HL Deb 07 May 1964 vol 257 cc1327-32

3.10 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

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 what allowance was made by the British Railways Board for loss of contributory revenue before they esti- mated that the withdrawal of passenger train services on the Yeovil-Taunton line would yield net savings of £60,000; what, for the latest 12 month period, were the receipts from passenger parcels and miscellaneous revenue; and what, if any, will be the cost of subsidising the additional bus services which have to be provided before rail passenger facilities are withdrawn.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)

My Lords, the figure of £60,000 allows for a loss of receipts of between £17,000 and £18,000 out of total receipts of about £28,000. The latest available estimate of the annual value of the parcels traffic at the stations affected by the closure is £16,900. The miscellaneous receipts are £154. The cost of subsidising extra bus services is estimated at about £7,000.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Answer and the figures he has just given, totalling some £24,000 to £25,000, lend strong support to the view which was expressed to me last night in Yeovil by representatives of the Somerset County Council and borough and district Councils in that area, that new figures which they have now obtained, which were not previously available, indicate that his right honourable friend's decision has been based on inaccurate information? Having regard to this, will the noble Lord make representations to his right honourable friend that action should be deferred on this particular closure until this new information has been considered, because the figures they produce indicate that the line is run at a profit?

LORD CHESHAM

No, my Lords, I could not agree with anything of the kind. Nor could I agree with the conclusion which can be reached by misinterpreting the figures in this way.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, the noble Lord has no right to suggest that there has been any misinterpretation of the figures by anyone because he has not yet had the opportunity to examine them. May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that when British Railways made their representations to the T.U.C.C. they said that the loss on this line, with no allowance for loss of contributory revenue, was £52,000, which, allowing for the contributory revenue, would be some £35,000? In March last the noble Lord himself said that the loss was £60,000 after allowing for contributory revenue. Is that not evidence, which he has provided himself, that there are grave discrepancies in these figures? In view of that, would he not agree to have a look at this again?

LORD CHESHAM

I said on March 17 last that the savings were £60,000, not the loss. The noble Lord himself has instantly misinterpreted the figures I gave by adding on, for instance, the figure for parcels traffic, which I agree is somewhat on the generous side because it takes in the whole of the parcels traffic, both despatch and receipt, on this part of the line, and therefore should strictly be allocated over a much wider section of the railway system. But in fact he misinterpreted by adding that on, because the railways expect to retain the great majority of that traffic.

LORD STONHAM

Of course; but equally the costs of the parcels passenger traffic are put against that line in the original computation I do not want to swap words on details. The only thing I am asking is this. In view of these new figures which are now available, will the noble Lord agree to ask his right honourable friend to look at the matter again?—because it is a matter of great importance to these people, who are very distressed by the possibility of losing this line. Will he look at it again?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I always endeavour to accommodate the noble Lord. I will ask my right honourable friend to look at it again, but I cannot do so, in all honesty to the House, with any expectation of his finding very much differently when he does so.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, is it not a fact that the main object of the Beeching Plan was not economies from the closure of branch lines but more efficient operation, lowering the quantities of rolling stock and attracting more traffic? Is it not a fact that the question of the withdrawal of these branch services is raising quite unwarranted attention in the country, due to the false propaganda value which has been put upon it by this misinterpretation of the Beeching Plan?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that closure proposals—passenger closure proposals at that—seem to receive a great deal more thought and publicity than do the constructive and progressive aspects of the Plan for the railways.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware also that these proposals we are now considering are not constructive but destructive, and is he aware that his right honourable friend has given repeated assurances that if the costs of the closures are greater than the savings he will not approve them? Is it not therefore fair to put forward these points?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I do not think that causes me to alter a word of what I have said.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what, during the last complete year for which figures are available, was the total receipts from passenger parcels and miscellaneous revenue, on the Thetford-Swaffham and Elgin-Lossiemouth railway lines respectively; and what for each line is the estimated annual sum which will be paid to subsidise the bus services to be provided when the rail passenger services are withdrawn.]

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, the latest available estimate of the annual value of parcels traffic at the stations affected by the Thetford-Swaffham closure is £9,800. The corresponding figure for the Elgin-Lossiemouth closure is £20,600. The miscellaneous receipts were £49 and £10 respectively. The cost of subsidising the additional bus services following the Thetford-Swaffham closure is expected to be about £1,750 a year. No extra bus services have been required following the Elgin-Lossiemouth closure.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the estimated saving of the closure of the Thetford line is £7,000 and of the Elgin line £5,000, which figures are very considerably less than the amount of parcels passenger revenue, and in view of the extremely marginal nature, to put it at the most, of these savings, and in view also of the hardship, which the Minister has admitted, does he not agree that it is an anti-social act to close these lines, when there may be in fact no saving at all?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, again, of course, the noble Lord has overlooked the fact that the railways in both cases expect to retain the majority of this traffic, and therefore it is not to be regarded as lost. The noble Lord asked me a Question as to a value. I have tried honestly to answer that Question. But, having done so, I must point out to him that as it did not enter into the calculation to start with, he must not regard that as something to be added to the loss. Furthermore, he will remember that on March 17, when I answered a very lengthy Question about the savings on a large number of lines, I pointed out to him that the figures I gave related to passenger closure proposals only and did not take into consideration other consequential savings, which are considerable.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I am aware of that Answer; but the noble Lord is also aware that he himself is deliberately omitting the very considerable cost which will arise from the conveyance of passenger parcels by road. Whole lorry fleets will have to be provided in place of the trains now carrying them. Is the noble Lord aware that if he persists in omitting the passenger part of the revenue he must in justice add the cost of carrying services?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, that would be true if I had, but I have not.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, arising out of the original reply, has the Minister satisfied himself by consultation with local opinion, including local authorities, that the existing bus service between Elgin and Lossiemouth is going to be sufficient to cope with the additional traffic which will be put upon it by the closure of the railway?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, the question of alternative methods of transport is one which is looked at by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. It is one of their jobs to report on hardship and to suggest alternative means of relieving that hardship if it seems good to them to do so. That is the report that my noble friend takes into consideration. Therefore, I think the answer to the noble Earl's question is, Yes.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, does my noble friend not think that Lord Stonham's railway association would be much better employed defending those threatened branches of the railway that really are used in the country, such as the Sussex commuter lines, rather than worrying about these little-used rural district lines?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I think that is a matter for the judgment of the organisation.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, but if it will comfort his noble friend, the Sussex commuter line—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Order, Order!

LORD STONHAM

Is the noble Lord aware that those concerned with the Sussex commuter line, when they heard of the Minister's decision about the Bexhill and Crowhurst line, telephoned me at once? Is he further aware, since he did not reply to the question of his noble friend Lord Mansfield, that in both Elgin and Lossiemouth the local authorities have informed his right honourable friend that the bus services to be provided are quite inadequate and that the hardship continues, and that they are disgusted that the railway service should be removed to save the loss of only £5,000?

LORD AUCKLAND

My Lords, is it not true that the distance from Lossiemouth to Elgin, which I know well, is only five miles, and that the existing road is a good one and there is a perfectly good bus service at the present time?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I think my noble friend's remark puts the so-called small saving of £5,000 rather into proportion.