§ 3.6 p.m.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that on May 27, 1963, the British Railways Board informed their staffs that, on September 8 next, the Taunton-Barnstaple and Taunton-Yeovil branch lines would be closed to passengers; that this decision was made prior to the advertisement of proposed closures; the lodging of objections and their consideration by the transport users' consultative committee; and the final decision of the Minister of Transport: and whether it is with their approval that the British Railways Board disregards, in this way, the provisions and safeguards of the Transport Act, 1962, and the assurances given by Ministers.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)My Lords, the noble Lord is under a complete misapprehension. It is the railways' normal practice to inform staff representatives of proposals for closures in advance of formal public notice of them being given. This is in accordance with the agreed arrangements for consultation between management and staff about changes in the undertaking, particularly changes which may have staff implications. I should have thought that the need for such consultation would have been generally recognised and that it would have been welcomed on all sides. The supply of information to staff representatives in no way affects the Board's statutory duty to give public notice of passenger closures in accordance with Section 56 of the Transport Act. This statutory notice must include the date of the proposed closure. As is well known to your Lordships, a passenger closure can take place only if and when the procedure in Section 56 has been complied with.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, while everyone supports staff consultation, is the Minister aware that the practice referred to in my Question has caused grave misunderstanding among members 1369 of the public all over the country? They do not read Acts of Parliament, but they do read their newspapers, and when they see a closure published like that of September 8 naming their branch railways they believe that it is true, and this is the general opinion. Can the matter not be rearranged so that, despite the staff consultations which are very necessary, British Railways do not say, as they do in this particular instance, that closures will take effect from September 8, having regard to the fact that few of these closures will take place on the date named, and some not at all?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I can see what the noble Lord is driving at, and I certainly did not mean to imply that he alone was under a misapprehension in this matter, but it is very difficult to see how one can put forward proposals for a closure, which proposals must include the date, without giving rise to some misapprehension about how the date has been put in. While we may know that the closure may not happen on that occasion, the date still has to be put in.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, is it necessary at the same time to announce scores or hundreds of redundancies, particularly when the line may not close at all, added to which it leaves the impression in the mind of the public that the line is certainly going to close, thus accentuating a run-down? And in all these proposals I have never heard any suggestion from the British Railways that they are going to provide an alternative service in places where no such service exists.
§ LORD CROOKMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, before he rises, why it is so essential that a date, which can mislead people, should be announced? We are most anxious for the noble Lord to preserve this consultation with staff representatives, but surely the general principle can be discussed without the announcement of a date which can be misunderstood.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, for one reason alone: because Section 56 says that the date shall be put in. I do not think that the noble Lord will find that alternative services are never mentioned in these things. They may not be in all 1370 cases but where it is appropriate they will be.
§ LORD CROOKMy Lords, I am sorry to ask the noble Lord another question, but with all due respect to what he said about Section 56, surely when he says that, he is referring to the fact that under Section 56 there must be a statement to the public at large that a closure will take effect; but in consultations with staff representatives and the unions concerned, surely there is no more need to put a date in there than there is to say, when the management send for the staff, we are going to offer you 4½d. an hour increase, when, in fact, what they do is send for them and discuss, and the agreement may be for 3d., 4½d., or 6d.? But there is no need, surely, for this precision in public announcements.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Crook, is also getting a little under this misapprehension, because what is being done is, so to speak, to give the staff representatives advance notice of the proposal which is to be made to the public. Not to give them full details of that proposal would scarcely be in the best interests of the staff.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, would the noble Lord not regard it as appropriate to mention that there is no alternative service in the case where there is none? Would that not be an appropriate occasion? Does he not think it undesirable that an ordinary newspaper should accuse the Minister of rushing his fences, acting in indecent haste, and with the result a foregone conclusion? Is it not wholly undesirable that such a situation should be created in the minds of the public?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I think the noble Lord is rather over-emphasising this state of affairs, because he must remember that, whether or not future alternative services are mentioned, they are still going to be considered when the matter reaches the T.U.C.C.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I know that, but most people do not, and the point is that I was actually quoting the information expressed in a very run-of-the-mill newspaper which the public believe and which they fear events will prove, whatever the Minister says.