. I do not pretend to be an electrical engineer, but I do know the outlines of the question of railway electrification and I have no hesitation in saying that to standardise the electric motor as it is at present would be to lay the foundations of endless troubles in the future. I beg to move.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

My Lords, the noble Lord has asked the Government a Question and I will do what I can to answer it. In the letter the noble Lord was good enough to send to the Ministry he referred—indeed he did so this afternoon—to certain statements which were reported to have been made at a Committee. I was not quite clear as to which Committee he meant but I presume he means the Committee which is presided over by Sir Arthur Salter—the Road-Rail Conference.

LORD MONKSWELL

Yes.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

The noble Lord suggested that this Committee should have been empowered to deal with the particular question which he has raised this afternoon. I only want to point out that the Conference was not set up for that purpose. That Conference was set up for another purpose. It was specifically asked to deal with the question of road and rail transport of goods—goods transport in particular and not other forms of transport. Therefore I do not think that the noble Lord should be surprised that the Chairman of the Conference did not consider himself entitled to deal with the specific question of railway electrification.

The noble Lord in his question asked whether the Government would ascertain and publish full details of the cost of the electrification of the Southern Railway, both capital costs and working expenses. I can only say that according to the evidence which was given by Sir Herbert Walker to the Committee of Inquiry—this is another Committee—the Committee of Inquiry on London Coach Services, the Southern Railway had expended up to date about £10,000,000 on electrification of which sum approximately one half had been spent since 1923. The Government is not in possession of details of this expenditure and it is not considered that any useful purpose would be served by their publication even if the company were agreeable to that course. While certain items of the cost of working the electric services are shown in the company's accounts, a substantial part of such costs is included in the traffic and other general working expenses of the Southern Railway system which are not sub-divided between electric and steam working. As regards the comparative cost of working steam and electric services, the noble Lord is no doubt aware that comparative estimates of the working of steam and electric services are given in the Report of the Committee on Main Line Electrification over which the noble Lord, Lord Weir, presided. The Committee reported on March 24, 1931, and their Report was published.

LORD MONKSWELL

I have got all that.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

In connection with this question I should like to emphasise this point, that it is absurd to suggest that the railway companies would be prepared at the present moment to embark on the vast capital expenditure entailed by conversion to electric working unless they were absolutely satisfied that there was a reasonable expectation of return upon that capital. One cannot really conceive of a set of people acting in any other way. Apparently the noble Lord has not a very high opinion of this Committee, but I may point out that in their Report they said: So far as we have been able to establish all electrification of suburban railways in this country has been successful from an economic and technical aspect, while in addition the service to the community has been substantially improved. There are other extracts from this excellent Report which I could quote. I do not desire to weary the House, but it might be worth while to bring one or two points to the attention of your Lordships. With regard to this question of the cost of electrification comparative estimates of steam and electric working were made and they appear in that Report.

LORD MONKSWELL

Estimates, but not figures. I want figures of what actually happens, not estimates of what may happen.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

Then perhaps it is not worth while going on with this question. The noble Lord stated that the Report of the Weir Committee was valueless so far as this is concerned. I, on the other hand, think a great deal of weight should be given to the views expressed by that Committee. I am not quite clear as to what other points the noble Lord would like me to deal with but I think I might point out that, with regard to the general question of a comparison between the cost of operation of steam and electric haulage, the Committee state: One of the effects of the development of demand following on improved services has been to make it quite impossible to establish any sound comparison between the costs of operation of steam and electrical haulage on suburban lines, because in every case the adoption of electricity has vitally altered the traffic conditions and no comparison can be set up. The Committee add: Where electric haulage has been adopted on suburban services, the railway companies have found themselves in the position of having a transport machine of such improved capacity as to procure very rapidly an increased revenue. I think that is a very strong passage in the Report. The Committee go on to say with regard to the Brighton extension of the Southern Railway electrification scheme: We were informed that that would involve an increase of between 100 per cent. and 150 per cent. in passenger train mileage and that the scheme would be justified financially if as a result there were an increase of only seven per cent. in the passenger traffic. Then, in their conclusion, the Committee state: British Railway electrification up to now has been confined to suburban lines, and the result, economic and otherwise, has been favourable. That is a statement which I think cannot possibly be ignored, and it is a statement which, coming from a Committee such as that responsible for it, would carry considerable weight with most people in this country.

I am afraid it is not possible for me to obtain further information for the noble Lord from the figures and facts now at our disposal. The manner in which these figures are compiled is determined from time to time by the Railway Clearing House with the approval of the Minister of Transport. We can see no particular reason at present for demanding an alteration in the way in which those figures are compiled. It is not possible to produce the figures asked for by the noble Lord from the statistics at our disposal in their present form. I should have been only too glad if it were possible to give the noble Lord a fuller answer, but I trust that he will be at any rate partially satisfied with what I have been able to tell him.

LORD MONKSWELL

My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for his reply. To a large extent I think he and I agree and with regard to the competence of the Conference it had not occurred to me either that they would go into the question. The only reason I put down the Question was that I saw a definite report of a sitting of this Conference which apparently lasted all day and according to this report hardly any other subject was discussed except that of railway electrification. To my certain knowledge there are no definite figures of the costs of electric railways and it certainly seems to me that before we go in for electrification we must know the costs. There is the most definite conspiracy to prevent these figures being published. I hope the noble Earl will take note of that.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

I will take note of that.

LORD MONKSWELL

If the noble Earl will look through the Report he will see, as I have said in my opening statement, that there is not one single definite figure on which one can rely. There are estimates in plenty but estimates mean absolutely nothing. In the case of the electric grid the cost has turned out to be at least double the estimate given. I do not wish to detain your Lordships longer but I do think it would be a good thing if the Ministry of Transport would have the whole matter looked into. I beg leave to withdraw.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.