§ 3.4 p.m.
§ LORD STONHAMMy 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, in respect of the Groombridge—Three Bridges railway line, they will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures for the latest 12-month period for which they are available showing:
- (a) the total earnings of the line from passenger services; and
- (b) a subdivision of total earnings under the headings of revenue attributable, contributory revenue and passenger parcels earnings.]
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, the only figures at present available are those given by the Railways Board to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. It is only when the Committee have reported that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport comes into the matter, and at that time the Board will be supplying him with other detailed financial information.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, why do the Government refuse to give this information before an inquiry, when they are willing to give it after the inquiry has been held? Is the noble Lord aware that the figures which British Railways have submitted to the T.U.C.C. are only partial figures on which the line shows a loss, which is disputed by the thousands of people using the line? Is it not both desirable and just that if any figures are quoted they should be the full and correct figures, so that everyone can see that justice is being done.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I should have hoped by now, with the number of Questions that I have answered on the subject, that the noble Lord would have grasped the procedure for proposed passenger closures. The noble Lord knows perfectly well what is the basis on which the figures given to the T.U.C.C. are supplied. He knows full well that the responsibility for a final decision, in the light of all the relevant information, is that of my right honourable friend when the case comes to him. He cannot decide until he has all the information, which includes the report from the T.U.C.C. on hardship; and as yet this report has not reached him. The noble Lord will also, of course, be aware that the question of hardship arising from the closure of a line is scarcely affected by the losses. Either there is hardship or there is not.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that there is some difficulty for Members of this House and in another place, and also the public, in considering the position of the British Railways Board when they make their claim for a closure? It is true, as the noble Lord will agree, that hardship is a point, but the figures are said in the 585 inquiry, or they would not be given. Would the noble Lord give an assurance that if there is some significant difference between the figures which the Railways Board give to the Committee and the figures that are given to his right honourable friend, the matter will be referred back to that Committee for them then to consider all the aspects concerned?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, no; I do not think I would give such an assurance, because the noble Lord also well knows that it is the function of the T.U.C.C. to report on the hardship involved in the closure of a line. The second point I would make to him is this. As yet, there is no proposal before my right honourable friend. It has not reached him yet. When it does, it is extremely probable—in fact, it almost always happens—that he will have the full figures before him. When he has the proposal before him and has examined the figures, that will be the moment for him to see what can usefully be done.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, can the noble Lord say what is the point of the Railways Board giving figures of costs and revenue when hardship is taken into account? There must be some reason for this, and if there is one would the noble Lord not agree that if a Committee found that there were differences between the figures with which they had been provided and the figures given to the Minister, their decision might be different?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I thought the noble Lord knew that the reason for giving those figures is so that the T.U.C.C., when they consider recommendations to alleviate any hardship, have some background against which to judge the alternative services. It would be no good, obviously, if they recommended something very much more expensive than the Railways situation which they had before then. I think that is a perfectly reasonable way to do it. I have explained this to the House several times. I do not see that the detailed figures for losses on lines make any difference to the hardship that is involved if the line is closed.
§ LORD TAYLORBut the noble Lord has just said that they must consider the cost of an alternative service in relation 586 to the loss. Why should one set of figures relate to a loss when it is being considered by the T.U.C.C. and another when it is being considered by the Minister?
§ LORD CHESHAMI said that these figures were intended as a background against which they considered their proposals.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, will the noble Lord say, since these figures are put forward as a background, why the T.U.C.C. should not have the correct and full background? Secondly, will he now answer the question which he failed to answer before, and tell me why it is the Government refuse to give this information now, before the inquiry, whereas he will be perfectly willing to give the information, if I put a Question down, after the inquiry, when it can no longer be of proper use to the T.U.C.C.?
§ LORD CHESHAMIf the noble Lord will read Hansard in the morning he will find I have answered both those questions already.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I heard him give his first Answer, and the first Answer related to the Question on the Order Paper, and he did not give any of the figures that I asked for. Therefore his silence was tantamount to a refusal to give the information. I ask him again why he refuses to give the information now, when he is willing to give it after the inquiry, and can there be any other reason but that the Government does not want the full facts to be known at the inquiry so that a correct assessment can be made?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, the noble Lord can go on asking the same question over and over as long as he wishes, and as long as he asks the same question I will continue to give the same answer. I have 'thoroughly explained this matter in my original Answer and subsequent supplementaries, and on that I think the noble Lord must rest, because I am not going to repeat the answer in full again and again.
§ LORD STONHAMThe noble Lord has not answered the question. He cannot answer it. But fortunately I shall not have to go on asking it very much longer.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I think we have all appreciated for months and months the great courtesies which have been exercised by the Minister in answer to Questions in the House, but on this occasion I have listened very carefully and I hold that my noble friend has been right in the contention he has made, because there is no guarantee that every kind of information that will turn upon this question is going to be available unless we can be sure of the figures before the inquiry. We have not had the figures. We have a right to have them.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I must apologise if I have given some misapprehension over this matter. I should not like the noble Earl to feel I have been guilty of some misconduct or discourtesy to the House. I still maintain that I have answered the Question put to me by the noble Lord. If he wishes me to repeat the figures that have been given to the T.U.C.C., which I understood the noble Earl to wish, I will certainly do so. But I have explained why it is that the information for which the noble Lord asked cannot be given at the present time, and I think that when the noble Earl and other noble Lords look at Hansard in the morning they will find I am in fact right.