asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the fact that the permanent ways of the railway systems of this island should be made national assets owing to their use in both peace and war and should be maintained at national expense, he will consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a view to introducing legislation to this effect.

No, Sir. I see no ground for such action.

Does the Minister realise that permanent way maintenance cost is the chief obstacle in the way of our railways being used as a really national service? Is the Minister anxious that the railways should be used as a national service, and if so, will he remove this obstacle?

The suggestion of the hon. and learned Member has been put forward on a good many occasions in the past. It has been studied very many times, and I do not think I can add to the reply I have given.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make regulations under Section 82 of the Transport Act, 1947, to provide for special railway freight charges for the Development Area of West Cumberland.

No, Sir. I do not think that it would be practicable to deal with this matter by regulations under Section 82 of the Transport Act. The issues involved are appropriate for consideration in connection with the Charges Scheme which will, in due course, govern railway rates. In the meantime, any question of reducing the basic rates to and from a particular area is one for the British Transport Commission and, in certain circumstances, for the Transport Tribunal.

Will the Minister reconsider this if I send him a memorandum on it, in view of our special geographical difficulties and the fact that West Cumberland is in a special category, being a Development Area?

I will certainly study the memorandum.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there are other parts of Cumberland, besides the constituency of the hon. Member opposite, which find these railway charges very onerous, and will he consider the North-West of England as a whole?

In addition to Cumberland, there is the whole of the South-West area and Scotland.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the unsatisfactory state of some railway property revealed by the collapse of a footbridge at Bury Station on 19th January, he will examine the need for an increase in the capital investment programme of the railways.

I am advised that the collapse of the wooden footbridge at Bury cannot be ascribed to any limitation of the railway capital investment programme. In regard to the general question of restrictions on capital investment, the needs of the railways have been given very full consideration by H.M. Government in deciding on the proper allocation of available capital resources.

Is the Minister aware that this accident has caused widespread concern as revealing the antiquated nature of much railway property which the Railway Executive cannot deal with because of the limitations on its capital investment programme? Does he not agree that the railways ought to have an extremely high priority in capital investment in view of the deplorable state of the railways when the Railway Executive took them over?

I must confine myself to the limited application of the hon. Lady's Question, which was not a question of the capital investment involved, but the erosion of a number of wrought iron supports.

Does the Minister agree that the bridge was a very antiquated structure and of a kind which made its proper examination very difficult? Is it not part of the legacy of out-of-date equipment which ought to be modernised?

All of us realise, of course, the great need for increased capital investment in the railways. It is entirely a matter of relative priorities in a very difficult period.

Is it not a fact that the general deterioration of railway property is entirely due to nationalisation?

Did investigation show that the iron work could not be seen by the naked eye, as it was covered by woodwork, and that only when the woodwork was removed could the state of the iron be seen? If so, could arrangements be made to obviate that kind of thing in future?

I would need notice of the detail of that Question, but the fact is that improved methods of inspection of railway bridges have been introduced, and were introduced shortly before this accident took place, but unfortunately they had not been used on this particular bridge.

asked the Minister of Transport what capital expenditure he has authorised on the rebuilding scheme for Huskisson Goods Station, Liverpool; and if he has yet authorised a licence for the work.

An authorisation was issued on 5th February, 1952, for expenditure of £195,018 on the reconstruction of the Huskisson Goods Station, Liverpool.

asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received from the railway trade unions about the dismissal of hundreds of skilled craftsmen from the railway workshops because of the shortage of raw materials, particularly steel, and about the effect on railway workshop efficiency of the break-up of the labour force; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this state of affairs.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to secure a sufficient allocation of steel to enable the Transport Commission to proceed with necessary renewals of railway equipment and to prevent a further loss of skilled staff from the railway workshops.

In January the National Union of Railwaymen made representations to me in general terms on this subject. My colleagues and I are naturally concerned about the effect of shortages of raw materials on the efficiency of the railways and on railway staffs. I can assure the hon. Members that the Government fully appreciate the extent of the railways' needs and as soon as it is possible their supplies will be increased.

Does the Minister realise that the increasing inefficiency in the railway service is largely due to the shortage of steel precluding the Commission from bringing' up-to-date their rolling stock? The shortage of steel is causing the break-up of the qualified labour force which was got together to build rolling stock if they could get the steel.

I realise the serious consequences of the shortage of steel, but we have to remember that this applies to other industries as well. The railways are kept very fully in mind at all times.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the break-up of the skilled labour force will be greatly increased in Scotland by the deliberate closing of a century-old railway workshop in Kilmarnock? Will he look into this matter very quickly, because it will eventually affect the whole of Scotland?

The hon. Member will realise that under the 1947 Act, detailed decisions on individual works is a matter for the Transport Commission and the Railway Executive.

Does not the Minister realise that this is a matter of policy on centralisation which will affect not only one area but Scotland as well, and that he will be landed with a considerable amount of trouble on his shoulders if it is not looked into quickly?

The policy of centralisation is certainly not the fault of this Government.

If the hon. Gentleman is opposed to centralisation, why does he not do something about it?

The Minister cannot ride off in the way he has just done. Is he aware that what is wrong with railway workshops is cuts in the allocation of steel, not only in Scotland, but in this country as well, and that they are having to discharge hundreds of skilled men?

My previous reply was directed to the supplementary question from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I have said that we are very conscious indeed of the consequences of the shortage of steel for the railways, and the Government are determined to do what they can, in relation to other priorities, to meet the needs of the railways.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that more than 100,000 wagons still in use are about 40 years of age; that many passenger coaches and locomotives are of the same age; that their maintenance in service is inefficient; that the allocation of steel to the Railway Executive is insufficient to meet their day-to-day replacement needs; and what steps he is taking to see that additional supplies are made available.

Yes, Sir. We are fully aware of the railways' needs and are most concerned that they cannot at present be met, but steel supplies are so short that no users have all they need, even for essential purposes. While the railways' allocation of steel compares not unfavourably with the allocations for other essential uses, the urgent need to improve their allocation as soon as possible is fully recognised.

Is the Minister aware that as these vehicles continue to operate the standard of efficiency of the railways diminishes, that more steel is being allocated to certain other industries than is required, and that there will be repetitions of the kind of accident that occurred at Bury unless greater supplies of steel are allocated to the industry?