asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he is going to announce proposals to establish a national heavy lorry route.

As soon as we have had time to make up our minds about all the comments.

Is the Minister aware that the inordinate delay in the announcement of the proposals is causing widespread uncertainty, not least to local authorities which, by law, are supposed to submit their own schemes by the beginning of the new year. If this scheme is to be scrapped, as is widely rumoured, may we be told at the earliest possible date?

I am anxious to come to a swift decision, but we have to consider all the points that have been made and, unfortunately, there are conflicting opinions. I am confident that local authorities can make proposals under the Dykes Act which will make a lot of sense. In many ways the best solution is to build up from the bottom by banning lorries from sensitive areas.

Is the Minister aware of the terrific problem of heavy lorries passing through the urban area of Gateshead—Newcastle—Gosforth? Will he do his best to hasten the decision on the detrunking of the A1 in order to get heavy lorries around this urban area?

Of course I am aware of the problems of heavy lorries in Gateshead. We have made a proposal for detrunking the A1 through Newcastle and Gateshead but the period for objections to the scheme to be heard is still open. Therefore, I cannot say anything about its merits at this stage.

Will the Minister take account of the carriage of dangerous chemicals and liquids when he is considering these problems? In particular, will he think about urging the carriage of this type of freight by rail? If this does not happen, one day we shall wake up to a very serious incident.

I believe that my hon. Friend has a later Question on the Order Paper which may well not be reached today. If it is reached, I have a very comprehensive answer to it. We have approached most large industrial concerns pointing out this situation and urging them to consider it in the disposition of their rail freight traffic.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the Chairman of British Railways.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next proposes to meet the Chairman of the British Railways Board.

I met him recently and expect to see him again soon.

Will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that his next meeting with the Chairman of British Rail is held before the end of the year in order to try to avert the proposed fare increases, which are due to take effect in January? Is he aware that an increase of up to 16 per cent. in rail fares will cause real hardship to rail travellers, undermine the social contract, and do long-term damage to the rail industry? Will the Secretary of State consider that an increase in the subsidy to £25 million would halve the level of the increase and therefore be money well spent?

I feel like telling the Minister to attempt any two out of those five questions.

Even then, Mr. Speaker, I might get only one of them right. However, I certainly can give my hon. Friend one assurance—I shall meet the Chairman of British Rail before the end of the year. I must disappoint him on his other questions. It would be quite wrong to mislead the House. These decisions on fares are for British Rail and there is no prospect whatsoever of making further resources available to the railways in the difficult economic time ahead. That should be accepted as a starting point. Of course, there will be hardship, but the decisions must be made on the basis of priorities and the resources involved.

In view of the recent record of the Greater London Council, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that to allow it to have a monopoly of train services in the London area by taking over British Rail would be a calamity, both to the commuter and to the ratepayer? Will he scotch this disastrous idea straight away?

No, it is not for me to scotch any particular idea today. The record of the GLC, which has had to cope with some extremely difficult problems, is a great deal better than the hon. Gentleman rather ungenerously suggests. One problem is to get a suitable accommodation among all the various public transport services in London. Co-ordination is difficult. I like to think that progress is being made, although I cannot pretend that it is very fast.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that after the last fare increase there was a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of passengers using the route between Glasgow and London? Does he not appreciate that that places a much greater burden on his Department's road budget? Surely it would be better to keep down fares so as to keep passengers using the route to capacity.

My hon. Friend puts his finger on the sort of analysis that we have to make. It is wrong to consider any increase in fares in isolation. Whatever may be the experience of the rail service to which my hon. Friend refers, in 1975, for example, when there were increases in fares amounting to 50 per cent., the number of passenger journeys dropped by less than 5 per cent. while revenue increased by £90 million. These are figures that cannot be ignored.

When the Minister meets the Chairman of British Rail, will he assure him that the electrification project for the line from Bedford to St. Pancras will not be postponed as a result of any announcement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might make?

I cannot possibly give an assurance of that kind on the basis of evidence I do not have.

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said about public expenditure constraints, does he agree that unnecessary subsidies must be eliminated? As it costs the taxpayer £70 million a year to subsidise rail freight operations, will the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects the rail freight subsidy to be eliminated?

A more temperate approach to subsidies is desirable. Without substantial subsidies on the passenger side, there would be a much smaller rail network, which would not meet the social need. On the freight side, I have made clear before that there is no good reason why within a period British Rail should not meet the full cost of its freight operation. There has been some improvement. I hope that the subsidy, if it is unnecessary, will be eliminated very soon.

asked the Secretary or State for Transport if he will set up an inquiry into the efficiency of British Railways.

No, Sir.

As we have already heard from the right hon. Gentleman that there is no prospect of further resources being made available to British Rail, and as we have heard from his hon. Friend that the Department is extremely cost conscious, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the taxpayer and the commuter are entitled to some independent judgment of the efficiency with which the resources of British Rail are now being used?

No, I do not. The chairman and the Board are appointed and given a job to do. I think that they should be supported more frequently by the House. It is not an easy task. We have a mixed economy, and in those circumstances we should encourage managers, who are often very professional and devoted, to get on with the job. We should not make carping criticisms.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that any judgment of the efficiency of British Rail must be made on a comparative basis? Does he agree that in the first place there should be comparisons with the efficiency of other railway systems throughout the world, none of which manages to make a profit? Secondly—in my view, much more important—does he agree that comparison should be made with the efficiency, or lack of it, of the private motorised freight-carrying system, which is an alleged free —that is, chaotic—market system involving the duplication of resources and immense social and unmeasured costs?

I agree that comparisons are relevant, but I take a rather simpler criterion. The management of British Rail must provide the most efficient service that it can to meet economic and social needs. I think that it is tackling the task in the best possible way.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets the new Chairman of British Rail, will he put it to him that it would be helpful to Members to be able to see separate accounts for the various British Rail regions, which at present are not readily available? Secondly, will he convey to him the congratulations of the Liberal Bench on the introduction of the high-speed train, which brings a successful service to Bristol and Cardiff, a service that could be taken advantage of by other British Rail regions?

I am sure that Mr. Peter Parker will note the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks. I shall mention the hon. Gentleman's first point to the Chairman of British Rail. The more information that can be made available, the better. Of course the House wants to discuss these matters, but we must try to allow the management to get on with the job and deal with some of the major problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Chairman of British Railways about closing uneconomic sectors of the railway network.

None, Sir.

May I suggest that when the right hon. Gentleman does meet the Chairman of British Railways he raises this matter with him and asks him whether he holds the view that the present concept of a subsidy for British Rail as opposed to subsidies for individual routes will allow anybody to know which routes are economic and which are not?

No, I do not think that that is one of the matters which I should feel justified in discussing with the Chairman of British Rail at present. I know that there are differences of opinion about the best possible system, but there is common ground on both sides, first, that without a passenger subsidy there would be a very small network, which would not meet social needs, and, secondly, that the management must have some discretion within the statutory procedures.

Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that there is great fear among railway workers generally that not merely uneconomic lines but even economic lines are in danger of being closed down? Will he give an assurance that this will not happen, because there are fears among working people generally that the whole network will be drastically reduced?

My hon. Friend very fairly refers to fears which exist in the industry at all levels. I greatly regret that such fears exist. There must be change in every industry and I greatly hope that railwaymen will be able to arrive at a sense of confidence about the future and will help to provide a service which is efficient and effective and meets genuine need without increasing the cost, which would have to be borne on public expenditure.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that, when there are substantially more than 1 million unemployed, we listen to announcements on the loudspeakers at stations of a long list of trains which have been cancelled because of staff shortage? Is not this an extraordinary lack of co-ordination in the national system?

That is an extraordinary simplification. The fact that there is a large number of people out of work and that British Railways have a shortage of staff does not mean that those out of work have the required skills or are of the right quality to fill specified vacancies. Although they are losing substantial numbers of men, British Railways are still recruiting as well.

Will my right hon. Friend consider urging the Chairman of British Railways to do something revolutionary⁁that is, to halve the fares and thus attract back to the railways those who would greatly like to travel on the railways if only they were able to afford the fares?

I greatly wish that I could agree with my hon. Friend that that is how it would work, but, I regret, all the evidence is very much to the contrary. British Railways have carried out a number of experiments and by and large the result has been that more passengers reduce revenue. I have made it clear to the Chairman of British Railways that any reductions that he chooses to make have my blessing but that if, as a result of reductions, there is a loss of revenue, that loss must be carried somewhere else within his budget.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present network is well below the level at which it ought to be and that the execution work done by Lord Beeching will be looked on in retrospect as a national disaster? Is not one way of improving the financial situation of the railways to adopt the suggestion by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Johnson) to transfer freight from the roads to the railways?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's expression of opinion about what was done some years ago will be widely shared. I agree that it is desirable that the railways should carry as large a proportion of freight as possible. But there are problems. We must have an efficient system, and there must be a limit to the money made available to it in the form of revenue support. Otherwise, additional costs will fall on both taxpayers and ratepayers.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take to improve transport in rural areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take to improve rural transport; and whether he will make a statement.

The Government, through transport supplementary grant, are already helping shire counties to provide bus revenue support at an unprecedented level this year. We are soon to begin a series of practical experiments to test various unconventional means of providing transport for people living in country areas. The major problems of rural transport will of course figure largely in the transport policy on which we are now consulting all the interested bodies.

Is the Minister aware that, despite the grant, the problems of rural transport are getting more and more difficult? As it is likely to take some time for the results of his experiments to come through, will he consider introducing in this Session a short Bill relaxing licensing restrictions, especially for minibuses, as this would greatly ease flexibility in dealing with rural transport and would help voluntary associations and youth clubs whose use of mini-buses is being restricted?

I accept that the transport problems in rural areas are getting more difficult. We cannot introduce a Bill relaxing licensing laws generally. We are conducting experiments and it is right that we should have some experience before making a general decision. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will press his Front Bench colleagues to allow the Bill which we are introducing—which provides for four experimental areas—to make speedy progress. The use of minibuses for voluntary associations may be a suitable subject for a Private Member's Bill, to which I would certainly give sympathetic treatment.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the opening of the Humber Bridge will have a major effect on the transport infrastructure on south Humberside? Does he agree that in the short term nothing must be done to alter the pattern until the local authorities have studied the problem of the area as a whole?

I am conscious that we must take into account the Humber Bridge proposal—an excellent proposal on which we are making satisfactory progress—in considering the rural arrangements in my hon. Friend's part of the world.

We have waited two-and-a-half years for these small measures to be brought forward. We hope that we shall not have to wait another two-and-a-half years before measures applying to all rural districts are brought in. Does the Minister agree that, because of the pressure on local government expenditure, which is likely to continue, after that lapse of time there will be precious little public transport left in many rural areas?

As I said, I am anxious to get a move on with this problem, the seriousness of which I fully recognise. We hope to begin the experiment by about Easter, all being well. It depends on the progress of the Bill, which we are anxious to get through quickly.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek to ensure that all future contracts for road building are designed to provide the maximum number of jobs for the unemployed and to use the minimum quantity of imported machinery and energy.

If the hon. Member has any practical suggestions which would not increase public expenditure or de- crease the mileage of roads which can be built I shall gladly consider them.

Has the Department made any estimate of the import content of the road building programme and its effect on the balance of payments? Does he accept that a switch to labour-intensive road building would provide substantially more jobs at no extra cost, with no increase in the borrowing requirement and no fewer roads?

We have no information about the import content of machinery used by the road construction industry. I should be reluctant to single out road construction if we did not have more general policies about the import content of machinery. I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about there being no extra cost. Going back to manual methods of constructing roads would be horribly expensive and scarcely in the interests of increased efficiency.

Does the Minister agree that to do what the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) suggested would be a form of Ludditism—turning back the clock? Why not extend it to all forms of industry and employ all the unemployed?

I am interested in my hon. Friend's suggestion that the Liberals are associated with the Luddites. That is very apt.

Does the Minister accept that, while contractors are most willing to use the most modern machinery, his Ministry is the worst payer in the business, keeping firms waiting for two years for payment on contracts for road works and motorways? Will he make sure that payment is made more quickly?

The Department is extremely cost conscious. If we have been too mean and too long-winded, I shall look into it. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular instances he can bring to mind, I shall certainly consider them.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward legislation to make the wearing of safety belts compulsory.

I believe that Parliament will eventually endorse the compulsory wearing of seat belts but I cannot at present say when legislation may be possible.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's failure to bring forward an early Bill on this issue is deplorable? More than 1,000 people die each year because of the absence of this legislation. The House knows my right hon. Friend's fine record on this issue. Will he consult his colleagues and urge that a Bill be brought before Parliament within the next few weeks?

I entirely share my hon. Friend's concern. In the past Session we probably had the worst of all worlds—a Government Bill with a free vote. The right course now is probably a short pause to enable us to devise the best means of ensuring that the next time legislation is presented to Parliament it will pass through all its stages.

As the Bill was successfully killed in two consecutive Sessions, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the right course is to encourage the voluntary wearing of seat belts rather than waiting for compulsion?

In so far as there is to be a pause, I entirely agree that it is right to encourage the voluntary wearing of seat belts. I have approved a new advertising campaign, which I hope will have that result. Although I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's views on this issue, the House registered its view by an overwhelming majority. I think that in due course that must take effect in legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he now makes of the number of lives that would be saved in the United Kingdom in 12 months if the wearing of seat belts in cars were made compulsory.

About 1,000, if all belts fitted in cars and light vans were worn.

If the Minister accepts the improved figures, why do not the Government make more strenuous efforts to get seat belt legislation through the House?

The hon. Member will have heard my right hon. Friend's reply. We intend to make every effort to get the legislation through the House. The situation is well known and I am glad of the hon. Member's support.

Was it not the House of Lords that struck the seat belts provision out of a road traffic Bill more than 12 months ago? Does not that mean that their Lordships carry a heavy responsibility?

My right hon. Friend is correct.

Has any estimate been made of the number of lives that would have been lost had the wearing of seat belts been compulsory?

Our estimate is that it would have been fractional. The consequences of wearing a seat belt and the likely damage as a result are infinitesimal compared with the advantages of wearing one.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to prohibit heavy vehicles and lorries from using the overtaking lane on the two-lane stretch of the M1 south of Bedfordshire; and if he will make a statement.

Such restrictions have been placed on certain short stretches of two-lane motorway where there are uphill gradients and heavy traffic causing congestion, but I am not convinced at the moment that they would be appropriate on that particular stretch.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the severe congestion on this section of the M1 is getting worse year by year and is made even worse when one lorry slowly passes another? I recognise that at present the Government do not have the wherewithal to construct a third lane, but will they consider this matter again? This section of the M1 will be used more and more as the years pass. Surely the suggestion in the Question would be helpful.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. We have no evidence yet that lorries, as opposed to the general level of traffic, are causing a problem on this section of the M1. If we were to restrict lorries, it would, first, be difficult to enforce the restriction as this is a heavily-used route and it would be hard for the police to operate a restriction on this section of the M1. There is also the problem that lorries might begin to use other and less suitable roads.

I could furnish the Department with the evidence. I could do so if my hon. Friend drove with me down the M1 from the North on a Monday morning. Is my hon. Friend aware of the intense frustration that is caused to private car drivers by lorries using the second avenue on a two-channel roadway? That occurs not only within the stretch mentioned in the Question but on stretches of three-lane motorway that have been restricted to two lanes.

As I have said, I am not unsympathetic on this point, which I shall examine carefully. I am well aware of the problems, but I must point out to my hon. Friend that motorways are meant for lorries as well as cars. If lorries do not go on motorways, they will go on roads that are far less suitable and will thus cause far more annoyance to the general public.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from motor traders regarding the regulations which he proposes to make regarding the transfer of cherished number plates facility.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will now seek to regularise the legal basis upon which the transfer of cherished number plates is carried out.

Regulations will be laid before the House very soon. This will establish a proper legal basis and accord with the main thrust of the representations which have been received, namely, that the cherished transfer facility be speedily restored.

Is it not the case that the new rules that were announced in a Press release from the Department the other day were forced from the Minister by a completely unlawful ban imposed by his Swansea civil servants, a ban that was blatantly political in its intent? Does not the cherished transfer facility directly stimulate sales of higher-quality new cars and, therefore, stimulate jobs? If that is so, why should the new rules utterly destroy the livelihood of those who deal in cherished numbers?

We have had consultations with the trade associations representing those who deal in personalised numbers or cherished marks, whatever one wishes to call them. They have not given us any evidence that they will suffer as a result of the new rules. There will be a change in the nature of their business. They will not carry out so much speculative purchasing of old combine harvesters or mopeds, for example, which have attractive numbers. They will, on the other hand, arrange marriages between, for example, elderly Bentleys and new Rovers. They will give advice and consultancy. They will have a rôle and a job. They have never said that that will not be so. They have played a most constructive part in finalising the new rules. with which everyone is now happy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is intolerable that he should be led by the nose by the trade unions into promulgating what are not regulations but restrictive practices? Will he return and negotiate again? Better still, will he ask for tenders from the private sector to perform this work much more cheaply and on a more economic basis to meet the needs of the customers?

The rules are specifically designed to protect the bona fide possessor of a cherished mark or personalised number plate. All they do is eradicate certain abuses that have crept into the system over the years.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that a realistic fee will now be paid for this facility? Will he tell the House for how long it has been subsidised by the Department? What is the extent of the subsidy?

At present the fee is £5 plus VAT, which does not cover costs. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government took powers to increase the fee in the Finance Bill this year. Regulations subject to affirmative resolution will be laid before the House in due course to raise the fee.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that, in view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply to Question 16, I shall also seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many comments he has received on the subject of private non-residential parking; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many comments he has received on the subject of private non-residential parking; and whether he will make a statement.

Over 250 comments were received on the consultation paper and they will be considered in the course of preparing my White Paper on transport policy.

Has the right hon. Gentleman made any assessment of the effect that parking schemes such as this will have on business in city areas such as Manchester?

No, not at this stage. It is fair to say that schemes of this sort will have to be judged on merit and on local conditions. Local conditions vary immensely. That is why the responses to the consultation paper have shown a fair range of differences.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that those of us who represent city centre constituencies receive a constant stream of criticism not only from those precluded from parking in city centres but from those who live on the fringe of the zones, who receive an undue and unwarranted amount of traffic parking in their streets to which they have not been accustomed? Is not the right answer the provision of proper parking facilities at a reasonably low price?

The issue is a good deal more complex than that, as I think the hon. Gentleman will realise on reflection. It is not only a question of the capacity of the car park but the capacity of the streets. As I have said, there are differences of opinion. I think that Members on both sides of the House have had representations from those representing each side of the argument. For the moment, I have made no decision. The consultations will continue. We shall assess them and reach a decision.

Does my right hon. Friend recall the recommendations contained in the White Paper on Urban Transport Planning published in July 1973 by the Tory Government? That document recommended, with the unanimous support of the House, that parking in city centres be discouraged by various methods.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that very timely reminder. There is a large measure of agreement that, unless there is restraint of traffic, and particularly of parking, in city centres, there is no way of ensuring the smooth running of public transport. There are also questions beyond that and they are those that were discussed in the consultation paper.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that what we are opposed to are indiscriminate parking restrictions? Does he agree that any parking scheme must recognise the legitimate rights of the business traveller and special groups such as the handicapped, for whom transport is not a luxury but a necessity?

If the question is put like that, the answer is "Yes".

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish his evaluation of the £80 million capital investment in the Moorgate to Bedford electrification scheme.

No, Sir. That would be contrary to general practice based on questions of confidentiality.

Does not my right hon. Friend realise that the criteria for evaluation were set out in House of Commons Paper 269/74 and that, although this investment in the Bedford to Moorgate scheme is welcome, there are many other schemes at much less cost that might take priority within inner London, particularly the dockland area? Would he explain why this evaluation, like many other Government matters, must remain confidential?

I have always been in favour of the maximum disclosure by nationalised industries and others to the House and to the public, but there are some matters which inevitably come into an evaluation and which, if the information were freely available, could prejudice the commercial success of the railways to which my hon. Friends, as I am, are devoted.

Is the Secretary of State aware that work on this scheme is due to start in January 1977? Can we have an assurance that work really will begin?

I certainly have no reason to believe that it will not.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied that there is no unnecessary documentation hindering the shipment of lorry-carried goods from United Kingdom ports to elsewhere in Europe; and if he will make a statement.

I think so, but if the right hon. Gentleman has a particular point in mind I will gladly consider it.

I am glad that the Minister thinks so. As that is so, will he give priority attention to the inadequacy of the quota of permits available to British lorries carrying goods to the Continent and also look urgently at the fact that British lorries are barred from arriving on the Continent with full fuel tanks?

The answer is "Yes" to both questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in the discussions leading to the integration of policy on rail feeder services and assured bus services.

The discussions are continuing as part of the review of transport policy.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the very great concern that has been caused that other rail services could be replaced by short bus feeders? Does he think that the lines from Wick to Edinburgh and from Oban to Glasgow could be adequately replaced by bus services? What guarantee can he give that such bus services would be assured, as 50 per cent. of all bus service replacements for rail closures in the past decade have been withdrawn?

I am aware of the concern that this proposal has caused. We put this forward as a suggestion for consideration in the light of all the consultations that we are having on the transport document. I am not familiar with all the details of the Oban to Glasgow line, but I can understand them from the way my hon. Friend describes them. I think that we should be careful before substituting a bus service of that kind for a rail service. I am aware that in the past assurances that have been given have in many instances been broken. They would have to be good in future.

Does the Secretary of State realise that in north Northumberland the National Bus Company seems to take the view that it would rather replace the rail services than provide the feeder bus services to sustain them? Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a general directive to the National Bus Company—after all, it is a nationalised concern—to the effect that it should seek to provide a better service as a matter of policy?

I am interested in that suggestion and will look at it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the developments taking place on Merseyside with the loop link line and integration with bus services? As an integrated transport policy is Labour Party policy, will my right hon. Friend look at the policy of creating a viable rail network in the area and not create a white elephant?

We are certainly interested in positive suggestions for physically integrating bus and rail services in the way that my hon. Friend suggests. In the course of consultations, many authorities have made such proposals, some of which have been very imaginative. We are anxious to provide services at the lowest possible cost. The alternative is that the services close down altogether. We are not in the business of producing white elephants.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, although essential services must be assured, there is no argument in favour of heavily subsidising under-utilised routes purely in the call for a dogmatically integrated transport policy?

We are not interested in dogma. The whole point of the consultation process has been to open minds to new and imaginative proposals, and if people such as ourselves as politicians and operators are not sufficiently creative we shall not get an adequate transport policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied that sufficient progress is being made towards the optimum allocation of resources for transport, especially within the Greater London area.

Yes, Sir, as far as it is possible to be satisfied in present circumstances.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that we shall never get anywhere with this problem without more linkage between the various modes of transport on both services and timetables? Has he considered doing something to that effect or knocking together the heads of the Chairmen of London Transport and British Rail in the London area?

This problem has exercised the minds of hon. Members over a period. The GLC, London Transport and British Rail are now getting together. Certainly they will have full encouragement and assistance from my Department.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the bus section of London Transport is probably the largest publicly-owned regional bus section in the country, that it covers the largest area, has immense problems, and provides a not very satisfactory service? Is he prepared to see the chairmen of the LTE and of the relevant committee of the GLC to consider how he can assist them with their grave problems?

We all have a good opinion of ourselves in this House. However, I must not overestimate my capacity to do what others have not yet done in the management of the bus service. There are particular and difficult problems in London. We have all complained about them. Nevertheless, those responsible for the management of the bus section are aware of the problems and, with further co-operation, I hope that they will be substantially overcome.

Is the Secretary of State aware that under regulations to be introduced by the GLC after 4th December there can be no sensible allocation of resources in the London Transport area if commuters coming into London are selectively discriminated against, as they will be if car parking facilities are to be the subject of gross increases in charges and if the GLC is to have the power to restrict parking times so that people commuting into London by car are unable to make use of car parking facilities? If he is not aware of that situation, will he institute an inquiry into the whole matter before the regulations are introduced?

The Greater London Council, like any other local authority, works within statutes laid down by the House. We must allow it a measure of local option. Inevitably, decisions made by a local authority of any political colour are bound to be uncongenial to some people. Increases in costs of this kind have to be borne where they fall. There is no prospect of either central Government or local government increasing the subsidy to transport.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that in the last few years considerable resources have been devoted to bus replacement in London and that there is controversy over that matter now? Does he also recall that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and I raised the matter in the House many years ago? Will he now undertake an inquiry inside his Department to see whether his conduct of it in the past has contributed to the problem?

I do not think that this problem could be put down to the conduct of my Department, because it has been short-lived. Certainly, if there is anything here which causes concern on both sides of the House and it is within my statutory responsibility, I shall look at it.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to change the ownership of any ports.

Not in this Session.

Is the Secretary of State aware that very few opportunities occur for the Opposition to congratulate the Government, but that his Department in this sector and the Drought Minister in his have been equally successful? Will he assure the House that he will keep up his present record, because the competition and efficiency of the ports are helped by their varied ownership?

If I understand the hon. Gentleman aright, the answer is that I can make no promises.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the only way to keep Preston Docks open is to change their ownership by taking them into public ownership, away from a municipal authority which does not want to keep them open?

I know of my hon. Friend's very proper concern, which he has expressed to me. Equally, he knows that I have no powers to exercise in this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give a general direction to the Chairman of British Railways for British Railways shipping services to be accounted for separately from those of rail services.

British Rail has always been required to show shipping activities separately in its accounts.

Is the Minister aware that I am disturbed about the increasing numbers of foreign ships which are in use in British ports? Will he ensure that British Railways use their profits to build British ships and to find employment for British seamen, rather than to subsidise foreign lines?

On the whole, the shipping subsidiary of British Railways has performed creditably. At the moment it is making a loss, but the situation is improving.

Shipping services are shown separately in the accounts of British Railways. Will the hon. Gentleman consider persuading them to show the figures for inner and outer suburban services separately, as it is difficult for people to form an assessment if they do not know the percentage of total cost being met in each case?

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that under the 1968 Act, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), costs were shown separately for individual lines. That policy was cancelled in the 1974 Act, which reallocated funds on a general basis. This is a matter about which I can be sympathetic, but there are genuine practical problems, as I am sure the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) will be the first to agree.

I do not object to the separate showing of the accounts of British Railways shipping. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that because of that situation there is no interchangeability of tickets between British Railways rail and shipping services? Co-ordination in that area would be welcome, particularly for cheap day tickets.

I was not aware that the accounts being audited separately led to problems regarding the interchangeability of tickets between British Railways rail and shipping services. If that is so, I shall certainly look into it. Clearly, any effort to introduce a ticket which will take one right through would be sensible.

In view of the lack of orders in the British shipbuilding industry, will my hon. Friend ensure that when British Railways need any further new ships they will place orders in British yards?

I well understand my right hon. Friend's concern about this matter. I know of his constituency interest in it. As I said earlier, the last ship ordered by British Railways was from a Danish yard. I have no information on what they intend to do about future orders. This is a matter fundamentally for British Railways, which are a nationalised concern.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will instruct road construction units to hold full and detailed discussions with planning authorities about any proposals for major roads or motorways through national parks.

This is the normal procedure. The Department formally consults local authorities and other statutory bodies at a minimum of seven main stages in the planning of a new road, but there are more frequent discussions at officer level.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Peak Park Planning Board has complained to me in strong terms about its lack of ability to obtain detailed information on the activities of the road construction units and their plans regarding major roads and routes? Will he look into that matter with some care?

Certainly. I am sorry if the board is upset. We shall try to remedy that situation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the route between Sheffield and Manchester on the M62, along which I had occasion to travel recently, is long and dangerous, and that there is a need to speed up plans? Will he ensure that the consultation procedures are carried out speedily as well as thoroughly?

Odd as it may seem, I can also say "Yes" to that question without being inconsistent.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on bus licensing regulations in rural areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on bus licensing regulations in rural areas.

No. 28; Mr. Mills.

Answer.

Shall I answer the Question for the Minister?

It was to have been answered with Question No. 17. Perhaps the Minister will look it up.

We went through so many Questions so fast that we left out No. 17. The Government's rural transport experiments, with the Bill I propose to introduce as soon as opportunity arises, will test the case for amendment of bus licensing law.

Is the Minister aware that that is not good enough? The Government have had two and a half years to do something about rural transport, but they have done nothing. Is not this another example of their lack of concern for rural areas? Will the Government do something as quickly as possible? The problem is serious and flexibility is required.

On the contrary. The policy was issued for consultation only in January this year. That is less than 12 months ago and since then we have had valuable consultations. Further proposals will be contained in a Bill providing for rural experiments and the relaxation of licences in experimental areas. I hope that experiments will begin at Easter, and there will be a period of about 18 months during which we can find out about the experiments. Delay is involved, but if we want something sensible and lasting we must experiment before we commit ourselves to new measures.

Does the Minister accept that what the Government are proposing is too little and too late? Does he recognise that the present licensing procedure is preventing good services? Is there not now an overwhelming case for a fundamental reform of the system of traffic commissioners?

On the contrary. Licensing may well inhibit experiments with unconventional services which could be part of the answer to the problem. But it also protects existing stage services. It would be foolish to abandon them without some idea of what will happen. We are entering the dark. Many other countries—America is one—have abandoned licensing wholesale and the result has been no stage services and worse rural transport. This is a case for proceeding slowly.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take to minimise the serious consequences of accidents arising from dangerous liquids and chemicals being carried on the roads.

I am delighted to reach the Question which my hon. Friend tried to ask earlier. I can now give a slightly more comprehensive answer. The Health and Safety Commission is currently engaged in the preparation of proposals for new general regulations dealing with this problem. As part of this work, the Commission is investigating the adequacy of present standards of vehicle construction.

Although I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, neither it nor the previous one is satisfactory. Does he not realise the seriousness of the problem? Does he not accept that with these vehicles going through villages and towns it is only a matter of time before there is a major disaster? Is not the only way to deal with the problem to take this traffic off the road and put it on to rail?

In view of what happened earlier, I had some idea of what my hon. Friend's supplementary question would be. We have already done something. Most major industrial companies have been urged to consider making greater use of rail for transportation of dangerous goods where that is economical. But there are sound reasons why that cannot be done for some dangerous traffic—for example, petrol, being delivered to retail outlets. Most industrial companies have no direct railhead. That is something we are attempting to deal with under Section 8 grants. We are concerned about the problem and we are trying to deal with it in two ways—by transferring such traffic to rail and by making greater preparation for what happens when there is an accident on the road.

Are dangerous loads required to be properly labelled? If not, why not?

They are required to be properly labelled.

Will my hon. Friend set up an inquiry into dangerous loads on roads and on the railways? Does he not agree that safety precautions on the roads are better than those on the railways? Is he aware that since the recent serious accident in my constituency when an ammunition train was derailed no further instructions have been given to railwaymen about such loads?

I was aware of the accident and I am interested to learn that no further instructions have been given. I undertake to look into that.

Is the Minister satisfied that the labelling required is adequate for those engaged in the fire and emergency services?

Yes. Labels give clear instructions about what should be done in an accident. This practice has been developed under the Chemical Industries Association system, and it works. No doubt there could be improvements, and we shall try to make those which are sensible.

Is my hon. Friend aware that vinyl chloride produced by Vinatex Limited is covered by a safety regulation allowing emission into the atmosphere of one to one million parts, which is dangerous? Hundreds of tons of this chemical are transported by road annually. In the event of a road accident, heaven only knows what will happen to the people in the surrounding area.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. He reveals an interest in and knowledge of these matters. We are aware of the problem and we are trying to ensure that precautions are taken when dangerous loads have to go by road, and we are trying to encourage transportation by rail when possible.

Is not the best way to avoid accidents to improve the road network to enable lorries to have easier access to motorways instead of having to go through residential areas, as occurs in my constituency?

I am aware of the difficulties but, unfortunately, we are suffering from expenditure restraints. I wonder what would happen if the hon. and learned Gentleman's party were in power.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the Tyne and Wear Metro; and if he will make a statement.

I have received many representations from right hon. and hon. Members, local authorities, industrial concerns, trade unions and members of the public, mostly in favour of the continuation of the project. These will be taken into account in making decisions about the future of Government grant assistance for it.

Is the Minister aware of the concern felt on Tyneside about the possibility of the cancellation of the scheme, which is so important to the future integrated transport system of the region? Does he accept that the continued blacking by ASLEF—which he has rightly criticised—is deplorable? Will he do his best to encourage the continuation of the Metro scheme?

I am certainly very fully aware of how important the Metro is to Tyneside and I shall do my very best, within the limitations placed upon me, to help. I do not think that I should comment on an industrial dispute which at the moment looks as though it might be settled. I hope very much that it will be.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have news that the dispute has been settled? Will he accept from me and from all northern Members our great anxiety to see that the scheme goes forward?

Yes. My hon. Friend's good news is my good news as well. I am very aware of the representations that he and others have made, and I am now keeping my fingers crossed.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind when making his decisions that this construction is taking place in one of the areas with the highest unemployment rate in the United Kingdom, and that if it were cancelled the effect in raising unemployment in the area concerned would be almost catastrophic?

There are many factors to be taken into account, because it is an expensive project. We cannot ignore that at present. On the other hand, as my right hon. Friend says, the employment consequences of cancellation would be very considerable, not only directly on Tyneside and in the construction industry, but elsewhere, and account of this should be properly taken.