I know that there is a widespread interest in this case and I wish that more hon. Members had been able to take part in the debate. As it is, owing to the lack of time, I shall have to speak at some speed in reply.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) started by criticising my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. My right hon. Friend has inherited colossal problems and he has his responsibilities as a member of the Cabinet. It is extremely rare in the House, as I know from 17 years' membership, for a Cabinet Minister to answer an Adjournment Debate. Since I came to this position I have attracted four Adjournment debates already, two of which I have to answer next week. I am sorry that the hon. Member criticised my right hon. Friend for not being here. My right hon. Friend is extremely interested in this as in other closure cases.

This debate gives me an opportunity to make clear the Government's policy on railway closures generally and how it will have a bearing on the Richmond-Broad Street line. As has been said, this line was listed in the Beeching Report as one of those which the Railways Board saw little prospect of making financially viable, and which the Board considered, on the basis of its statutory duty to pay its way, as one they intended to propose for closure.

This aroused very substantial Opposition. Nobody should be surprised at that, because the line is used extensively not so much by the constituents of the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey—because they have the District Line with a more direct and faster route to Central London—but more by people in North London and especially by the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) and Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt).

The local opposition, as we know, was organised with impressive speed, efficiency and skill and produced some very interesting publications which I have read very carefully, with counter-suggestions and proposals which no doubt have been under consideration. At least three committees were formed to oppose this closure. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West referred to the mass lobby on 13th May, 1963, and the presentation of a petition with 57,000 signatures. This was submitted to the then Minister of Transport, the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) who, four days later, because of the massive agitation, answered a debate on the subject.

The right hon. Gentleman used that occasion to expound his policy of rail closures generally and, secondly, to announce that he could say absolrttely nothing about the prospects for the Richmond-Broad Street line because the Railways Board had not made any formal proposals to close the line. He explained that even if they had done, the statutory procedure, that is consideration of the effect of closure in terms of hardship by the T.U.C.C., would have Lad to go on.

I wish to make it crystal clear, having regard to what the hon. Gentleman said about proposals, that the Railways Board has still not made any definite proposal about the Richmond-Broad Street line. I have the utmost sympathy for the users of the line in their state of uncertainty and the fact that they are having to wait a very long time for an announcement to be made about its future. I can say that we and the Board are extremely anxious to come as quickly as possible to a definite conclusion on this matter, from the point of view of railway efficiency and finance and the social values involved.

There are still many proposals listed in the Beeching Report which have not yet been converted into definite submissions. In fact, out of the immense programme set out in the "Reshaping" Report, there are 75 so-called proposals about closures on which we in the Ministry have no definite information at present.

In fairness to the Board, it is understandable that it should take a longer time to formulate a definite proposal about this line since it differs considerably from the much smaller branch lines about which proposals have been put up. It forms part of a complex network, and the Railways Board has to consider it in relation to numerous other services which run into Broad Street. The Board has, at the same time, been making a number of changes, altering some of the services, including, for instance, a reduction in off-peak services find the length of trains. It has required time to assess the effects of these alterations, to take censuses, and so on.

The Board has now told me that it hopes to reach a definite conclusion on the basis of all this within the next month or so. I cannot say what the conclusion will be. Only then shall be know exactly whether, for financial reasons, the Board still proposes to close the line or, perhaps, merely some of the stations on it or to withdraw the proposal altogether.