§ 3.28 p.m.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the statement by Dr. Beeching to the National Production Advisory Council on Industry on 19th July that "lightly used railway services were now being eliminated, and that had to go forward whatever happened", accurately represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.]
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, the proceedings of the National Production Advisory Council are private, but a brief account of some of the main points raised is given to the Press informally after each meeting. I understand that the Press were told after the meeting on Friday, July 19, that the report from the Chairmen of the Regional Boards had said of the Beeching Report that they recognised it as a worthwhile Report but had some reservations, including the thought that it should not be implemented until a wider study of transport had been carried out. Commenting on this Dr. Beeching, who was speaking as Chairman of the British Railways Board, said that the cuts proposed all dealt with lightly used services, which were uneconomic by any standard and, from the point of view of the economics of the railways, would need to be carried through whatever further studies of road or other transport were made. Any acceleration of the road programme from these studies—and presumably retardation of the programme was in nobody's mind—would merely accentuate the necessity for the proposed changes in the railway system.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I now ask him to answer my question—which was, whether the statement attributed to Dr. Beeching correctly describes Government policy? And while he is answering that question, will he say whether his own remark, also reported in the Press, that,
The Government would act where it was thought that changes would not be advisable for social or other non-railway reasons836 was intended to be a repudiation of Dr. Beeching's statement?
§ LORD CHESHAMNo, my Lords; my own remarks were intended to be a substantiation of what Dr. Beeching said. Nothing that he said (and I am glad for once to be able to talk about something of which I have personal first-hand knowledge) has not been said in a variety of ways in both Houses of Parliament on more than one occasion. The noble Lord asks me to answer his question. I have done that already. All I can add is that I think it is extremely tricky, shall I say, to divorce a remark like this from its context and try to draw the kind of conclusion which the noble Lord tries to draw in the last part of his Question on the Paper.
§ LORD MERRIVALEMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is true that his right honourable friend has decided to reprieve from the Beeching axe the branch line from Alston, in Cumberland, to Haltwhistle, in Northumberland; and if that is so, should not the noble Lord, Lord Stonham find solace in that? And does my noble friend not consider that to be a step in the right direction?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, of course that is perfectly true.
§ THE EARL OF SANDWICHMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether there is not some intermediate solution between obliging the Transport Commission to run uneconomic lines which they have declared redundant, as stated yesterday by the Minister of Transport, and closing them down entirely, with the result that they all grow weeds and become a menace to the rural life of the community? Could not the Government think of some scheme of allowing the Transport Commission to sell them by putting up tenders for branch lines to business interests, either local or national, so that they could be run as tramway lines or in some other way.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I think that it would be difficult, extremely undesirable and not very progressive to generalise in reply to a question of that kind. What might be the best use and the optimum use of any particular line 837 must depend on the circumstances of each particular case.
§ LORD CHAMPIONMy Lords, will the noble Lord make it clear to the House and to the public that there is one way of saving branch lines and that is to use the darned things?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is nothing tricky in using words quoted in every national newspaper, which he has himself admitted arose from a public statement made on a matter of national importance. In view of what he has now said, will he confirm that no line will be closed until his right honourable friend has fully considered all representations made to him on hardship, on alternative services, on costs of road improvements and, in fact, on every relevant subject?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I have stated on more than one occasion, and in elaborate detail to your Lordships' House, that that is the case. I know that the noble Lord knows every word of it as well as I do, and I am not going to detail it again. I confirm what I have said, and what has been said by various of my noble and right honourable friends. On the particular statement of Dr. Beeching, he was stating an economic fact of life, and I think that what he said was a correct statement.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I am grateful for that confirmation; because it does not mean that, whatever happens, lines will be closed.