HL Deb 23 June 1964 vol 259 cc88-90

2.47 p.m.

LORD WISE

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 been informed that passenger buildings at certain stations between Norwich and East Dereham have recently been dismantled; and, if so, whether they will state the reason for this, as no proposals have yet been published for the closure of these stations.]

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport was not informed, nor is there any reason why he should have been. This is a matter of management for which the British Railways Board are responsible. If it is any consolation to the noble Lord, however, I can assure him that the railways have no ulterior motives of the kind that might perhaps be inferred from what he says in the last part of his Question.

LORD WISE

My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I point out that I am not concerned so much with the buildings as with the comfort of the passengers who use the railways? Is the noble Lord aware that at the present time some platform buildings are completely missing? There is no accommodation at all for passengers who have to stand out and wait for trains, in sunshine, rain, hail or whatever the weather may be.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, as I said, and as the noble Lord knows, this is a matter of management. But I am anxious to help the noble Lord if I can. I have made some inquiries about this matter, and the Board have let me know that they have adjudged the buildings they are removing—which are separate units, so to speak, and do not affect anything else—as being surplus to traffic requirements on that line. They are being removed in the interests of economies. which I should have thought would have been to the benefit of the future of the line, and of which I should have thought the noble Lord would approve in principle.

LORD WISE

My Lords, I do not approve, because I am concerned with the comfort of the passengers. While there are no buildings on one platform in these particular stations, there is no accommodation whatever for passengers; and the fare-paying passengers in rural districts are just as entitled to comfort and consideration as any other railway passengers.

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON)

My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt, but I think your Lordships will agree that we are in danger of making our questions into a series of statements. It is the custom in your Lordships' House, that when a Question is asked we stick strictly to the rule that a supplementary question is a question and not a statement.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, is it not better to have an unmanned station with no buildings, than no railway at all?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, could the noble Lord put this point to the Railways Board? It may well be that these buildings were old and that maintenance would have been expensive. But would it not be possible to provide some form of shelter, not unlike that which the bus companies provide, even in the most rural districts? I should have thought it was not unreasonable for the Minister to make that point to the Railways Board for the comfort of the passengers.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I am quite sure that the Railways Board will take note of what the noble Lord has said, but I can only say what I have been told by them, that in each case there is accommodation on the other platform, and that the Board, having considered all the aspects of the problem, have thought it a reasonable thing to do.