HL Deb 29 July 1963 vol 252 cc982-6

2.38 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have approved the decision of British Railways Board to sell the single track Newquay—Perranporth railway line for its scrap value of £23,000 and to refuse the £40,000 offered by a syndicate of Cornish business men who planned to reopen the line and provide a summer service for holidaymakers.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)

My Lords, a decision by the British Railways Board to dispose of this railway line, which has been closed, does not require the approval of my right honourable friend.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, will the noble Lord say what a local authority are to do under such circumstances? To whom can they appeal? The Truro Rural District Council offered to guarantee British Railways against loss if they continued this line. This is one of the things which the right honourable gentleman the Minister said he would consider. The local authority cannot appeal to British Railways, obviously. To whom can they appeal, if not to the Minister and the Government?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, of course, as I said, this is not a matter for the Government, but perhaps I can help—because I do like to do my best for the noble Lord and the House. Perhaps I should have phrased my Answer otherwise, although I do not see how I could have done that. There might be something in what the noble Lord said if, in fact, there were any question of accepting an offer of £23,000 for this line, which from the private inquiries I made of the Railways Board I understand is not the case. I am told there is no question of it, and that the offer which is under consideration, but which is still subject to negotiation, is materially better than the £40,000 which the noble Lord has mentioned.

LORD STONHAM

Is the noble Lord aware that British Railways offered to sell this line to these business people for £60,000? Would it not be better to accept an offer round about £40,000 from them, and so have a railway which would be a lifeline in winter and which would relieve the terrific traffic congestion in summer, rather than tear up the line? May I ask the noble Lord whether he will approach his right honourable friend to look into this again, not only in this particular instance, but also on the question of principle, to whom a local authority can appeal in a matter of this kind after British Railways have made a decision?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, as the noble Lord well knows from our discussions on what is now the Transport Act, the Railways Board are charged with making the best use that they can of their assets. This, after all, is a line which has been closed—it is not a question of future closures; this line has been closed—and it is entirely up to the Railways Board to make their decisions in I the light of the duty that there is on them under the Transport Act. It seems to me, from what I personally have learnt about it, that they have before them a better offer than the one mentioned in the noble Lord's Question.

LORD STONHAM

Would the noble Lord say what the offer is, with a view to seeing whether the line might continue to be used as a railway? And is he not aware—I am sure he must be—that, during the discussions on the Transport Bill in another place, the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport said that he would be prepared to look at any case where a local authority was prepared to defray the losses on a line which might otherwise be closed? That is exactly what has happened in this case.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, as I have said, this line has been closed. That is the whole point of this. I can help the noble Lord a little more, because the Railways Board told me that in fact the offer for the taking up of the line on a scrap basis was £31,000 and not £23,000; and that, adding to that what is anticipated to be the quite substantial value of the land on which it lies, which I cannot at the moment specify, the result comes to materially more than the £40,000.

THE EARL OF SANDWICH

My Lords, could my noble friend or the Minister of Transport not give a gentle hint to the British Railways Board that they should avoid giving the public the impression that they are "dogs in the manger" in this business, and the impression that British Railways alone can run the railways, and that no one else can—even a branch line? Surely the British Railways Board can now under Statute sell to a bidder who wants to run a branch line or a tramway service; and ought they not to be instructed to be more forthcoming and generous in their attitude?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, the noble Earl must not overlook the fact that, whether or not they think they are the only people who can run a railway in this country, they are, so far as I am aware, the only people charged actually with doing that; because our railways system was nationalised and as a result of that they are charged with this duty. I am quite sure that a great many other people, from all they say, seem clearly to think they can run a railway better; but in a case like this it will be difficult for the Railways Board to decide to renounce their financial duties under the Bill.

LORD STONHAM

But, my Lords, they have renounced this duty in this particular case; and the noble Lord is aware that there is nothing to stop an authority—even under the Light Railways Act—from taking over a railway and, if necessary, running it for the convenience of the public. The noble Lord should confirm that; and I am asking him to give some indication that the Government have not gone back on the assurance they gave in this matter, in principle, that proposals from local authorities could be considered.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, there is no question of going back on any form of assurance in this matter. I think the situation might have been different if this question had arisen before the line was closed; and that is really the subject of this assurance. But it is a straightforward duty on the Railways Board to make the best use they can of their assets after a closure proposal has gone through the whole of the closure procedure and the line has been closed. I think they would not be in a hurry to change their minds as to how to interpret this financial duty that I keep talking about by accepting a lower rather than a higher price.

LORD MOYNE

My Lords, if there is a chance that this line can be kept going, would not Her Majesty's Government consider discussing it, in an informal way, with the Railways Board, in the hope that some offer can be increased until it reaches the limit at which the duty not to lose money is fulfilled? After all, is it not a matter for public concern if a line that can be reopened is not to be reopened?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, having gone through all the closure procedure I should feel a little tentative in any reply to the last part of my noble friend's query; but I should have thought that the question of the financial duty would have been overcome. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned that a price had been put upon it by some people who think they can run it; and I think that therein lies the answer.