HL Deb 03 December 1968 vol 298 cc1-3
LORD TEVIOT

My 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:

  1. (1) how many times trains have been diverted via Lewes and Uckfield for any reason in the last seven years;
  2. (2) which alternative route to Brighton will British Railways use after the closure of the Lewes-Uckfield line;
  3. (3) how many passengers travel daily on lines from which traffic might, in an emergency, have to be diverted on to the Lewes-Uckfield line.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTER-BOTTOM)

My Lords, I regret that the British Railways Board have told the Ministry that they do not keep their records in a way which would enable me to answer the first of the noble Lord's three questions. In reply to the second question, this line is not electrified, and cannot therefore be readily used as a diversionary route for the London-Brighton electric service. The two recognised alternative routes one via Horsham and Littlehampton, and the second via Wivelsfield, Cooksbridge. and Lewes, will continue to be available. In these circumstances, the answer to the third question is, "None".

LORD TEVIOT

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. In view of the fact that the population is increasing rapidly, does he not think it would be best to keep an alternative route, bearing in mind that it is not electrified, regardless of the extra capital expenditure involved?

LORD WINTERBOTTOM

My Lords, the whole change of philosophy in our attitude to the railway system is that the Government must have regard to the profitability of the rail network. The noble Lord is quite correct in saying that there is a growth in population: and the line from Uckfield to Hurst Green is being retained and supported by a social subsidy. But there is no such justification for retaining the Lewes-Uckfield section.

LORD TEVIOT

My Lords, when the noble Lord refers in his reply to the alternative Horsham-Arundel line, does he appreciate that it is a very long way from Brighton and also that the Hayward's Heath-Cooksbridge-Lewes line could be quite useless because it sometimes becomes flooded between Hayward's Heath and Three Bridges? Would he bear in mind that these two lines are not satisfactory alternatives?

LORD WINTER BOTTOM

My Lords, I accept the fact that one of these two diversions is a very long one, but it would be used only on occasions of "acts of God". The other triangle is quite short and would not cause major inconvenience.

BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY

My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether consideration has been given to the fact that Uckfield has a growing population; that people would like to get to the sea, as well as to London, and that if this short line is removed this will no longer be possible? Will the Minister bear in mind that all round Uckfield the population is increasing very fast? Would it not be wise to keep this line in good order in case the pressure becomes such that in due course it will have to be reopened?

LORD WINTERBOTTOM

My Lords, as regards the first point in the supplementary question, arrangements are being made for additional bus services, as the noble Baroness may remember from our previous exchange on this matter. On the question of the retention of ownership, I think this an interesting point, and perhaps the noble Baroness would consider putting down an Unstarred Question so that we might discuss the matter.

LORD LEATHERLAND

My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that, in most cases where a railway line is closed and complaints from the public immediately arise it is a fact that when the railway line was open very few people used it?

LORD WINTERBOTTOM

My Lords, my noble friend is helpful in reminding the House of this fact.

Back to