Railways (Proposed Closures) (Hansard, 3 July 1963)

§ 46. Mr. Lawson
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what study the Scottish Development Department has made of the effect on development and the need for alternative means of trans port of British Railways' proposals to close railways lines in Scotland.

§ 47. Mr. Ross
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what study the Scottish Development Department has made of the effect on the development of the area and the need for alternative means of transport of the proposed withdrawal of passenger services between Kilmarnock and Darvel, Kilmarnock and Ardrossan, and Kilmarnock and Ayr.

§ 48. Mr. Oswald
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what study the Scottish Development Department has made of the effect on the development of the area of the proposed withdrawal of local passenger services from Edinburgh to Berwick; and what study has been made of alternative road services.

§ Mr. Leburn
Officials of the Departments concerned have jointly given preliminary consideration to the bearing of the proposed closures on economic development and alternative means of transport. The officials are now studying in more detail the particular proposals of which the British Railways Board has given formal notice, including those 376 referred to by the hon. Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and Edinburgh Central (Mr. Oswald).

§ Mr. Lawson
According to a report which the Scottish Office published last year, one of the reasons for the siting of the new town of Livingston was that it was sited near the railway between Glasgow, Motherwell and Edinburgh, which is now to be closed. Has the hon. Gentleman given thought to this closure?

§ Mr. Leburn
The responsibility for reaching decisions on opposed closures will rest not with officials looking into the matter, but with the Minister of Transport. He has undertaken to consult with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before giving his decisions. We will certainly take account of the investigations which have been made by officials.

§ Mr. Ross
Do I understand from the hon. Member's answer that a study is being made of this case? Is he aware that notices in relation to this closure have already been posted? Is the hon. Member's Department going to make any proposals? Will he ask to be heard at any inquiry, if there is one? Is he aware that this closure will break the link between Kilmarnock and Ayrshire's seaside resorts and the south, which means that tourists will have no direct link with the south? Is this not a strange way of conducting the tourist industry in Scotland?

§ Mr. Leburn
I think that the hon. Member will agree that the railways must be entitled to put forward proposals. If there are objections, these will be heard by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. It is after that that the Minister of Transport, taking into account his consultations with the Secretary of State, can consider the matter.

§ Mr. Willis
Does not the hon. Member think that officials of his Department should consider these things before proposals are published? What is the point of having proposals announced and all sorts of organisations and people wasting time and money to make representations to the Consultative Committees if the Government do not do anything until after it is all over? The Government should act first, not last.

§ Mr. Leburn
This is a question of whether one agrees or not that British 377 Railways should be entitled to put forward proposals. I hold the view that they should be.

§ Sir T. Moore
In reference to Question No. 14, to which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has referred already, my constituents are neither backward nor reluctant about writing to tell me about deficiencies of Government policy, but I should like my hon. Friend and hon. Members opposite to realise that I have not had one letter against these proposals.

§ Mr. Speaker
This is Question Time.

§ Mr. Ross
I think that it was Question No. 47 and not Question No. 14, so that whoever is backward it must be the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore). Are we to understand that the Government themselves are not to do anything positively about giving evidence when the inquiry is held and objections are being considered?