HL Deb 18 December 1969 vol 306 cc1260-2

2.10 p.m.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

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: Whether, in view of their undertaking to reach a decision on the electrification of the Crewe— Glasgow line by the end of the year, they are now able to make a statement.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES)

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is not aware of any such undertaking. He is anxious that a decision should be reached as soon as possible, since he is aware of the difficulties that delay can cause.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that I was referring to his reply on July 17? I was not suggesting that a direct undertaking had been given—the noble Lord is, of course, far too experienced for that. I was suggesting an implied undertaking when the noble Lord used the words that work could not start before the end of 1969. If the work could not start before the end of 1969, is it not wholly reasonable to conclude that at least a decision could be made by that time? Why otherwise did the noble Lord use his well-chosen words?

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, it seems to me to be straining language a little to suggest that a statement that work cannot start before a given time is the same thing as saying that it will start after that given time. If the noble Earl read that into my remarks, I must assure him now that he was wholly mistaken.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that Her Majesty's Government now have all the information before them in order to make a decision? Can he say how long the Government have had that information and what exactly is holding up the decision?

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I cannot inform the noble Earl how long the information has been in the possession of my right honourable friend, but I can confirm that he has estimates of the costs of immunisation. If the line is to be electrified, the signalling equipment will have to be immunised against interference at a cost of £4 million. If the re-signalling were done without immunised equipment, the total cost of subsequent immunisation would be over £10 million.

LORD KILMANY

My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House an assurance that this decision, whenever it is reached, will not lead to the downgrading of the Newcastle—Edinburgh line?

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I think if the noble Lord would put that question down for answer in due course, we might have some interesting supplementaries.

LORD POPPLEWELL

My Lords, could my noble friend be a little more forthcoming, and take the House into his confidence by giving some indication of what the Railways Board are thinking in regard to future traction power on the railways? Are they going ahead with electrification, both on the route that is the subject of the Question, and on the East Coast route, or are they delaying until they see the outcome of experiments on this new type of advanced locomotion (I do not know its name) which is being experimented with at Derby? Could my noble friend give any indication of the lines on which the Board are thinking at the present moment?

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that I shall be delighted to take the House into my confidence at the earliest opportunity.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

My Lords, can the noble Lord give us an assurance that the decision is not being delayed on the ground that electrification and the advanced passenger train project are in any way competitive?

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, the delay is entirely due to the fact that this is a very complex subject, involving consideration of many factors; and, as I said in July, it is not a decision upon which we can enter lightly.