HL Deb 03 December 1964 vol 261 cc1292-9

7.57 p.m.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will urgently reconsider the policy of the Railways Board to reduce the railway wagon fleet, in view of the serious delay and loss of freight traffic caused by this policy in recent months.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, when I put down this Unstarred Question on the serious shortage of rail freight I did so for two reasons. The first is that throughout the country there are many trading firms and businesses who are alarmed by the shortage of rail freight facilities and the delay it is causing. Many of these firms rely exclusively on the rail freight service, and they consider that if nothing is done to correct the situation their trade may well be jeopardised.

The second reason, which I should like to come to in a moment, is that this shortage has shown up what I believe to be a serious weakness in the 1962 Transport Act—namely, that Parliament as a body, and the Minister, as its spokesman, has no power under this Act to prevent the withdrawal and closure of freight services, even if it is against the public interest. I have information with me to-night which has been sent in to the National Council for Inland Transport from all parts of the country. This voluntary body, which was formed some two years ago under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was set up to act as a watchdog over the rail closure plans. It is not unfair to claim that this Council, which has supported many local bodies in their attempts to prevent the closure of rail services, has had a considerable success and braking influence on the closure plans of the Railways Board.

This freight shortage problem is a serious matter, and I think it would be best if I could shortly illustrate my argument with a few reports that have been sent to me. It is reported, for instance, from Perth, in Scotland, that seed potato growers are finding that there is an average daily shortage of some 69 wagons. This, I roughly calculate, means that some 700 tons of freight is lost per day, which is not only a loss of revenue to British Railways, but also possibly a loss of trade to the producers. A curious situation has arisen in this connection because British Railways offer, for a limited period, what is known as favourable terms to the growers to encourage the freight to be carried by rail. Now, due to the shortage of wagons, it would appear that many merchants will be unable to take advantage of these special terms. I should like the noble Lord to say when he replies whether he will draw the attention of the Railways Board to this situation and whether they will consider extending the "favourable terms period" to the growers, in view of the shortage of wagons.

Another example is the tin mining industry in Cornwall. This industry is most concerned as it has been informed that the container service, devised only a few years ago by British Railways, is shortly to be completely withdrawn. Yet another example is a food manufacturing company from East Anglia, a company which has actually beer. refused freight service by British Railways for the transportation of some 50 tons of tinned soups to the Midlands. I will not weary your Lordships with further individual oases, but I can assure you that there are a great number of firms and businesses which are being caused unnecessary hardship.

I should like at this stage to ask one supplementary question of which I have already given notice to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren. I should like to know how many railway wagons are in use today, and how many wagons have been destroyed, sold or disposed of in the past year. The effects of this freight shortage are threefold First, the British Railways lose revenue; secondly, busi- nesses lose both time and money; and, thirdly, the public find that the roads are even more congested by freight lorries. It seems a little known fact that the freight revenue of British Railways amounts to some two-thirds of its total revenue. I appreciate that the Railways Board have on many occasions publicly announced that their desire is to take freight traffic off the roads and to organise a more efficient rail service by the use of liner trains. This is a praiseworthy intention, and I only hope that this intention will not be shunted on to a siding.

I should like to refer to a recent decision to close four out of eleven major freight depots in London and to dispose of the sites. There is considerable concern felt by firms in London, particularly by those using the South Lambeth depot, that this will aggravate even further the road congestion problem. Perhaps the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, will say whether he feels that this decision is in the best interest of the public.

To turn briefly to the 1962 Transport Act, its great weakness, as I see it, is that neither Parliament nor the Minister has control over the withdrawal of the railway freight services. The Minister has, of course, power to decide on a passenger service closure, but I submit that the objections to closing both types of service run parallel. Such considerations as hardship, social consequences, and whether it is in the public interest, all apply just as strongly to the freight services as they do to the passenger services. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government will consider amending this Act to give the Minister power to decide on any future closures or withdrawals of freight services.

To conclude, I hope that I have persuaded your Lordships how serious this problem is. I do not think it would be a very satisfactory answer to the House to say that this is merely a seasonal or peak period and therefore delays are hound to occur. The peak periods do not come unexpectedly, and provision should be made for them by British Railways. In fact, one might add that they are not carrying out their responsibilities unless they do so. Who is the judge between the economic argument of Dr. Beeching, on the one hand, and the service to the public, on the other? Who is to judge what is best in the national interest? The answer to both questions is surely that Parliament should judge, and at present Parliament has no power to decide on freight services.

8.5 p.m.

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, I should first of all like to thank the noble Earl for the manner in which he has put forward this Question. I hope that he will take it in the best of spirits when I first of all point out that there has been a long-established practice ever since we have had nationalised industries that Ministers have no responsibility for the day-to-day management of the various Boards, and that nationalised Boards, such as those dealing with gas, coal, electricity and the railways, must have commercial freedom and independence. Ministers are answerable, of course, to Parliament for any direction they may give to any of the nationalised Boards in the national interest, or for actions they take on matters submitted to them by the Boards in compliance with their statutory duties.

I would point out that, so far as this Question is concerned, on that basis which I have outlined, it is not for the Minister to consider the Board's policy. It can be done only by the Board itself. No doubt the Board will read the noble Earl's remarks and will reply to him if they think it necessary to do so. But, equally, matters of this kind ought to be put by noble Lords here, and by Members in another place, direct to the Board. It is their responsibility, and I am certain they will gladly give what information they can, always provided that it is not information which is likely to damage their commercial interests.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord to say this? Does not Parliament have control over the policy of the Board—not the day-to-day running, but as to policy? Therefore, when Members have questions on policy should they not bring them up before Parliament?

LORD LINDGREN

General policy is a matter of day-to-day management for the Board. So far as the Board is concerned, it presents its Report annually to the Minister; and both Houses of Parliament, at a time arranged through the usual channels, can discuss the Report. But day-to-day management is entirely a matter for the Board itself. It is generally accepted that a Board of a nationalised industry cannot really carry on its day-to-day commercial activities if it is all the while looking over its shoulder for Questions coming from both Houses of Parliament.

I want to be as helpful as I can, because most of the points raised by the noble Earl are public knowledge and there have been public announcements by the Board from time to time on this matter. The first point arose in the Report on Reshaping of British Railways. In that Report there were published many tables of figures which showed fairly conclusively that the wagon fleet was, to put it quite bluntly, excessive; that it was much too big for the normal, regular traffic for which the Board had to cater. The Board has stated publicly that it is able to deal with regular traffic and it is doing its best to meet the demands of its regular customers. I would agree with the noble Earl that the position might be better if we had an integrated road and rail system, but at the moment we do not have such a system and we have to deal with the situation as it now is.

The noble Earl mentioned the problems of certain traders. I know from my own experience as a railwayman that some traders use their own "C"-licence road vehicles for their normal traffic. They use road haulage until they get to the peak of their traffic, and then they come to the railways and ask them to provide wagons. I must say that I have some sympathy for the Railways Board in this matter. Their first duty, quite rightly, is to satisfy their regular customers.

I was a little disturbed at one point in the noble Earl's speech when he said that certain regular customers' requirements were not being met. But I do not think it is unreasonable for the Railways Board, if a person goes to them once a year for perhaps one week or one month and asks for wagons, to say, "We cannot supply them, because that really means that the wagons are standing and deteriorating in a railway siding for the other eleven months of the year." Their first job, of course, is to meet the demands of their regular customers.

Equally, in so far as the peak traffic is concerned, they have a duty, to have wagons available to meet the requirement so far as they can, but not to excess, which was the position indicated in the Report. My experience is that if a fellow comes to the railways once a year for a wagon and does not get it because there is not one available, he writes to the Press complaining of the lack of service. But I think the first function of the Railways Board is to meet the requirements of the regular customers.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

I am sorry to interrupt, my Lords, but surely this is the defeatist argument and the non-expanding argument. If the railways are never going to increase their numbers, they will never increase their trade.

LORD LINDGREN

Yes, my Lords; but at the moment, of course, the railways have an obligation to meet their costs so far as they can. You cannot make an industry viable if you are going to spend capital on a vehicle—and a railway wagon is quite an expensive vehicle—use it for one week in the year, and have it deteriorating in a siding for eleven months and three weeks. I do not think it is fair for traders when they sometimes require special vehicles to take their traffic, which is normally carried by their own vehicles or by road hauliers, to expect the railways to take the peak traffic for only two or three weeks in the year. I always remember, when I was working as a railwayman, a certain ice cream manufacturer who had his own arrangements in regard to the transport of his product all over the South of England. When we had a few days hot weather he expected us to provide refrigerated vans in order to get the additional requirements of ice cream down to Brighton and other seaside towns.

The problem is not confined to one aspect. Many traders look upon the railway wagon as a warehouse. They keep their traffic in it until it is convenient for them to take it out. But if you are going to get the best use out of a railway wagon there must be a quick turn round, in exactly the same way as with an aircraft or a ship. The Railways Board recently—I think it was from January 1, 1964—increased the demurrage charges in order to try to persuade traders not to keep the wagons too long under load and to release them as quickly as possible in order that there could be a quicker turn round and greater use.

The noble Earl was good enough to give me notice that he was going to ask questions in regard to freight traffic and wagons. Therefore, I have been able to get the figures for him. The operating stock of wagons at October 3, 1964, which is the last date for which I could get the figures, was 660,156. During the twelve months ended October 3, 1964, the wagons that were scrapped, sold or disposed of in one way or another numbered 93,882, and the new wagons of all types that were put into service numbered 792. So that made a net decrease in the wagon fleet of 93,090.

The noble Earl referred to the question of the control of freight services, and he quite rightly called attention to the fact that under the 1962 Act the Minister has powers in regard to passenger rail closures but no powers in regard to freight services. I do not really see how a Minister can have control over freight services. After all, it ought to be, and I hope it is, the policy of the Railways Board to secure the greatest possible amount of traffic because, as the noble Earl said, freight traffic is the major portion, and likely to be the profitable portion, of the traffic that the railways deal with. But how traffic is handled is surely a matter of skilled management and knowing how to do it.

The noble Earl referred to the question of closing certain goods depots. Surely it is a matter of commercial judgment whether you are going to concentrate traffic or concentrate depots and have collection and delivery services covering a wider area, or whether you are going to decentralise your collecting depots and have a smaller area for collection and delivery. I think it has been shown by Railways Board statements over the past two or three years that they are tending towards the centralising of rail traffic because, as was pointed out in the Reshaping Report, one of the difficulties of freight traffic previously was that a number of wagons were being used for a small quantity of goods.

It is not economic to have 10 cwt. of freight in a 10-ton wagon. The obvious remedy is to concentrate your traffic so that you can as nearly as possible fill your 10-ton wagon with 10 tons of traffic. That is entirely a matter of management so far as the Board is concerned, and I think that perhaps they are in a much better position than those who look at the matter from outside to tell which is the more profitable course. I can only say that I will call the Board's attention to the debate that we have had tonight; and if there is a further answer to the specific points which the noble Earl raised, I am certain that the railway management will be only too happy to supply him with it.