§ LORD KILMANYMy 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 whether it is their intention to make an announcement about the future of the Edinburgh-Galashiels-Carlisle railway line before the Summer Recess.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM)My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport announced in another place on July 15, he has given his consent to the withdrawal of passenger services from the Edinburgh-Hawick-Carlisle line, subject to the provision of certain additional bus services.
§ LORD KILMANYYes, my Lords; but is the noble Lord aware of the indignation, indeed the anger, which has swept across the length and breadth of the Border at this decision, which cannot but he detrimental to prosperity in that area? After all the brave words that have been spoken—and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is one of those who has the interests of Scotland very much at heart—after all those good intentions have been expressed, is it not dreadfully disappointing to be given a decision, which appears to be final, saying, "No" to what is badly required?
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, rises to reply, may I, as one who is interested in industry in Galashiels ask whether he can give any figures as re- 844 gards the increased amount of traffic which would come on that line as a result of the intention to double the population of Galashiels? Surely that must result in a large increase in the demand for the railway.
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmany, is asking this House to agree that we should continue to subsidise an entirely uneconomic railway line. We have had eight days of debate on this subject and we are about to have a ninth. Would individuals in the Border country be willing to pay, say, 11d. per passenger mile for transport, compared with the standard 3d. a mile, in order to maintain this service? I think that they would not.
§ BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOODMy Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, realise that by doing away with this railway he is leaving the Border towns further away from a station—either Carlisle or Edinburgh—than any other place in Scotland? Is he aware that only last Sunday 100 people went from Hawick to Edinburgh on the 6.15 train? Had buses been made available it would have meant at least another three buses starting from Hawick to convey the people from there, let alone the passengers who might have been picked up on the way; and the roads to-day are so crowded that it is almost impossible to get along on them. Does not the noble Lord think that with a more economical organising of the service and the cutting down of overheads (which I am perfectly certain could be cut down) this railway could easily come within the category with which we are dealing, as a railway with an important industrial and social content?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, for eight days we have discussed the relationship between bus and rail transport. My right honourable friend has agreed to this closure subject to the provision of certain additional bus services. Experts—and, after all, experts are not completely incompetent—have come to the conclusion that bus services can supply the needs of this area. The alternative is railway transport at 11d. per passenger mile as opposed to 3d. It is up to the Government to make decisions 845 on this basis and that is why this decision has been reached. The Government have every sympathy with the situation in the Border country. This is an area which will not be neglected, in the same way as no other problem area has been neglected by the present Government, but to preserve the existing rail service would not be the best thing to do.
§ LORD LINDGRENMy Lords, would not my noble friend agree that the difficulty really arises through the lack of use of tile railway by the people in the area? If they had used the railway line instead of travelling by motor car, the present situation would not have arisen.
§ LORD STRATHCLYDEMy Lords, can the noble Lord say whether adequate provision is being made for goods traffic?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, there is an alternative route. Goods transport can be conveyed on other lines rather than the particular line which we are discussing in this Question.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, I do not want to appear to be persistent, but having taken cognisance of the explanation the noble Lord has been good enough to give, may I say that he did not answer my question about what might be expected to be the increased freight traffic as a result of the intention, as I understand it, to double the population of Galashiels?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, if the population should double, other policies would be followed; but there are two rail routes through this area, the other one being the Westerly route via Carstairs, so we are not closing down the only route in this area.
§ BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOODMy Lord, if the noble Lord looks at the map he will notice that it is quite impossible for either passengers or freight traffic to get on to the route from Carlisle via Carstairs to Edinburgh unless they go to Carlisle. You cannot take the traffic across the hill. If this line is shut down, it will be impossible for either passenger traffic or goods traffic to get from Carlisle to Edinburgh through those six or seven burghs. It could go by road to Carlisle via Carstairs, but although there are a great many black-faced sheep on that route, so far as I know there are no 846 buses. May I suggest to the noble Lord that the Government should look at the map and the situation again, and realise that if they spend all this money it will go down the drain?
LORD INGLEWOODMy Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that when the railway line from the Tees Valley across to West Cumberland was under the same sort of sentence as this line, exactly the same arguments were put forward from the then Treasury Bench, to the effect that bus services could meet the needs of the district, that the district would not suffer, and so on; and that all those arguments have proved to be false?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, the noble Lord is making an assertion. I have no evidence to prove or disprove it.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, can my noble friend say what bus services will be provided to take the place of the railway?
LORD WINTER BOTTOMMy Lords, all I can say is that the closure of the line will be subject to the provision of certain additional bus services. If my noble friend will put down another Question, I will tell him what those additional bus services are.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, what I am asking is what my noble friend means by "certain additional bus services".
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, if my noble friend should ask I will tell him.
§ LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONANMy Lords, would the noble Lord say whether the Government would keep the line going from Edinburgh through to the Borders to Harwick? It might be conceded that the line from Hawick to Carlisle is not used very much and is uneconomic, but it would, I understand, cost the Government only £250,000 per annum to keep the line from Edinburgh to the Borders and Hawick going until the growth period starts in tile Borders,
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I am interested to know that £250,000 is considered a bagatelle. I am not certain that it is. Certainly the Railways Board, 847 which in the new transport legislation that we are putting through has been charged to make a profit, would not regard it as a bagatelle.
§ LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONANMy Lords, it is a bagatelle compared to the benefits that would accrue socially and economically to the people of the Borders. And is not the £250,000 a bagatelle in comparison with the £55 million which is to be spent under the Transport Bill to keep uneconomic lines going throughout the whole of Great Britain? It is a bagatelle in comparison with £55 million, is it not?
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, the present bagatelle we are talking about is £700,000. I am not certain if noble Lords really want it to be spent.
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Next Question.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he does not agree that it is a little inconsistent that Members on the opposite side of the House, who have always opposed subsidies to our national railways, should now be opposing this proposal, when Her Majesty's Government have been seeking to find social value in railways, despite the Beeching Report which they supported?