§ 2.35 p.m.
§ LORD REDMAYNEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what traffic studies have been made which led to the conclusion that a further 3,000 miles should be retained in the basic railway network; what cost-benefit analysis was undertaken in respect of this mileage; what is their estimate of the cost, and how it will be borne.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM)My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and the Chairman of the Railways Board made a fresh examination of the railway needs of the country taking proper account of social and economic factors. They had up-to-date advice from economic planning councils on the planning implications as well as information through the transport users consultative committees on cases earlier put forward for closure. They assessed all this against the Board's continuing review of traffic forecasts. But it would not have been practicable or worth while to undertake cost-benefit analyses of the whole network. We cannot give any estimate of the cost or how it will be borne until the Joint Steering Group which is now engaged in identifying and costing the Board's unremunerative passenger services generally have concluded their work. My right honourable friend has already made clear the Government's intention that all those unremunerative services which are retained 430 for wider social and economic reasons should receive a specific subsidy.
§ LORD REDMAYNEMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer and accepting that it is not practical to make an analysis of cost-benefit for the whole network, nor, indeed, is it perhaps necessary, may I ask him whether a cost-benefit analysis has in fact been completed in respect of the 3,000 miles of lines which the Minister proposes to retain? On the point of subsidy, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is proposed to seek to allocate subsidy only to these additional 3,000 miles of line, and on what principle that allocation will be made? Are we to assume from that, that the other 8,000 miles, the "Beeching 8,000", is now expected to be profitable?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question may I say that a cost-benefit analysis has not been made of the 3,000 miles. It is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that this is a time-consuming and costly procedure, and since it was considered necessary that an early decision should be made on the railway pattern for this country for the purposes of maintaining morale on the railways, it was decided to work in the manner described in my answer. Then, if I understood the noble Lord correctly, he wished to know whether the subsidy would apply to the additional 3,000 miles which it was proposed to retain. Am I right?
§ LORD REDMAYNEYes, whether it would apply only to the 3,000 miles.
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMNo, my Lords; it would apply to those particular stretches of line which, after study, were shown to be unprofitable. These lines would be mainly, or almost exclusively, for passenger use, and it was considered necessary to retain them because of the social purpose which they carried out.
§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORDMy Lords, as there is such great interest in this subject and there are such large sums of money which the taxpayer has to pay, would the noble Lord say whether it is the intention of the Government to publish the Report of the Joint Steering Group when it is completed, so that every one can see just how the Government have evaluated the many conflicting factors and formed their own judgment?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, the Government are constantly evaluating the situation, because this is a developing process. If the noble Lord would care to put down another Question, I will try to get him a firm answer on the first part of his question.
LORD INGLEWOODMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that these travel studies can be extremely deceptive, for once the service on a line has been allowed to run down few people travel because it is so inconvenient, and then the figures that you get are quite unrealistic? Secondly, when he mentioned maintaining morale on the railways, will he say whether he had in mind the morale of the passengers or the morale of the staff?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMIn regard to the second question the answer is, of course, both; these are interacting factors.
§ LORD POPPLEWELLMy Lords, is the Minister aware how much many people in this country will welcome this new line of approach? Many people are inclined to think that in cutting out so many thousands of miles of track the Beeching Report was not acting in the nation's interest, and this line of approach will be welcomed by those people. In assessing the type of cost analysis that has been referred to, would my noble friend give me an undertaking that the amount of traffic which previously used the lines will be taken into consideration, compared with new routeings that have been instituted? Often it is greatly suspected that this comparison is deliberately not made in order to increase a deficiency shown on particular lines.
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, that is another question. I am afraid that I cannot answer that.
§ LORD REDMAYNEMy Lords, may I put this point to the noble Lord? It may be all very well for Lord Popplewell to say that these decisions will be welcomed by a great many people, but they are probably the people who do not pay for them. Who is going to pay for these subsidies? Are they paid for by central Government—that is, by the taxpayer in general—or by the ratepayers?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, if the taxpayers of the country as a whole pay for the subsidies this must have Parliamentary approval. It is the intention of my right honourable friend to seek such Parliamentary approval. However, until such time as approval has been given, expenditure on uneconomic lines will be shown separately in the Railway Board's accounts.