header-logo header-logo

10 February 2023 / William Gibson
Issue: 8012 / Categories: Features , Public
printer mail-detail

Reflections on Beeching: beware the axeman

110007
Did Richard Beeching deserve the public vitriol he attracted for the closure of the railways? William Gibson examines the impact of the swingeing 1960s cuts

What do the Transport Act 1962 (effective January 1963) and the Courts Act 1971 have in common? Two things: they were both intended to make improvements by cutting, and the axeman in each case was Richard Beeching.

Beeching in charge

A scientist employed by Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), he was seconded to the Civil Service for five years from June 1961 to be first chairman of the newly created British Railways Board, following abolition of the British Transport Commission (BTC). His proposed employment was disclosed to Parliament in March 1961 by the Minister of Transport, Ernest Marples. The announcement that he was to be paid a salary of £24,000 (about £470,000 today), which was more than twice as much as the outgoing chairman of the BTC, sparked an angry and extensive debate in the House. Labour opposition members en masse condemned his lack of knowledge

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll