Accrington Railways - Robert Kenyon

February The results of the Minister of Transport’s review were still awaited, but Accrington Council were actively contacting those people who had completed the questionnaires last June, to establish whether or not they were prepared to attend a public inquiry in order to give testimony. On the 13 th , it was announced that there was to be a public inquiry into the closure of the Accrington to Bury and Manchester line. The news came in a written Parliamentary answer from Tom Watson to Harry Hynd. This reply read as follows – “Following the arrangements I announced on November 4 th , the Railways’ Board has sent to me the basic information about this proposed closure. I have decided that any implications it may have for the regional and national planning, can be fully considered by following its passage through the normal statutory procedures.” In a letter to the Observer & Times Mr Hynd said, that he was disappointed with this reply as he had been under the impression that no proposals made for closure made before the General Election would now be progressed. Mr David Ensor, MP for Bury, was also protesting along these same lines. There would now have to be a battle fought out at a public inquiry. It was thought that much of the opposition voiced by Bury was because the Beeching report also recommended the closure of the Bury to Manchester electrified service, but now this threat had been lifted the support of Bury Council had weakened. Tom Fraser sent correspondence to Harry Hynd on February 23 rd , which read as follows - “You seem to have misunderstood the general situation with regard to any railway closures, on which I made a statement to the House, on the 4 th of November, last. The arrangement I announced then, was that the Board of British Railways had agreed to let me have advanced particulars of any proposals for the closing the Accrington to Manchester Victoria line to passengers, and which they intended to publish. I decided, having studied these particulars, this proposal was one which would be likely to conflict with the Government’s plans for regional and national transport, and therefore the Board should refrain from publishing it. If then I came to the conclusion that there was no apparent conflict in principle, I would inform the Board that the proposal - (1) would have to go through the normal statutory procedures. (2) Be examined by the Transport Users Consultative Committee for any implications of hardship. (3) Be studied in detail in the usual manner. You are quite correct in saying that this proposal was not published before the General Election. It was however published after the election, but before the time of my announcement to the House. The Board of BR agreed to send me details of any closures published between these times and these included the one concerning the Accrington – Bury – Manchester Victoria services. Having studied these proposals I have concluded that they will go through the normal procedures, which does not of course indicate I have already made up my mind about it. All it does mean, is this closure is not an obvious non-starter. What the final outcome will be when all the evidence is known, I cannot say at the present time. What I can assure of is, that every relevant factor will be taken into consideration and weighed up meticulously before

283