£20m. Less for The Railways
Page 67
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
From Our Parliamentary Correspondent rUTS in the railway Modernization
programme, and strong hints of a complete reconsideration of the problem by a study group under the personal chairmanship of Mr. Marples, in addition to the activities of the Stedeford Committee, were revealed in the debate in the Commons last week.
On the modernization plan itself, Mr. Marples said that the maximum for expenditure on the railways would be £140M., compared with £160m. originally agreed for the coming year. For the British Transport Commission as a whole, there would be a ceiling of £175m. compared with £200m. in 1960. More information would be given in the White Paper on investment in the public sector, to be published at the end of the month.
Only to 1961
He was not yet in a position to commit himself beyond 1961. There was a technical revolution in transport, he said, and plans had to be made accordingly. There would be no changes for the sake of change, and any changes made would be in the interests of the community as a whole, and not of any particular group.
The Government, he said, had received a number of recommendations from the Stedeford Committee, and as soon as proposals had been formulated they would he placed before the House in the form of a White Paper.
Many of the speculations about the group's recommendations had been completely remote front the truth. Public demand showed itself increasingly in demand for road transport, which now accounted for nearly three-fifths of the total freight carried by road and rail.
Considered View A considered view must be taken of those sort of things. He had therefore set up a Committee, to operate as a study group under his chairmanship, to consider what sort, and what size, of railway system was needed in view of those factors, The B.T.C. were represented on the group, and were co-operating in preparing a revised modernization plan. They would not only look . at railway modernization projects, but try to satisfy themselves about the modernization
problem as a whole.
There must be more clarity about the direction,. content and justification of. the railway .investment programme and he hoped, with the B.T.C., to go into the size and shape of the revised plan.
Meanwhile, it had been necessary to slow down the rate or investment which. in the circumstances, the B.T.C. agreed was appropriate. The ceiling fixed for 1961 was a big feature from whatever angle it was regarded. The Government were concerned at the increased cost of the present estimates, compared with their original ones.
The London-Midlands electrification was a particular case. The B.T.C. had prepared a reassessment of the scheme in the light of their experience elsewhere, as well as in the light of recent developments. This was an urgent examination by the Ministry and the B.T.C. had agreed, pending the outcome, not to place new contracts for this scheme. There was no question of cancelling existing contracts.
Many Problems There were many problems. What was the best organization for the railways and the other B.T.C. undertakings? What improvements could be made in management? How much of the system needed to be modernized? Should the railways be without the statutory restrictions placed on them when they had a monopoly? How best could the B.T.C:. property be used—he did not think the best use was being made of this at the moment. Were financial changes required"? How could viability be achieved?. .
"The examination we have made into the railways has . been searching, meticulous and thorough,". he Said:
Mr. Wedgwood Benn, for the Opposition, .said the Government ought to lake over the capital and finance the deficit of the B.T.C. until 1963. and the B.T.C. shotild then operate on an ecoribmic basis. If the Government wanted to maintain uneconomic services, there should be a subsidy, The Transport Tribunal„ should be abolished; there should, be 'a. full development of. sites, and modernization should be speeded up.
Mr. E. Popplewell (lab., Newcastle. W.) said that long-distance C-licence vehicles over 21 tons carrying capacity were a menace not only to the railways but to Aand B-licence holders. They should be taken into an integrated system, Mr. Holt (Lib., Bolton, W.) said it was cheaper in many cases to send freight by road than by rail. Nothing short of an edict that people 'should send freight by rail at twice the cost would alter the situation.
When Mr. Hay replied, he commented that there was no doubt that modernization would make a better railway, but what was disturbing was whether the railway then created would be viable.
He made the point that the electrification of the London-Midlands line would cost about i160m.-24 times as much as the spending on major and new construction of roads in 1960-61. or eight times as much as the cost of MI.
These were the sort of things that had to be decided. Was.ifgoing to be worth while, in the long run, to go on with the scheme or would it be better to use some . of •the money on other forms of transport?
Not "Another Committee"
The new study group was not "another committee." Its object was to consider. what, in the present circumstances, the modernization programme should be. Essentially it was intended to be a meeting of the Minister and his advisers with representatives of the B.T.C. and Sir Brian Robertson.
In the short term, the group had been examining some of the modernization proposals which needed the most urgent examination, and it had almost completed an examination of these.
In the long term-. it would be considering the fundamental question of the size and shape not only. of the railways but of the transport system as a whole It was discussing a costing study of the profitability of traffics, and a study of the trends of traffic as between railways and other forms of transport.