§ LORD KILMANYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Ombudsman has now agreed to examine the case against closing the Edinburgh to Carlisle railway line and whether an assurance can be given that no more rails will be removed from this line pending the result of the Ombudsman's inquiry.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD)My Lords, I understand that the Ministry of Transport has been asked by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to comment on a complaint about the provision of alternative bus services for former users of this line at Newcastleton. The Railways Board are free to remove track and signalling equipment from a closed line. But they do not dispose of the route formation itself without first seeking my right honourable friend's agreement.
§ LORD KILMANYMy Lords, while accepting the noble Lord's assurance that the railways will not proceed totally to remove the line that at present stands, is the noble Lord not aware that already some of the rails have been removed from Newcastleton? Who in fact is to pay if, in the event, the Ombudsman sustains the case and if, furthermore, the case sustained for Newcastleton is referred to him and sustained for a wider area?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I think the noble Lord is under some misapprehension. The matter, I understand, has been referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner on the adequacy of the alternative bus services that are required following the closure of the railway line. Under Section 56 of the Transport Act the Minister is empowered to permit the Railways Board to close a line. As the noble Lord is aware, he has no power to rescind such an order.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, has not the noble Lord given the view in this House that the railway line will not be closed until adequate and equal bus services have been provided?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, that is quite correct, but my right honourable friend is certain that adequate services have been provided. For my noble friend's information, we are dealing with a small section of the line which has only some 20 to 30 passengers per day. These things were all taken into account. The T.U.C.C.s made recommendations and those recommendations have been complied with.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, if the bus services are sufficient, why has the matter been referred to the Ombudsman?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I have no idea what was behind the mind of the honourable gentleman in the other place when he referred it to the Parliamentary Commissioner, but in regard to this one particular station involved only one complaint has been registered.
§ LORD KILMANYMy Lords, is it not the fact that what we are concerned with is the event that the Ombudsman finds that the bus services are totally inadequate? What is to happen then?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I am not sure whether the Parliamentary Commissioner would come to that judgment, but if the noble Lord would care to see the letter which the Minister of Transport sent to the Railways Board when he set out his conditions for closure—that is, provision of adequate bus services—he would see that it was made quite clear that if, particularly in the view of the traffic commissioners, further services should be provided, these would be provided. But certainly the whole matter would then be looked at.