HC Deb 22 December 1964 vol 704 cc1045-6
Q1. Sir A. Spearman

asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received on the subject of Government action with regard to closure of the Whitby railway lines; and what replies he has sent.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)

I have had representations from the Whitby Urban and Rural District Councils, three local associations, and four individuals, asking me to stop or postpone the closure of these services. The position as set out in my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport's statement on 4th November has been explained to them.

Sir A. Spearman

May I remind the Prime Minister that on 15th September he wrote to the Chairman of the Scarborough and Whitby Labour Party a personal letter, which was much publicised during the election, and in which he said, I confirm that obviously a major decision such as the proposed Scarborough-MaltonWhitby closures would he covered by the statement in the Labour Party Manifesto that the new regional authorities will"—

Hon. Members

Order. Reading.

Sir A. Spearman

Yes, I am reading the Prime Minister's letter.

Mr. Speaker

Verbatim quotation of that kind is out of order on a Question. Perhaps the hon. Member will summarise its effect.

Sir A. Spearman

The Prime Minister wrote a personal letter on 15th September stating that these railway closures would be halted pending the new regional authority's report. My constituents expect him to fulfil that pledge.

The Prime Minister

Yes, Sir, of course, the position was that when this Government took over the decision had by that time been taken by the then Minister. Under the terms of the 1962 Act we could not halt the closure which had already been decided. I do feel that an explanation is called for to those concerned, and I think the hon. Gentleman should now inform Scarborough and Whitby and all stations between that he voted for the 1962 Act.

Sir A. Spearman

The Prime Minister must have known that when he made that pledge.

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Duffy

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a debate on the cost of living the hon. Member expressed himself on 20th July—it can be found in HANSARD of that date in column 105—as totally opposed to public subsidies to bolster up private enterprise and yet now he is protesting about these closures even though he knows that to keep the lines open they will need to be bolstered up by what is in effect a subsidy?