UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Transportation

  • Arthur Palmer – 1978 Speech on Concorde

    Below is the text of the speech made by Arthur Palmer, the then Labour MP for Bristol North-East, in the House of Commons on 3 August 1978.

    The title which I chose for this debate—certainly the penultimate debate of this Session, or, for all I know, perhaps the penultimate debate of this Parliament—may surprise some, since I deliberately used the phrase “The success of Concorde” as the title of the issue which I wished to raise. I realise that there are opponents of Concorde, and to them I simply say that if they wish to put their own inverted commas round the word “success”, that is entirely for their discretion and taste.

    I contend that Concorde is proving a success, in spite of the prophets of doom at home and its jealous enemies abroad. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will not dispute the fact that on the London-New York run figures show that there is 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. passenger loading, and would-be travellers are often turned away unless they are prepared to wait quite a long time.

    It is now obvious that the New York run would carry more aeroplanes if British Airways could or would bring in the extra supersonic craft needed. At present, I understand that there are 10 flights each way per week on the New York run. There are two services on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays and one service a day on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays, making 10 altogether. On the Washington route, of course, the bookings are lower than those for New York, but even here they are well up to the general average for subsonic travel.

    No one should seriously suggest that Concorde’s popularity on the Atlantic runs is due to novelty—that people are there just for the ride. That may have been the case early on when there were very few flights, but it is not so now. A passenger survey in my possession shows that most Concorde passengers are there on business, and many state that it is ​ now the explicit policy of their companies to use Concorde because of its greater speed over other aircraft.

    I have other interesting figures about typical Concorde passengers. For instance, over half of them are Americans, which fact is now giving concern to some of the American airlines, notably to Pan American and TWA. They are looking to their laurels and to their receipts. Undoubtedly, the Atlantic routes are operating with financial gain. I have no exact figures here, but there is every indication that millions of pounds of revenue has come to British Airways which it would not have received without Concorde.

    As we know, the figures are very different for the Gulf run to Bahrain. In this case both use and financial return are disappointing, but this is largely due to British Airways, rightly or wrongly, maintaining this route as an opening to Singapore, presumably in the hope that the Malaysian Government will be able one day to relax their present opposition.

    This brings me almost immediately to an interesting point, on which I should like my hon. Friend’s opinion. Why did Sir Frank McFadzean, the chairman of British Airways, seem to go out of his way to decry Concorde when he presented the British Airways annual report on 27th July? He has it within his power to drop the Bahrain service, if he wishes, and transfer the planes to the lucrative Atlantic route.

    I made some inquiries, because Sir Frank’s views startled me. I have been told that his remarks were not in his brief but were given off the cuff in answer to a question, presumably by a reporter. Had that not been so, it would have seemed to me curious that a man of his great commercial and industrial experience, now the head of a major national enterprise, should apparently go out of his way to belittle his own wares.

    At any rate, by his chance remarks on 27th July Sir Frank achieved newspaper reports which said little if anything about the £33 million profit made by British Airways on the total working of its enterprise. There were headlines such as

    “Concorde never likely to make profit” and
    ​
    “Concorde setback for British Airways”.

    Those headlines overshadowed the fine encouraging account that Sir Frank was able to give on the general working of the airline.

    We are all human, and I make full allowance for Sir Frank’s being caught off his guard. If that were not so, his remarks would be very small thanks to the aeronautical designers, engineers and craftsmen who were responsible for Britain’s achieving perhaps the greatest technological advance in the more recent history of aviation.

    Is that the way to encourage the morale of Concorde operating staff, who find—I have a report to this effect and have seen the survey—that their passengers are very enthusiastic about Concorde, its performance and the kind of service they receive on it?

    I know that these days there is a great vogue for open government, to which we all subscribe in one way or another. But I still doubt whether it is necessary for the chairman of British Airways to carry on a public dialogue with Ministers about who is to pay for what when a letter, a conversation or a telephone call could achieve the same purpose.

    I wish to make a further point, not about Sir Frank’s remarks but about the general relationship between British Airways and Concorde. Time is short, but before coming to some specific questions that I want to put to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary I want to say something about the British Airways annual report and accounts for 1977–78. I have studied this glossy production. I do not complain about its being glossy. I am all for nationalised industries advertising and letting us know what they are doing. They get enough criticism.

    As I say, I do not complain about the style of the report, which has a Union Jack on the cover, the tail of a TriStar just inside and, perhaps most pleasant of all, a striking picture of a stewardess on page 3—I found that the best part of the pictures. But one would think that in a year when Concorde came into full service it would have been portrayed more prominently than is the case in the annual report. There is a small picture, of its under-belly, I think. It is a minor complaint, but I hope that it is not symptomatic of the attitude of British Airways ​ towards Concorde. Perhaps the Minister will reassure me on that point.

    I see the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) in his place. The Filton works are in his constituency. This issue is of great interest to all Bristol Members because many of our constituents work at Filton. I am concerned with Concorde—apart from a deep belief in the future of supersonic travel and pride in British technical achievement—because I represent a Bristol constituency.

    This autumn, the last of the line of British-assembled Concordes—there are also of course French-assembled Concordes—will be wheeled out of its hangar at Bristol, Filton. Concorde work has kept Filton occupied for well over a decade but at present there are no further Concorde orders in sight. The last two machines are being parked in a state in which they are technically known as “white tail aircraft”—that is, they have no line markings on them as yet. As it happens, a fair amount of other aircraft work has, fortunately, come to Filton. The factory is busy but it could be busier. Nothing would give more heart to British Aerospace management and workers generally than orders for a new batch of this now famous Concorde flying machine.

    I have a number of questions for my hon. Friend the Minister. Although the Secretary of State for Industry is not the sponsoring Minister of British Airways, may I ask my hon. Friend whether the Government consider that the airline is operating Concordes to the best advantage? Secondly, why cannot more Concordes be operated on the profitable Atlantic routes? There has been some small increase since the start. That is all. Is there a difficulty over landing facilities? Is there a lack of trained staff, including pilots? It will be interesting to know. Perhaps I am not as well informed as I might be. I do not know the depths of the question.

    Thirdly, should not the Bahrain route to the Gulf be dropped for the time being if it is unprofitable? Alternatively, if it is necessary to retain that route to assist further negotiations with the Malaysian Government over the extension to Singapore and to pay some respect to the feelings of the Governments of the Gulf States who have been most helpful towards Concorde and British Airways, ​ could we be told how matters stand in this respect? What are the prospects of the Malaysians agreeing to allow overflying of their territory? It was accepted and then it was stopped. How do things stand now?

    There has been, we are told—it is more than a rumour—information to the effect that Pan American is making inquiries about the possibility of running a Concorde of its own. There is no form of flattery more sincere than imitation. I am sure that we should all welcome a competitor of this kind, including British Airways. It would be a great tribute to the success of Concorde, in spite of all the forebodings. One of the problems about the Pan American inquiry, I am told, is that if the company had only one or two planes it would not be justified in bringing in a complete maintenance staff.

    That would be a difficulty. Perhaps in the circumstances, with friendly competitors, the work could be sub-contracted to British Airways. Many of us, certainly in Bristol and elsewhere in the country, who are much concerned for the success of Concorde and its future would like to know what the prospects are now of Pan American taking on a Concorde for itself.

    I am glad to have had this opportunity to raise these important questions, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give some replies to the points that I have made in all sincerity.

  • John Horam – 1978 Speech on Roads in South-East England

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Horam, the then Under-Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 29 June 1978.

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) for raising this subject because it is, as all hon. Members will agree, an under-debated subject in the House of Commons. I am delighted that the hon. Member found time to discuss it rather earlier than most Adjournment motions.

    First, in reply to the hon. Member’s remarks and those of the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith), who intervened briefly, I take the point that in the past the whole of the South-East, including Sussex certainly, has had less than a fair share of the national cake of road expenditure. I do not think anyone would deny that. What is, happening, however, is that the balance is now being changed and the number of motorway and trunk road projects, let alone county projects, under way in the South-East, including in Sussex and Kent, for example, the links between London and the coast, is really very considerable.

    My first point is on the question of road maintenance, because the hon. Gentleman quoted at some length from an article in the magazine Drive which came out very recently. I regret that article because it was full of inadequacies and distortions, and I am really surprised that a magazine which is run by the Automobile ‘Association should indulge in such scaremongering on the subject of road maintenance. I welcome an article on this very important and worthwhile subject. but those responsible should have taken the trouble to be more accurate in their presentation of the situation.

    It was said, for example, that expenditure had decreased by as much as one-third over the period from 1973–74 until today. That is really gross exaggeration. Probably it has come down by no more than one-eighth over the period, so that that is a distortion by a factor of more than two. I hope that if in future Drive writes on the subject it will get its facts more accurate. It has to be said, however, that expenditure on road maintenance has been cut there is no denying that. Public expenditure has been constrained and, as we know, Conservative Members have urged the Government to go much further than they have gone in restraining public expenditure. But it is a question of balance.

    What has now happened is that, after certainly a period of three or four years of successive cuts in road maintenance expenditure, it has now bottomed out and is stable. Looking at local roads, it is now stabilised and will continue at roughly the present level, which is really very high. We are talking of something of the order of £470 million in White Paper figures, a very considerable sum. Not only that, but maintenance of motorways and trunk roads, which take 28 per cent. of our traffic, is now increasing and will be over £80 million next year and going towards £90 million by the end of the decade. Thus it is actually increasing. The situation is therefore very much better than either Drive or the hon. Member for Lewes has said.

    Mr. Rathbone

    I should like to be precisely reassured on this, because Drive may have been off the rails in some of the points it quoted but it gave a direct quotation of a spokesman from the hon. ​ Gentleman’s Department saying that it was Government policy to reduce road maintenance funding. I hope that by what he has said the Minister has refuted that and turned it on its head.

    Mr. Horam

    Yes, I have, The situation is that in the White Paper on transport policy produced last year we said that there would be a further small cut in maintenance expenditure. That has now taken place. We have reached the bottom of the slope down and we have stabilised at roughly the figures now being spent. We do not intend to take the process any further, so that there will not be any further cuts in road maintenance. As I said, on trunk roads, and particularly on motorways, maintenance expenditure is increasing.

    The hon. Member for Lewes referred to the number of repairs on motorways. One thing which strikes people on motorways these days is that an increasing number of repairs are being done. The amount of repair work has to increase because many motorways were built in the early 1960s and the surface has now reached the end of its design life.

    Second, while, for general economic reasons, undertaking that restraint on maintenance expenditure, simultaneously the Government embarked on a series of road maintenance surveys, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned—I cannot recall whether Drive mentioned it—which started in 1976. We have now reached our third annual survey. The first two were to establish a base level of information against which we will judge the trend over the years. I cannot yet give a detailed analysis of the position, but our general evidence is that there is deterioration in the quality of our roads.

    We shall have these further comprehensive checks—they take place at no fewer than 6,000 different places in the road system—to make sure that we do not go below a level which would adversely affect safety on roads and their general condition. So the matter is being looked at scientifically and rationally.

    Mr. Rathbone

    I mentioned that it had been estimated that, if road maintenance funding were not dramatically increased —not just stabilised—in 1983, it would become financially impossible ever to stabilise the quality of the roads. From what the Minister says about future ​ budgeting and about the tentative results of this survey. I gather that he is denying that. Could he elaborate to reassure me?

    Mr. Horam

    The quotation to which the hon. Gentleman referred—he so-called backlog which could not be made up—came, I think, from the Asphalt and Coated Macadam Association. That is an interesting source, because that body clearly has a vested interest in road surfaces. But it is wrong. We have no evidence that such an unsupported assertion is correct. All our evidence suggests that we have got the level of spending about right. Certainly we should check our general view, as we are doing with this comprehensive survey which we do every year, but we have no reason to believe that we are wrong. The important thing is to take an objective view and not to rely on the assertions of vested interests.

    Mr. Rathbone

    Including the Government.

    Mr. Horam

    Certainly.

    I now come to the more local matters of Sussex in particular and the local transport planning in that area. Since April 1975, county councils have had full responsibility for local roads as part of their comprehensive responsibility for local transport matters. The Department’s involvement has been through the medium of the transport supplementary grant procedures and the annual statement which the councils submit to the Secretary of State on their local transport policies and programmes—the TPPs.

    It is important to remember that the county’s local transport needs are considered as an interrelated whole. It is up to the county to decide within the framework of central Government policies and available resources where the need for particular new local roads lies in relation to the various other transport priorities, such as bus revenue support, maintenance expenditure and so on. This is an area where the operation of local choice is very important, because local authorities know the needs of their areas.

    Turning to East Sussex in particular, and keeping in mind that distinction between the role of my Department and the local responsibility of the council, perhaps we could consider the last TSG ​ settlement, for 1978–79, for East Sussex. under which we are now working.

    In its TPP bid for this year which it submitted to my Department last summer, East Sussex decided that the highest priority major new local transport scheme was a new road—as opposed to any other item of expenditure—and that the highest priority was the second part of the Hastings spine road. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reviewed the East Sussex TPP in the light of the total call on the resources available and the proposals before him, he found that he was able to accept an overall level of local transport expenditure sufficient to permit the county to make a start on this new road. The county was told of this in the regional director’s letter of 15th December 1977.

    In the South-East as a whole, again within the overall resource constraint, my right hon. Friend was able to accept sufficiently high expenditure levels to permit several other first priority schemes. In fact, as far as each county’s first priority road schemes were concerned, virtually everything bid for in the South-East was accommodated.

    In East Sussex there was the Hastings spine road, which I have already mentioned. In West Sussex the by pass of Bramber and Steyning will be able to start in 1978–79, the current financial year, as planned. In Hampshire, although for administrative reasons the first-choice scheme, which was the Easton Lane link at Winchester, was not allowed for, both the second and third priority schemes, Odiham bypass and the Hulbert Road link to the M3 at Waterlooville, were included. Kent did not include a major new road scheme in its bid for 1978–79. Nor, after proposals for a junction on the M25 were deferred, did Surrey.

    In all, about £20 million is being spent by counties in the South-East in this current financial year on their own choices of local transport schemes. This figure includes both small schemes and large schemes and both new schemes and schemes already started. But all are capital works, over and above the ordinary recurrent expenditure—on maintenance or bus subsidies, for instance. So quite a lot is going on on local roads —we are not talking about motorways or trunk roads—in the South-East in the ​ current financial year with the help of financial support from my Department.

    Mr. Rathbone

    I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that, as I pointed out earlier, one of the reasons why he can claim that a lot is going on and why his Department has granted the counties what they wanted to have is that the counties have been circumscribed in putting forward their plans for each year because they knew of the budgetary limitations and the way that the TPPs would be inspected. It was the very fact of the TPP which inhibited them from putting forward plans which they would otherwise have put forward and which has meant that over the years a huge backlog of desired but unrequested roads has built up.

    Mr. Horam

    I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have it both ways. Over the last three or four years we have been in a period of general expenditure restraint. I shall have something to say about the future later in my remarks. But one has to accept that general economic restraint of the last three or four years. I think that the county councils accept it.

    I turn now to the future. Obviously I cannot prejudge my right hon. Friend’s decision on TSG settlements yet to come, but it is worth mentioning the sort of scheme that we know counties in the South-East have in mind. Let us look first at East Sussex. Its proposals in last year’s TPP for future years included, among others, an improvement of the access to Shoreham Docks and the bypass of Uckfield.

    As the hon. Member will know, the routes to the country’s docks are a matter of great concern to the Government—he mentioned Newhaven as well as Shoreham—and should this Shoreham Docks proposal be carried forward in the bid for next year we will look at it very carefully and sympathetically. The bypass of Uckfield is also likely to remain high in East Sussex’s order of priority, relieving as it should, the small town centre of the considerable through traffic on the A22.

    I turn now to the longer-term needs of the South-East as a whole. Much work is being done. I would mention in particular the strategic review of roads in the region which is in hand under the ​ auspices of the Standing Conference on London and South-East Regional Planning. My officers are in contact with the conference officials, and I understand that they expect to meet again in the next few days at working level.

    Mr. Rathbone

    When might that group report?

    Mr. Horam

    I cannot say offhand. It is having a meeting in the next few days. That may well be part of a series of meetings which may not necessarily lead to a final report. If it does, I will inform the hon. Gentleman well in advance. These figures and particular schemes do not give the whole picture.

    The hon. Gentleman also asked whether we would reconsider our view about the relationship between national schemes and local schemes. I think that he was asking for more support for local schemes. I can tell him that my right hon. Friend has said that he is willing to look again at the amount of resources which the Government are making available for their own programmes for motorways and trunk roads, as opposed to the county schemes for local roads. We feel that that relationship—given that we have had a long period of motorway and trunk road building—can with benefit be looked at again. Obviously, the hope of the counties will be that we can make more resources available to them. I cannot commit myself at this stage, but we are prepared to examine that to see whether we can change the relationship.

    As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have also opened recently the Lewes bypass. Indeed, I opened it myself. There are also further improvements in prospect there. The South Street link has been started. There are improvements near Brighton. In particular, major improvements are being carried out at Falmer. Elsewhere in East Sussex, there is much trunk road work planned for the near future. The programme centres generally on improvements to the coastal road, the A27 and A259, with the £11 million Brighton bypass as a major scheme in the early 1980s, and improvements to the newly-trunked A21. There is also a sizeable bypass of Robertsbridge and Hurst Green to come.

    Several of these trunk road schemes, particularly those at Lewes and the ​ Brighton bypass, will have a major effect on access to Newhaven Docks, to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his speech. The county’s own Newhaven ring road, which has recently been completed, has already considerably improved the access to the docks.

    Elsewhere in the South-East, the overall road system is dominated by London. Many of the radial routes are trunk roads and many have been considerably improved in recent years. The A20, for example, and the A2 have been improved. Much further work remains in the pipeline. Both hon. Gentleman will know that the highest priority of all in the Government’s road programme is the orbital motorway, M25, around London. This will do much to improve communications for Londoners and for people who live in Sussex and in Kent.

    Finally, I want to touch on one or two other matters raised by the hon. Member for Lewes. He asked me seven specific questions at the end of his remarks. I think that I have dealt with maintenance, the subject of his first question.

    The second question was concerned with the relationship between national schemes and local roads. The hon. Member asked me, further, to reconsider our approach to local transport subsidies. In general, he seems to be in favour of more support for capital schemes as opposed to revenue schemes, such as bus support, for example. I think this is a matter of balance, frankly, and that there is a party political difference between us here. The Government are concerned that there should be proper support for bus services, otherwise we are losing too many of these services throughout the country. Bus services are being cut back and fares increased very rapidly. The Government want to stabilise the position. There may be a party political difference between us on this. It is a matter of judgment between Government and Opposition and a matter of judgment for local authorities to take into account. They have very considerable freedom of choice.

    Fourthly, the hon. Gentleman asked me about lorries paying their way. Our taxation statistics regard heavy lorries as those over 30 cwt unladen—broadly 3½tons laden. For these vehicles as a class, there has been no shortfall between revenue and attributed road costs since 1977–78. In 1978–79, revenue from these ​ vehicles is expected to exceed allocated costs by £65 million. This figure takes account of the fact that two groups of the heaviest vehicles are not yet wholly covering their cost. The hon. Gentleman referred to that aspect. The Government, however, remain committed to ensuring that all groups of goods vehicles cover in taxation at least the public road cost—that is, the cost of wear and tear and the building of the road attributable to them. That is our clearly stated policy.

    Fifthly, the hon. Gentleman asked whether road users get a fair share of the taxation which they have to bear. There are two points here. First, taxation as a whole should cover the cost which road users throw on the community by requiring roads to be built and maintained for them. That is clearly Government policy. But, in addition, they will be asked to contribute an extra amount for the general Exchequer requirements. It is entirely a matter for the Government of the day to decide how big that should be. It could be nothing or it could be a very large sum.

    The EEC measures which we shall be adopting to deal with the general problem of taxing lorries fairly divide it into those two portions—the portion whereby one recoups from road users the cost they impose on the community and, secondly, anything over and above that which is a general contribution to Exchequer requirements. When this system comes into being—it is being negotiated inside the Common Market at present—we shall have a clear way of showing people exactly what they are contributing.

    Mr. Rathbone

    Can the Minister estimate whether that will increase the amount of moneys paid from vehicle excise and so forth, which are used for road building and maintenance, or will it decrease them?

    Mr. Horam

    It will depend on the costs and revenues as they are assessed at the time in question. Clearly the heaviest of lorries are not meeting their full costs at present. If more taxation is put on them, that will raise more revenue. But, equally, motorists are paying more than their fair costs at present. It would be a matter for the Government of the day to decide what they should do about that. I do not ​ think one can really answer that question unless one looks two or three years ahead at the figures.

    The hon. Gentleman also asked whether we would have TPPs every three or four years. The answer is that we wish to have a graded approach to change rather than the sudden jerks which one would get with a three-year or four-year appraisal. I think that the process of annual appraisal fits well into councils’ calendars and ways of working. It is sensible and has been accepted by councils for a number of years now. To go over to a longer period of gestation would not be right. The hon. Gentleman may well disagree—

    Mr. Rathbone

    The East Sussex County Council for one is very specific on this point. The need to produce annual TPPs relatively early in a calendar year has to anticipate the grants from national Government later in the year. It does not aid the planning of the road programme, either in building or maintenance terms, for the future fiscal year and it adds immeasurably to the administrative costs of running the whole transportation budget. As I instanced in my own few words, there has been a doubling of the proportion of that transport budget which is paid in administration from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent.

    Mr. Johnson Smith

    Only yesterday I was talking with senior officials and councillors from the West Sussex County Council. They made exactly the same point, and I hope that the Minister will look at it again.

    Mr. Horam

    We are anxious that any TPP paper or report should not be over-elaborate. We are not anxious to create ​ paperwork for the sake of paperwork. But this is a system which has been developed over several years. The amount of paper work is not very large.

    Mr. Rathbone

    Two hundred and fifty pages.

    Mr. Horam

    That is an exceptional case. I know of some counties which produce a TPP of only a handful of pages. Perhaps East Sussex has taken considerable trouble over its TPP, which is praiseworthy.

    Mr. Johnson Smith

    And West Sussex.

    Mr. Horam

    West Sussex as well. Certainly we would not wish counties to be over-bureaucratic about it. I think that the system is now well understood and can be managed reasonably well by county councils.

    I was also asked whether we could relax some controls on small matters which are more legitimately the concern of local authorities. We are sympathetic to this suggestion. We have looked at this carefully, and it may well be that there are quite a few things which in future years we can hand over to local authorities, which will mean that more decisions are taken locally by people who best understand the needs of the local community. Indeed, we are in consultation with some of the local authority associations about matters of this kind, and I believe that we can make progress.

    I think that we are beginning to make the sort of progress in Government policy which both hon. Members have so clearly and cogently said is their aim.

  • Tim Rathbone – 1978 Speech on Roads in South-East England

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tim Rathbone, the then Conservative MP for Lewes, in the House of Commons on 29 June 1978.

    I am pleased to have the opportunity of raising in the House a subject that concerns a major capital asset that the country, especially Sussex and the South-East, has inherited over the centuries, namely, our local road network.

    In Sussex and the South-East almost 98 per cent. of the roads are county roads. That may be the highest proportion anywhere in the country. Therefore, it is peculiar that perhaps the South-East region’s share of total national expenditure on road construction and maintenance has remained the same over the past 10 years. If it had remained the same at a sufficiently high level, that would not be surprising, but unfortunately the equality of application of Government funds hides worrying anomalies.

    First, the national budget for all road construction has been halved since 1973. That is of especial concern in Sussex and the South-East. Secondly, the proportion spent on county road construction has decreased overall. From 1967 to 1977 it has almost halved, moving from 13½ per cent. of the total to 7½ per cent. Thirdly, and perhaps in today’s circumstances most worrying of all, the Government’s ​ policy seems to be to force down local authority spending on road maintenance. That was brought home in a quotation in the current issue of Drive for July and August, which reports:

    “A DoT spokesman said ‘At the moment policy on road maintenance is to cut it. I know that we have come in for a lot of criticism from people who are saying not enough is being spent, and we accept that there are genuine fears that standards might fall below what is thought adequate. But the Government thinks that there is scope for saving money on things that are really cosmetic treatment for roads and highways’”.

    That is an extremely worrying statement of policy. I very much hope that when the Minister replies he will refute it.
    The picture is made even bleaker because, whereas in the past local authority expenditure used to be applied primarily for the provision and maintenance of the road network. Nowadays only about half of that expenditure will be so applied, because the remainder has to go, on the one hand, towards subsidies to local transport, which have increased by almost six times since they started at the beginning of 1970, and, on the other hand, to burgeoning administrative costs which are now running at the horrific level of 20 per cent. of the total budget—twice the proportion of only five years ago. This, as any county councillor, county engineer or county surveyor appreciates, is due almost entirely to greatly increased administrative demands from national Government.

    All this is taking place at a time when, over the past 10 years, road traffic has grown by 45 per cent., the gross weight of vehicles has increased by 33 per cent., owners’ expenditure on vehicles has increased by an enormous 248 per cent. and the Government are, I believe quite rightly, encouraging further increases in mobility for everyone.

    The picture is even worse for county roads in the South-East. Because car ownership in the South-East is above the national average at 78 per 100 households compared with the national average of 72, and because truck mileage grows faster as trade with Europe increases, county roads carry more of this burden because of the paucity of motorways in East and West Sussex and in Kent and the lack of many fully developed trunk roads as well. Lastly—a point which ​ applies to the nation as a whole but applies equally to the South East—the volume and weight of traffic everywhere has increased far faster than anyone ever anticipated.

    County councils responsible for their own local road networks cannot be blamed for what is a sadly deteriorating situation. Since the advent of the transport policies and programmes system, the East Sussex County Council, in common with other councils in the area, has become increasingly aware of its inability to build the roads which are needed because of too little Government funding and too much Government administrative demand. Therefore, it has had to submit bids for road building in accordance with Government guidelines, and that has meant not putting forward for approval the road bids that it knows are needed. Unless resources are substantially increased, nearly half of the presently uncommitted, but desired, road schemes in East Sussex will still not be completed by 1991.

    But that is not all. Not only are insufficient new roads being built, but existing roads are no longer being properly maintained. Until recently the standards of roads in the South-East were as high as anywhere in the country and, therefore, among the best in the world. The results of some years of imposed neglect are now becoming noticeable. If not yet at a critical stage of deterioration, it is certainly very serious. If cuts in road maintenance are not restored over the next five years, by 1983 it is estimated that we shall have reached the point of no return and it will become financially impossible ever to catch up with the backlog of road repair work.

    Just as more and more motorways are now requiring major surgical repairs, often including rebuilding of the new substructure down to 18 in. or more, so county roads, few of which were designed and built for today’s weight of traffic, require quite drastic attention. Yet that is just what they are not getting.

    The AA estimates that overall in Britain there are now 250,000 potholes or similar faults in our road system. It is likely that East Sussex has more than its fair share of potholes because, on an index drawing together total road mileage, or kilometreage, in the county, on the one ​ hand, the population using those roads, on the other hand, and the expenditure on those roads, on the third hand, East Sussex has not been able to do better than to come at the bottom of the index for similar counties and at near bottom for all non-metropolitan counties in the country.

    What does all this mean? First, it means that the costs to motorists and commercial vehicle operators have been soaring because of higher running costs through damage to suspensions, premature tyre replacement and increased low-gear fuel consumption. Then there are costs to the community, which are escalating because of increasing numbers of accidents. It is interesting and worrying to note that accidents caused by skidding due to poor road surfaces have increased by one-third since 1974, and this is marked, in part at least, by increasing public liability claims, which have increased both in number and in amount every recent year.

    These, presumably, are some of the reasons why the Department of Transport is carrying out an extensive survey into the state of roads and road surfaces. I wonder whether the Minister is yet ready to tell us anything about the results of that investigation and to indicate any action he is contemplating in the light of those results, and particularly, of course, any increased spending plans that he may have in mind for East Sussex and the South-East.

    In the absence of greater Government funding and greater Government initiative, who is suffering? First, business and commerce are suffering. I give the town and port of Newhaven as an example. Here is a port which is burgeoning and is more prosperous than it has ever been in living memory because of the increased trade with Europe and the rest of the world. In addition to the trade through the port, Newhaven has its own base of light industry, much of it export-directed.

    Newhaven is well linked by British Rail to all parts of Britain, but it is ill served by its road links. Improvements have been made internally. I think that the Minister inspected them quite recently. But still Newhaven has only a B road as its main north-south feed, and this road is soon to carry added burdens of trucks going to and from a new county refuse disposal tip. These are heavy trucks, travelling at 25 to 30 m.p.h., at an expected rate of 2,000 movements per week. So the business of the community and commerce within the community suffer.

    But people in the community suffer too, and, whatever Mr. Bernard Levin may say about the Lewes bypass, as he wrote about it in The Times last Wednesday, the relief that that has given—and it will give even more once South Street relief scheme has come on stream properly—is just the sort of relief which is so much desired by other towns, such as Winchelsea, Rye or Robertsbridge.

    In Kent it is interesting and worrying to note that Kent County Council’s original development plan, produced 20 years ago, included 44 bypasses of small towns and villages, but as of this year only six have been built.

    But communities suffer economically as well as environmentally. Newhaven is a major prosperity centre for the Lewes District Council, for the East Sussex County Council and for the South-East as far as future planning is concerned. But in the 1978 revision of the East Sussex County Council’s county structure plan, which has been approved by the Secretary of State, the development of the port of Newhaven is specifically inhibited because of the weak road links to and from the town. This means that much-needed jobs cannot be created there. The same can be said for other towns in the South-East. Hastings, just down the coast, is a very good example of where quite modest road building and improvement programmes can help to attract trade and light industry and thereby create, naturally, improved employment opportunities.

    But not only do those in the specific community suffer. The ratepayers and the taxpayers of the whole area suffer, because as remedial repairs are cut back and improvements are postponed this inevitably leads to more drastic remedial surgery and more expensive improvements in the future.

    I cite for the House two worryingly dramatic statistics. Road resurfacing, to seal out moisture and to restore anti-skid properties, costs approximately 50p per square metre. But if that is not done and damp seeps in so that roads begin to ​ crack and to craze, rebuilding of those roads can cost up to £15 per square metre—30 times the cost.

    The final group of people who suffer are those who use the roads, whether they are commercial vehicle operators who have to allow for more off-the-road time and increased cost of repairs, or private individuals who, in the South-East, are often retired—as they are in my constituency of Seaford, Peacehaven, Telscombe Cliffs or East Saltdean on the South Coast. They have enough difficulty already making ends meet without additional car repair charges.

    The Minister would do well to bear in mind that even the Prime Minister has to suffer because the road leading from Lewes to his country estate nearby is like a switchback due to the lack of running repairs because of cuts in the road repair funds.

    For a county such as East Sussex this financial circumscription on road building and repairs is particularly frustrating.

    The county of East Sussex has already taken special pride in its road system. East Sussex pioneered the building of concrete roads 45 years ago. More recently, East Sussex pioneered road edge lining which has reduced accidents dramatically by up to 22 per cent. Sadly, such pioneering work cannot be undertaken now when even basic repair work has to be left undone.

    What can the Government do? I ask the Minister to address himself to seven specific issues. First and foremost, will the Minister consider the reversal of the Government’s stated policy of cutting road maintenance? The policy is too shortsighted. It stems from a complete lack of understanding of the long-term, expensive ramifications.

    Secondly, will the Minister consider the allocation of more funds for county road building and improvements to allow county councils to tackle properly such much-needed works as on the B2109 which leads north from Newhaven? I should welcome a re-commitment from the Government in order to improve the roads of the South-East.

    Thirdly, will the Minister consider a reassessment of the provisions in the Transport Bill on local transport subsidies? Even if 70 per cent. of bus subsidies are funded by the Government, an increase in total subsidy of £500,000 in a county area means that £150,000 has to be found from the rates. It is difficult to see from where such funds would come except from highway maintenance budgets or increased rates. Both are unattractive and unacceptable sources. This raises whether funds should be taken from safeguarding a capital asset and used for renewed expenditures of a social nature.

    Fourthly, will the Minister investigate whether lorries, particularly top-weight lorries, are paying their way properly to ensure that the relative level of their road taxes is proportionate to their share of road costs? I was interested to read in The Sunday Times recently that it is estimated that the heaviest lorries might be underpaying their share by £40 million a year.

    Fifthly, can the Minister argue more effectively than previous Ministers with Treasury colleagues that road users should pay a fairer share of motoring-related taxes, particularly the £915 million that they pay in vehicle licence dues and the lesser amount, but still considerable, of £25 million in VAT on fuel? That figure was quoted in the issue of Drive magazine to which I have referred.

    Sixthly, will the Minister examine the need for annual TPPs? What is the real effect of these annual documents, if any, on the condition of county roads or on the lives of those who live alongside those roads or use them daily? Could not TPPs be submitted every three or four years and thereby reduce administrative costs and improve budget planning?

    Finally, in pursuit of the Secretary of State’s intention to devolve more responsibility for local transportation to county councils, cannot central controls be relaxed and unnecessary administrative requirements, often duplicated at local and national levels, be reduced? Is it necessary for the Government to tell the East Sussex County Council in detail how it should mow its grass verges?

    The Secretary of State said, in talking to the County Surveyors Society on 19th January last, that he saw his job as
    “to ensure that the right roads are built to the right standards in the right place at the right time”.

    To that I add only “and that all roads are maintained to correct standards at ​ all time.” There is nowhere in Britain more deserving of the attention of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary than Sussex and the South-East.

  • Richard Buchanan – 1978 Speech on British Rail Catering

    Below is the text of the speech made by Richard Buchanan, the then Labour MP for Glasgow Springburn, in the House of Commons on 26 April 1978.

    Throughout the period that the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) has been in the House, I have served on various Committees with him and have formed a high opinion of his ability and have appreciated his pleasant personality. It is therefore more in sorrow than in anger that I oppose the Bill, because he is stooping to the tedious repetition of the anti-nationalisation argument perpetuated by the Conservative Party.

    The hon. Member is seeking the denationalisation of British Rail catering. Which part? Does he mean the hotels which make a profit, the station buffets which make a profit, or the train catering which makes a huge loss? There are no prizes for the answer to that one.

    I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is acquainted with the realities of the situation. It is true that British Rail catering makes a loss. The hotels make a profit of about £850,000, the station buffets about £750,000. But there is a ​ loss on train catering of £2,300,000, which is less than 1 per cent. of the Inter-City passenger revenue. Its impact on the generality of passenger fares is minuscule. To say that passengers who do not participate in the catering subsidise those who do is arrant nonsense.

    One can consider our own Refreshment Department. One of its great handicaps is that it can never estimate the needs. On a running three-line Whip, the Dining Room might be empty. On a one-line Whip, when it seems that hardly anyone is about, the Dining Room might be packed. A similar impossibility of gauging needs leads British Rail, particularly on its trains, into this deficit.

    We seldom hear complaints about similar losses on airlines, simply because a meal is included in the marketing package. If the catering were costed separately, I am sure that it would show quite a loss.

    The hon. Member said nothing about withdrawing catering from British trains, but the last time that private enterprise dabbled in a nationalised industry, if a line or service did not pay, it was simply chopped off. How bitterly today we regret the lines in the North of Scotland which were chopped off by the Beeching axe.

    The withdrawal of train catering would be a sure loser. I do not see private enterprise, under any franchise, taking this on. It would mean extensive and expensive reinvestment in dining cars and in kitchens.

    Many of us have for long advocated a considerable reinvestment in British Rail and will continue to do so. There is to be an investment in new rolling stock, including dining cars and kitchens. Most of the outdated vehicles should be scrapped. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, who is present, will take note.

    The staff of Travellers-Fare, who have been ridiculed, do a magnificent job on trains. They work in very cramped and difficult conditions. British Rail has speeded up its service. My journey to London used to take 10 hours. I would get on a sleeper at St. Enoch’s and I could read my book for a few hours, fall asleep and wake up in London. Now I am there only a few hours. The Travellers-Fare people have to try to serve two meals in that short time. They ​ often have to do so on trains travelling at 100 miles an hour and therefore swaying considerably.

    Travellers-Fare has consistently shown a better economic return than similar organisations on the Continent and in America. The only one that makes any profit is the Swiss.

    British Rail is taking steps to improve its service across the board, including its catering provision—as it always does. Reorganisation is taking place. Travellers-Fare has been incorporated into British Transport Hotels with a remit to exploit every opportunity for the successful expansion and development of the business. New services such as the Gold Star menu are proving popular and the experimental reduction of buffet prices and an improved range of food are boons to the travellers. Station buffets are being refurbished and we are told that dining cars will be refurbished. If they are out of date, they should be scrapped.

    Who in private enterprise would take on rail catering? There is one claimant in the field—Sir Charles Forte, who hoisted himself into the top ten individual contributors to the Tory Party with a contribution of £25,000. He is a man who believes in profitability. Was it entirely accidental that Sir Charles Forte staked his claim on the very day on which the Egon Ronay survey produced the most damning report on motorway cafeterias run by his organisation? Or was it a desperate device to divert attention from his predicament? I think that that is what it was—and this Bill is an equally transparent manoeuvre by the supporters of the Tory Party.

    With all the difficulties inherent in catering on trains, Travellers-Fare services have improved immeasurably and will continue to do so. Station buffets pay and provide a good service. As I travel from Euston to Glasgow, I should hate to go into a buffet at either end and find some of the conditions that Egon Ronay found in motorway cafes.

    Let us take Newport Pagnell—[HON. MEMBERS: “No, you take it.”] Egon Ronay spoke of an indefensible state of neglect, badly worn carpets, dirty seats, sluggish table clearing and a clutter of rubbish and cigarette ends. Nor would I appreciate going for a meal or a snack in the dining car if I found, as Egon Ronay did in the motorway cafeterias, ​ that sausages were inedible, the fish was stale, the pea soup was lurid, the hamburgers were tough and there were watery carrots. And those were among the more complimentary remarks. That is what the hon. Member for Pudsey wants to introduce to British Rail.

    Sir Charles Forte has a monumental task cleaning up his own organisation. Let him begin with the motorway cafes.

  • Giles Shaw – 1978 Speech on British Rail Catering

    Below is the text of the speech made by Giles Shaw, the then Conservative MP for Pudsey, in the House of Commons on 26 April 1978.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to denationalise catering facilities provided by British Transport Hotels Limited for British Rail; and to make consequential provisions in relation thereto.

    Let me begin by stressing that in recent times British Rail has shown a much greater sensitivity to the need to improve standards and performance of British Rail catering both on certain station buffets and on trains. But the fact remains—in my view it is a principle which is not easily bucked—that British Rail primarily exists to run an effective and efficient railway service, which demands a much greater concentration of effort on capital projects to improve track, trains and allied engineering services than it does to maintain an efficient kitchen and dining car or a wide variety of food in a station buffet. Hence it has been obvious for many years that the catering side of British Rail is very much the Cinderella of the outfit.

    This apparently embarrassing conflict was well set out in a report by British Rail executives in evidence to Sub-Committee A of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in February 1977. In an interview with that Committee on 8th February 1977, the director of British Rail responsible said:

    “These two aims of satisfying the customer and keeping marketing costs down to manageable proportions are sometimes in conflict, not surprisingly, and one tries to achieve a balance by sensitive judgment of priorities … This balance between a service and the cost of providing it is something which is regularly under review. In fact, there has been over recent years an ongoing—and it is still going on—respecification of the train catering requirement to meet changed eating habits.”

    The first purpose of this Bill, therefore, is to relieve British Rail of the embarrassment of seeking to be responsible for two aspects of travellers’ requirements which are so frequently in conflict.

    I do not consider that the catering facilities of British Rail should be regarded as a marketing embarrassment when it might be possible for them to be operated by the private sector as the major objective of a business. Secondly, in terms of economic performance, the whole House would be anxious to see ​ that British Rail should continue to take developments which lead to profitable business.

    From the latest public figures available, catering on stations generated a surplus of £1·2 million before paying rentals of £0·6 million. But train catering showed an operating net loss of £2·4 million in maintaining catering service facilities on more than 900 weekly trains. Therefore, the overall position of catering on stations and on trains is one of running at a very substantial loss.

    Perhaps the House should understand that catering is one of the activities carried out by a subsidiary of British Transport Hotels Ltd., the subsidiary being known as Travellers-Fare. At the end of 1976, BTH operated some 181 station and catering units. But it also had 55 operating units in the hands of tenants. So the idea of franchising in respect of British Rail’s operation is far from new. Indeed, it is established.

    It will be a second objective of my Bill, therefore, to encourage this trend to franchising which has been examined frequently as a possible solution to British Rail’s station catering problems. For evidence of this, I turn to the Central Transport Users’ Consultative Council, in whose 1977 annual report the matter of franchising was discussed. I quote from page 10 of that report:

    “To the Sub-Committee’s suggestion that where train catering facilities appeared to be uneconomical they could perhaps be provided by the franchise system, the Board”—

    the British Rail board—

    “replied that the standards specified by the Passenger Business could not be guaranteed if the train catering was fragmented in this way. The Committee decided that the Sub-Committee”—

    of the Transport Consultative Committee—

    “should investigate the advantages or disadvantages of using the franchise system for train catering.”

    It is only right equally to inform the House that the Sub-Committee to which I referred examined this possibility and gave some reasons why in its view it might not be possible. Amongst the reasons given were, first, that the private entrepreneur might consider the risks too great in view of the lack of storage and refrigeration facilities and the lack of sufficient detail regarding trade levels, ​ secondly, that of having to operate as self-employed with all the problems of VAT regulations, thirdly, that trade union opposition was most likely, and, fourthly, that choosing a suitable route for an experiment might be difficult.

    I submit that these are not sufficient reasons for deciding that a franchising arrangement for British Rail catering cannot be run and manned. It is this lack of flexibility which formed part of the criticism of British Rail by the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in its report in 1977.

    The answer was in part clear—that such flexibility required readapting the system, and that would require modification of existing vehicles and capital reinvestment. None would deny this as being necessary, but the point is that catering services are regarded as being so low on the list of priorities that their chances of getting a slice of British Rail’s investment cake are very slim, and the travelling public today are being served in ancient rolling stock under an inflexible system.

    I do not see why this should not be livened up by a healthy injection of competition. Clearly, the most fruitful ground for this to occur would be on railway station buffets and other catering services where there are increasing signs that Travellers-Fare, while seeking to modify its menu and pricing, is still offering fairly unappetising services.

    Why is it that many station buffets close at 8 p.m.? Why is it that many do not open before 10 a.m. on Sundays? It is largely because these institutions are run as part of a greater institution, namely British Rail, and are not run by normal competitive criteria which would provide keener services for the travelling consumer.

    It would be possible to attract the public to eating in railway station restaurants if their service and pricing were improved. Such is the case on the Continent. Many gourmets descend on the Gare de l’Est in Paris and other French stations primarily for eating rather than for travelling purposes. Although within the British Transport Hotels there are many first-class hotels, they tend to be those less associated with their proximity to railway services than with their ​ proximity to leisure activities such as golf at Turnbury or Gleneagles. The principle here is quite clearly that to tailor a package to the holidaymaker and tourist is good, but that to tailor a package to those who happen to travel on British Rail is very difficult and unprofitable. In my view, the public deserve the best catering available whenever they travel, and they have been expressing concern in increasing numbers that the standards have slipped badly.

    I am aware that the management of British Rail has just announced for a temporary period a reduction of some prices of British Rail foods. The cost of coffee and biscuits has dropped from 29p to 24p and that of coffee and cheese sandwiches from 51p to 44p. A standard cup of powdered coffee plus hot water will now be 15p instead of 17p on most services. However, anyone who has the good fortune to consume it in a railway dining car will find that it still costs 24p. That is because the menu describes the cup of coffee as being “freshly made”.

    There has been a clear tendency for British Rail to concentrate on the expense account diner instead of on the travelling family. But even the business man must be getting a little doubtful when he is served grilled salmon maitre d’hotel at £3·85 or with chicken stanley at £3·40, so called because it is presumed to be chicken.

    Then, of course, there are wines from the British Transport Hotel cellars, located in Derby, I believe, including the new French table versions vin blanc, vin rouge and vin rosé, which are the Freeman, Hardy and Willis amongst viniculturists.

    The matter of principle which causes most concern remains the extent to which British Rail should enjoy the monopoly of catering services to its passengers as well as the monopoly of selling them tickets and travel. As the Price Commission said in paragraph 153 of its recent report, the British Rail board—

    “are actively developing station trading facilities including the development of franchise arrangements. The catering service on trains is currently being reviewed.”

    I accept that it is a necessary provision. But it is clear that it is seen as a marketing cost designed to hold and guarantee business when it could and should be seen as a marketing oppor ​ tunity in its own right. That is why the development of franchising, which the British Rail board apparently is considering, should be taken further and why it should become by Act of Parliament a requirement that it seeks alternative sources of capital to run and develop the catering services for the travelling public on British Rail.

    Just as British Rail offers Gold Star weekend packages at their hotels, it surely could offer an inclusive meal ticket for family snack facilities to enable Awayday returns to become a more attractive form of travel to a wider number of people.

    This Bill, therefore, will be in the interests not only of British Rail, which seeks to eliminate losses and yet is confined by restraints on capital expenditure, but also of the travelling public, who will be able to obtain better pricing through competition, a wider variety of foods and from station services a source of catering which could and should become a matter of local interest and pride.

    I commend the Bill to the House.