§ 3.5 p.m.
§ LORD WISEMy 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 what additional annual expenditure will be incurred by the Exchequer or local authorities in providing additional facilities for conveying children to and from the secondary modern or other schools in neighbouring towns, subsidising additional bus services for public use and substituting road for rail transport in respect of the parcels post in the rural areas of Norfolk by reason of the proposed closing of the railway from East Dereham to Wellsnext-the-Sea.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)My Lords, the Railways Board are responsible for ensuring the provision of the alternative bus services which my right honourable friend has required to be available when the closure takes place. If any subsidy is required, it is not expected to exceed £3,000 a year. I am told that, until the full details of the new bus services are available, the local education authority cannot say whether they will be put to any additional expense on the transport of school children. No parcel mails are carried by trains on this line, and therefore no extra expenditure will fall on the General Post Office on that account.
§ LORD WISEMy Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I say that on March 17 last, in reply to the Question addressed to him by my noble friend Lord Stonham, 1044 he made a statement that the net annual saving by reason of the closing of this line would be £2,000? Seven stations are involved, so the average saving is about £300 per station—a saving of less than £1 per day. This will be entirely wiped out—
§ LORD WISEI am coming to my question in a moment. Is the noble Lord aware that this saving will be entirely wiped out by the figure he has just given to your Lordships? Will the noble Lord impress upon the Minister of Transport the extreme folly of inflicting hardship on people in rural areas in order to save a few pounds, or even a few pence?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I had rather imagined that that was the trap the noble Lord might fall into. It is perfectly true that the figure I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on March 17, in relation to the saving on the passenger closure of this line, was £2,000. To be strictly accurate, that was a round figure and, for the sake of the record, the actual figure is very close to £2,300. But I am told that the intention of the Railways Board is to close the freight side of the line as well, and the saving which will be achieved on this line will be £37,000 net. If this line were to be kept open for the reason the noble Lord suggests, and the freight service, which is losing heavily, were to be shut, that £37,000 would be transferred to the passenger service. It is to that sum that the noble Lord should relate the passenger saving.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the only matter which had to be considered by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee at the public inquiry was the cessation or withdrawal of passenger services, and the answer he has now given is, in fact, no answer at all? Is he further aware that the T.U.C.C. were informed by the Railways Board officially that the saving which would be made by the withdrawal of the passenger service on this line was, not £2,000, but £26,700? Does the noble Lord not think, therefore, that they might have given a different recommendation if they had learned that the alleged loss was of a trifling character? Does he not think, 1045 in view of what my noble friend has said about the unquestionable hardship caused in this area, that he should ask his right honourable friend to look at the matter again?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord. I am, in fact, quite well informed as to the procedure when a line is proposed for closure, and I know exactly what the T.U.C.C. have to consider. What I was giving was an answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Wise, who was trying to make out that my right honourable friend was doing an extremely stupid thing. I was endeavouring to show that he was doing nothing of the kind, and that I think I have done. I think, in the circumstances, the noble Lord will appreciate that the consent to the closure of this line was from my right honourable friend and not from the T.U.C.C. The T.U.C.C. made certain recommendations, in view of what they considered to be the necessity to relieve a certain degree of hardship, in the shape of alternative services, and, having taken all other relative factors into account, my right honourable friend came to his decision.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, the T.U.C.C. are given these figures in order that they may consider whether the alternatives to alleviate hardship are reasonable. The whole point is that they formed their judgment on information which we now know to be inaccurate. My point to the noble Lord is: does he not think it at least possible that their recommendations might have been different if they had been told that the loss was £2,000? This line serves Walsingham, and thousands of pilgrims go to the shrine of Thomas Walsingham. Are not these considerations to be taken into account? Does the noble Lord not agree that the whole question should be looked at again, in view of what is in any case a very trifling loss compared with the inconvenience and loss of amenity to a large number of people?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, those considerations have been taken into account already, and I think I have answered this Question pretty accurately.