asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average cost in terms of ton/miles of moving bulk freight by each form of inland transport in each of the past two years; and what is his estimate of likely changes in cost in the immediate future.

Statistics in this form are not readily available. There are some figures of comparative expenditure on road and rail goods transport in paper 1 of volume 2 of the transport policy consultation document.

Does the Minister realise that he did not mention inland waterway transportation? In view of the fact that it is potentially the least expensive form of movement of freight, will he consider it, and will he express a view on whether inland waterways should be the responsibility of his Department?

This is a very popular idea. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) suggested something similar when we last had transport Questions. However, I should point out that it would entail an enlargement of the transport empire, and there. fore I cannot possibly encourage it.

Is the Minister aware that at present competition is very unfair, because his Department has instructed British Rail to phase out its subsidy to the freight services, while at the same time juggernaut lorries in this country are being subsidised to the tune of £70 million a year on the motorways and roads? What does he intend to do about it?

My hon. Friend has hit on a subject of great current interest. I know that it is a matter of considerable concern that we reach a sensible conclusion on it. I am convinced that we muse look at the allocation of costs and get them right, and we shall do that in the White Paper.

Is the Minister aware that the fact that the figures are unavailable in the terms of this Question demonstrates the need to have specific figures, particularly for British Rail's various services, in order to assess where the taxpayers' money is going and where the losses and the gains are? Will the Minister keep this important fact in mind?

I understand the hon. Member's point, but it is not as simple as it sounds. There are a lot of figures on this subject and it is a question of which ones one chooses and which ones are relevant. Figures for freight transported by road, rail and waterways are relevant only if they are compared for a particular journey between specific points. If one compares figures for these three methods of transport generally, one brings in a number of other factors—for example, lorries tend to make shorter journeys than the railways, and that does bias the figures. This is a very complicated question, and these are some of the points that must be sorted out.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what account he is taking of the comparative cost of family travel by car and rail in his White Paper proposals for transport.

In drawing up our White Paper we shall take full account of the needs of people and families, and of how far they can be met within the resources available.

I am grateful for that reply. Does the Minister realise that this will take some effort on his Department's behalf? To travel from Custom House to Stratford and return for a family—assuming that that means two and a half fares—means a cost of £.1·38 for six miles. Does he also realise that, taking the House of Commons car allowance, the journey could be done for nearly half the cost by car? If this is true of short urban journeys it must also be true of longer journeys. Has the Department taken account of these facts in drawing up the White Paper?

I am aware of the concern arising in connection with services between North Woolwich and Stratford, in my hon. Friend's constituency. It does seem to be a striking example of a marked increase, because there were certain anomalies before. In the context of inner city problems we shall certainly look at commuting and the rôole that rail can play.

Following that supplementary question from the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), will the Minister confirm that a family going by car pay their own way, unsubsidised by the taxpayer, whereas a family going by rail may be subsidised by up to 50 per cent. of the fare charged?

That bears again on the general question of the allocation of costs. Of course it is true that the car owner pays a bigger share of road costs than, for example, does the lorry owner. I agree with the hon. Gentleman to that extent. Nevertheless, this begs the question of how far we have properly allocated or accounted for environmental costs, for example. We do not really do that at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next preside at the Transport Council of European Ministers.

Probably during April.

On that occasion, will my right hon. Friend urge his fellow Ministers to implement EEC Commission proposal 336 last year for specific Community aid for transport infrastructure? Will he bear in mind in so doing the fact that the then EEC Commissioner for Transport said that a Channel Tunnel project would be within the terms of reference of such aid?

Certainly I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion. I know that there has been a revival of interest in the prospect of the Channel Tunnel. If EEC funds were to be available it would be wrong not to look at it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate what that last statement means? A number of my constituents are having great difficulty selling houses because they can get no advice from the Government about whether the Channel Tunnel project is on or off. Will he make it clear that he has no intention of reintroducing that measure in the near future?

The Channel Tunnel project is clearly off in the terms in which it was discussed some years ago, but, as I told my hon. Friend, if the EEC is making proposals about infrastructure it would be discourteous of us not to look at them.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Council of Ministers will he reflect that he is investing less in the railway system than any of his three counterparts with equivalent population, and that he is investing no more than his opposite number in Belgium, which has one-fifth of Britain's population?

As my hon. Friend knows, it is easy to draw broad conclusions from narrow facts. However, I agree that the questions of investment in rail and the relationships between road and rail are suitable subjects for discussion within the Community. I have been hoping that we would be able to find time to look at them.

May I take the Secretary of State on to another problem? Is he aware that the enormous success of the British road haulage industry in developing routes overseas and in Europe, particularly to the Middle East, is now being seriously jeopardised by the difficulty of getting sufficient international permits') Will he point out to the other Ministers that this is now a major source of concern in the British road haulage industry in an area in which we would hope for and expect considerably more generous treatment from them than we have hitherto received?

I am happy to pay tribute to what the road hauliers have done in this respect. I do not think that their success so far has been jeopardised by problems with permits, but I agree that this is a cause of concern. However, we must understand the problems of countries with a large volume of transit vehicles, which involve substantial costs on their roads.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the Civic Trust on EEC proposals to increase maximum lorry weights.

I met representatives of the Civic Trust on 26th January. We discussed the environmental problems of lorries generally and the current EEC proposals on weights and dimensions in particular.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend appreciates that the environmental and social consequences of granting an increased lorry load to 40 tons would be very serious, but does he agree that if 40-ton lorries are permitted in this country the road hauliers will get an even greater advantage over rail freight, which will not only damage the latter system but will create tremendous problems throughout the country?

My hon. Friend makes important and relevant comments on the matters involved in increasing the weights of lorries. I have made it clear that I would not agree to such an increase unless it could be reconciled with the needs of safety and the environment. However, my hon. Friend's supplementary question also brings us back to the problem of how far heavy vehicles meet their true cost, which is a matter of concern to my hon. Friend and to the House generally.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Lorries and the Environment Committee is still in existence? Is this not a matter that could be referred to that committee, so that it could report generally to him?

The answer to both questions is "Yes".

Does the Secretary of State expect an early decision to be reached on this matter? Would he wish the House to have an opportunity to express its views on the matter before any such decision is reached?

The answers are "No" and "Yes". This is something that the House should discuss.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this considerable increase to 40 tons cannot really be reconciled with the needs of the environment, in view of the hazards that it presents? Is he aware that at Avonmouth, in my constituency, serious hazards have been caused recently by these large tankers? Can he assure us that, on behalf of hon. Members on the Government side anyway, he will oppose the increase to 40 tons which the EEC would like to impose on us?

As my hon. Friend knows, it is not simply or even mainly the overall weight of a vehicle which matters but its axle weight. On this, we have been able to make some satisfactory progress in the Community. However, I have certainly made my position clear and I recognise that there is real concern on both sides of the House, for a number of different reasons.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in the study of future long-term demand for, and provision of, public transport for inter-urban journeys as proposed in the transport policy consultation document.

Preparatory work continues, but final decisions await my White Paper.

As the study is not seeking to draw a conclusion from a narrow fact but is considering the wider implications of investment and development strategy for all transport industries, would it not be helpful to my right hon. Friend and to the House to have that report before the White Paper is published? Will he also say what arrangements he will be making for interim consultations with the Leitch Committee, since its consideration of the allocation of costs will be germane to the debate on his White Paper?

I do not think that I could give the promise for which my hon. Friend asks, because that would probably mean postponing the White Paper for two or three years, for the very reason that he mentions. This is a complex and important subject, but I hope that the conclusions that will emerge will help to determine policy for a long way ahead. It will not be prejudiced by the publication of the White Paper. As for the Leitch Committee, my hon. Friend knows its terms of reference. I hope that it will report quickly, but I do not think that I should consider asking it to undertake different tasks.

Bearing in mind the views of the Secretary of State for Social Services about smoking, will the right hon. Gentleman be looking at the modern Inter-City carriages, with a view to separating smokers from non-smokers by means of separate carriages rather than the half-and-half carriages which are used at present?

That is an attractive and interesting suggestion. I am afraid that it is really for the management of British Railways, but I am sure that they will note what the hon. Gentleman says.

When he is considering the provision of future investment, will my right hon. Friend please ask British Railways when they will put investment into rolling stock on suburban journeys? If something is not done quickly for the journeys between Preston and Colne, the rolling stock there will disintegrate one of these days.

I think that that question goes rather wider than the main one, but I am sure that the Chairman of British Rail will note what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what review he is conducting of the proposed further extensions of the M23; and when he expects to be able to announce the results of such review.

Following my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment's statement of October 1975 on the Greater London Development Plan, the Greater London and Surrey County Councils are participating with the Government in a survey of the possibilities for the termination of the M23. The outcome of this study is unlikely to be known before the end of the year.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the further that trunk routes are extended into inner cities the more traffic they generate? As—I understand—the earliest date upon which it is possible that this road will be started is 1981, with completion, presumably, not until 1983, by which time oil supplies will again be becoming a serious problem, does he not agree that it is crazy for us to allow the blight and misery that this causes to continue? Will he not cut through the red tape and declare now that this road will not be extended beyond Mitcham Common?

The relevant question here is whether there is a proper terminating point for the sort of radial route about which my hon. Friend is concerned. As he knows, there is a terminating point on the M25. One could stop the M23 roughly at Hooley and go no further north. Nevertheless, there are many complications in just deciding the matter like that: that is why this study is being set up. I am sorry that it cannot report more quickly, because I understand the blight problem that concerns my hon. Friend and all of us, but I am sure that it will report as soon as possible. I shall certainly see that it does.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what he understands by the term "integrated transport policy".

An adequate reply would require not a sentence but a speech, which would explain how the thoughtful planning of transport resources can contribute significantly towards meeting the country's economic and social needs.

Does the Minister realise that that reply is like saying "Lord give me chastity but not yet"? Does he agree that an integrated transport policy must be constantly sought but that it can never be final because the parameters are changing and being up-dated all the time? Does he further agree that urgently required transport needs, such as the completion of motorway schemes, should not be delayed while the Government, of what- ever complexion, are searching for a will-o'-the-wisp integrated transport policy?

That was an ingenious question and, rather to my surprise, I was trying to find a point with which I disagreed. What the hon. and gallant Member said about change is absolutely true. We must recognise the changing needs in transport and the need for a flexible system. At the same time when we are pursuing major policy questions we should not delay necessary steps to solve current problems.

When working on an integrated transport policy will the Minister consult Mr. Jack Jones, who believes that the case for road transport has not been put strongly enough?

I have frequent consultations with all the transport unions. It is important to preserve a balance between investment in road and rail and between the different modes and types of transport. When we discussed these matters in the debate recently my hon. Friend made an important contribution.

Does the Minister agree that an integrated transport policy that ended the competition between the different modes of transport would be likely to increase transport costs?

That might be true in certain circumstances, but calculations are not as simple as that. An element of consumer choice in transport is important.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that an integrated transport system that was designed to meet the total needs of the community would require the public ownership of the ports, for instance, and, indeed, of the whole of the transport industry? Does the Minister agree that one cannot plan an integrated transport system unless it is publicly owned?

I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am well aware of his views about the extension of the public sector to the transport industry, and he has made an important point, but in a mixed economy we cannot assume that we can have more thoughtful planning of our transport system or any part of our industrial system simply by waiting for changes in ownership. We must act sooner than that.

Does the Minister agree that it is urgent that we should complete the motorway routes to our ports, particularly where there are gaps? Does he agree that that should be the first priority?

Yes, with some qualifications, and given that the completion of the motorway network must come within the available resources, which, as the hon. Member knows, have been constricted.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will meet representatives of the National Association of Rail Passengers to discuss the problems of commuters.

My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to meet representatives of the National Association of Rail Passengers.

Can the Minister assure us that he understands that rail commuters, by and large, are not wealthy people with bottomless pockets? Is he aware that they have to pay higher fares with constricted incomes, on which they have been taxed? There is a special problem in commuter operations, because of the intensified use of rolling stock and of staff. As we are all workers now, if British Rail were to reintroduce a workers' fare would he support it, and will he institute a new Government campaign for staggering work hours?

We understand the problems of commuters and, with the squeeze on incomes in the last few years, that fares have gone up faster than retail prices and most other prices. That is the cause of the problem. I cannot undertake to give even more subsidies by way of a workers' fare, especially as we are all workers now, if that is what the hon. Member is suggesting. Nevertheless, we must look at the problems sympathetically.

In the context of the White Paper does my hon. Friend agree that much of the subsidy for commuters is another way of saying that we are paying money out there instead of constructing new urban motorways, which would be needed if people could not travel by rail?

I agree, but my hon. Friend omits to mention the enormous environmental and social costs of motorways.

Is the Minister aware that there is deep anger among members of the National Association of Rail Passengers at the refusal of his right hon. Friend to see them? Is he aware that these are people at the sharp end, travelling between London and their home town? Will the Minister undertake to think about the matter again and agree to meet a deputation led by hon. Members from both sides of the House?

I shall consider the hon. Member's suggestion. I understand that members of the association will be seeing the Chairman of British Rail before long. This is a matter for British Rail in the first instance, and under our present system that is the most appropriate way to proceed.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish his transport White Paper; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish his transport White Paper; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is now able to give the precise date for the publication of the transport policy White Paper.

About May.

I thank the Minister for that answer. In view of the importance of the White Paper and the normal problem of finding sufficient time to debate transport matters in the House, does he agree that there is a case for setting up a Select Committee on Transport? Would not that help to reassure the public on contentious matters, such as the national road programme and the level of support for public transport, and enable this matter to be fully discussed and investigated by Parliament?

My instinct is to say "Yes", because for a long time I have been a strong supporter of the workings of Select Committees. However, if I said "Yes" I might be unpopular with my colleagues, since I have not consulted them.

Will the White Paper refer to road safety? If it does, will there be a reference to seat belts? Since, each week, 20 people are killed on the roads who would have survived had they been wearing seat belts, and since the House, on a free vote, supported the seat belts Bill by a majority of over 100, will the Minister take advantage of the reduced pressure on parliamentary time and reintroduce the Bill?

The White Paper will refer to seat belts and to road safety in general. I agree that a reference is not enough. The Government are committed to find time to reintroduce the seat belts Bill. However, the use of parliamentary time is not a matter for me, although the hon. Member may assume that the issue is very much in my mind.

In the first paragraph of the White Paper will my right hon. Friend give a definition of an integrated transport policy? Does he agree that we have an underused rail system and an overused road system? Is he aware that the Severn Bridge had to be closed because its fabric was being destroyed by juggernaut lorries? Surely the same must be happening on our roads in general.

My hon. Friend is wrong about the reason for the Severn Bridge being temporarily closed. I am hesitant to seek to define an integrated transport policy, in view of earlier exchanges. My hon. Friend makes an important point. The maximisation of resources, bearing in mind questions of costs, choice and need, is central to the White Paper.

Will the White Paper cover the system of the tapering of bus fares in rural areas by the National Bus Company? Is the Minister aware that some of the fare increases for short journeys have infuriated my constituents?

I am not sure that it will go into that much detail, and some of these matters are really for the manage- ment of the company or of the appropriate industry. But I am sure that the point put by the hon. Gentleman will be noted.

Will the White Paper refer to inland waterways?

That is a very interesting question, to which I am not sure that I yet have the answer. But my guess is that there will be reference in it to them.

Before publishing the White Paper in May, will the right hon. Gentleman have a look at the licensing functions of the traffic commissioners, as set out in the Road Traffic Act 1960, particularly in view of the co-ordinating rôle that local authorities, particularly the county councils, now have under the Local Government Act 1972, as there is an awful muddle?

I think that there is a more specific reference to this matter in a later Question. However, this matter is in our minds, and it is an important question to be considered in the White Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the efficiency of the Swansea Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the efficiency of the Swansea Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre.

Yes, Sir.

That is an extraordinarily complacent reply. The hon. Gentleman must be aware, as the House is, of the very large number of complaints that we are getting, particularly about delays in the offices out there. Has he been able to satisfy himself about the causes of these delays? What steps are being taken to eliminate them? That is what we are interested in. Does the hon. Gentleman know what the defects are in the operation? Will he publish in the Official Report figures showing the levels of staff, part- and full-time, and the cost of the organisation?

I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's last request and see whether I can meet it, but I remind the House that the Automobile Association, which is not backward in the interests of motorists, has given the Swansea centre a pretty clean bill of health. There were initial problems, but the situation is improving. I was there recently and was impressed by the improved standards of efficiency.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us would regard the place at Swansea as a disaster area? Is he further aware that many of my constituents have found themselves in trouble with the police, as well as in trouble over hire purchase, and so on, and have suffered great personal inconvenience, because of the lack of activity at Swansea? The complacency of his reply is insufferable.

There was no complacency in my reply. I was impressed by the set-up. The situation has improved, and the fact that an independent body such as the AA can say so is clear evidence that the hon. Gentleman's remark that this is a disaster area is totally inaccurate. Vehicle licences are now turned round in two days flat, registration documents within eight or nine days, and driving licences within eight to nine days flat. That is extremely good going.

Is my hon. Friend aware that most of us on Labour Benches are disappointed with his reply? If he is satisfied with the Swansea centre, let me assure him that there are many thousands of constituents all over the country who are not. What is he going to do about it?

I am satisfied—

Then my hon. Friend should be ashamed of himself.

and there is independent testimony to the fact—that the situation is improving at the centre. I have looked into it extensively, and I am confident that the staff are doing all they can. As my hon. Friend knows—and he should give them credit for it—they have set up special arrangements to deal with problems that occur, and these are dealt with quickly.

Is the hon. Gentleman as satisfied as the Treasury that it is sensible to continue with both the vehicle licence tax and the petrol tax? Would it not be a good idea to combine the two?

There is something to be said for that, but that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

As the Scotland and Wales Bill is in limbo, will the hon. Gentleman devolve responsibility for driver and motor vehicle licensing to Scotland, so that at least he may get that right?

I certainly would not wish to cast aspersions on the Welsh, to whom the centre was devolved for very good reasons. I am sure that to transfer it to Scotland would not meet with the approval of my colleagues.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the annual percentage growth of public expenditure on transport since 1973.

Public expenditure on inland surface transport in Great Britain, excluding loans to nationalised industries, increased by 13 per cent. between 1973–74 and 1974–75 and by a further 1 per cent. in 1975–76. It has declined by about 3 per cent. in 1976–77.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but is he aware that it is the massive switch since 1973 from investment to subsidy that has created such long-term problems in the economy of the nation? What is he going to do about it?

One of the problems in recent years is the consequences of the period when natural price increases were held back, in the early 1970s, but I acknowledge the point that if investment were to be neglected, and if revenue support were to be open-ended, we could not have improvements in the transport system. These matters will be discussed in the White Paper.

Has my right hon. Friend had representations from British Railways about the investment programme? Are British Railways satisfied with it since 1973, and even with the forward projections for the next three or four years?

I have had no specific representations from British Railways about the investment programme, but it is a matter that I discuss with them from time to time, and I was pleased to make a decision, in advance of the White Paper, some weeks ago to let the £80 million investment in the Bedford-St. Pancras line go ahead. But the level of investment is certainly central in considering the future of the railways.

May I support the point put earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) by putting to the right hon. Gentleman that one of the most effective ways of controlling and continually surveying public expenditure is by Select Committee of the House? I know the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties over this, but does he appreciate that there is much support for that proposition, or at least much thought about it on both sides of the House? Does he also appreciate that there is lack of debating time for transport matters and that a Select Committee would largely get over that fact, which is frequently used to criticise this House by various protest lobbies in transport?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is unwittingly confusing two possible functions for a Select Committee. There is the Select Committee on Expenditure, which has had a distinguished record since its establishment. It is open to the House to decide whether and in what way it might be used for some of the purposes that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will give a general direction to the Chairman of British Railways to provide accounts which show the costs of the different services properly apportioned.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) on Monday.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that unless full financial information and a total breakdown of costs are available, the British Railways management will not be able to do the job properly and public dissatisfaction will increase, because there will be no basis on which one can assess whether one is getting value for money? If the taxpayer is to foot the bill for British Railways, should their position not be fully itemised?

I have a great deal of sympathy with that view, but these matters have been discussed for over 30 years in the House and it is not easy to find a solution entirely satisfactory to everyone. The British Railways Board discussed this question in response to the consultation document, but it is difficult to find a method of apportionment that is wholly satisfactory and that would be endorsed by everyone. I am sure that the board will be anxious to publish as much information as it can, and I agree that it would help for the purposes of planning.

If my right hon. Friend decides to do what is asked of him, will he, on grounds of consistency, look at the costings of different categories of road user, since it is generally accepted that private motorists cross-subsidise the commercial road users?

If it were within my power to do so I would succumb to my hon. Friend's suggestion, but, in replying on Monday to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), I made it clear that it would not be appropriate for me to give a statutory direction of the kind suggested.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that at a time when the House is discussing the provision of £45 million to British Railways for their freight deficit, some figures about the actual costs of those freight services should appear in their annual report?

These are matters which, having been discussed in the House, can be pursued in the Committee now sitting. I am not quarrelling with the argument that information should be made available if it is meaningful, but we should be aware of the problems of providing information which is not meaningful and significant and which could mislead.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for example, when British Rail claims that a line is becoming increasingly uneconomic and the service to passengers on it is therefore liable to withdrawal, and one adduces the cost of track maintenance when it is found that the track is to remain open for freight, people are right to be suspicious that British Railways have perhaps first thought up the strategy and then produced figures that will support it?

I do not think that British Railways normally approach their problems in this way. My own view is that at every level in British Railways there is a tremendous commitment to the future of the railways. However, they have to do their work within the framework set by Parliament and within the resources available. If my hon. Friend has any specific instance in mind, I shall pass on the information. If that is done, I am sure that British Railways will have an answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek powers to prevent cars written off by insurance companies going back on to the road without an inspection.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek powers to ensure that motor vehicles which have been written off by insurance companies are not put back on the road.

My right hon. Friend is studying the evidence that the hon. Members for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) recently put to him. We should be clear about the real extent of the problem before embarking on legislation for this purpose.

That reply is most unsatisfactory. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since the old system was ended in 1971, whereby insurers voluntarily informed licensing authorities of seriously damaged vehicles, no effective system of safeguarding the public interest has been introduced? Is it not clear that the Government must insist on obligatory testing before 50,000 written-off vehicles are put back on the road? Has the hon. Gentleman begun his activities in this regard by discussing the matter with the British Insurance Association?

Indeed, and the British Insurance Association would not necessarily support the hon. Gentleman's arguments. More relevantly, we are having discussions with the Vehicle Builders and Repairers Association. We have begun our investigations in the interests of establishing whether, in practice, this is a serious cause of road accidents and whether we can do some statistical sample work to give us some greater evidence.

Does my hon. Friend not feel that it is the Government's duty to avoid accidents and save lives by introducing legislation? Is he aware of the massive campaign in favour of that approach by the Evening Echo of Hemel Hempstead? Does he not feel that the sooner something is done the better?

I am delighted that the campaign has percolated even to Hemel Hempstead. I am glad to know that. I think that the Government should take every matter of road safety extremely seriously. Indeed, that is the approach that we take. The fact that we are looking into these matters carefully in view of the evidence given by the hon. Members for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) is an indication of that.

To revert to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), is it not possible that in the immediate future the most likely remedial steps lie in an agreement between the British Insurance Association and the hon. Gentleman's Department? Why was the agreement dropped in 1971, in the first place?

It was dropped by the hon. Gentleman's Government because it was not thought to be an effective way of dealing with this problem. Further, there was no evidence at that time—there is still no evidence—that this was a serious cause of accidents. That is why we are looking at the problem again. Clearly, the Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, has changed the Tories' tune on this issue.

Will my hon. Friend consider the matter again? We insist on a three-year car undergoing a test, yet a new car can be completely written off in a smash-up but can come back on the road without a test. Where is the logic in that?

As I have tried to make clear, new cars, imported cars, repaired cars or secondhand cars—indeed, all types of cars—can cause accidents if not properly maintained. The fact that there is a test at a certain time does not guarantee that the car is adequately maintained thereafter and will not cause an accident. We must be sure that the measures that we take—for example, the MOT test, or what is now proposed—are effective in preventing road accidents.

The Minister must recognise that this is not a matter of party politics. Is he aware of the mounting public concern that is shared by motoring and consumer protection organisations, and the demand for Government action? At the very least the Government should measure the size of the problem. Surely what is needed is a simple system of inspection before these cars return to the road. Will the hon. Gentleman show more urgency in tackling this matter than hitherto?

There is no question of a lack of urgency. It is necessary to establish the facts. As I have said, we are having discussions with the Vehicle Builders and Repairers Association, which has brought evidence to us. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory has been asked to examine these matters fully. We need statistical evidence that this is a significant cause of road accidents. Until we get that evidence it would be senseless to propose legislation having no proper basis.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans for attracting an additional number of passengers to public transport.

I am considering how best to ensure that public transport plays its proper part in the course of preparing my White Paper.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective ways of conserving energy supplies is the greater utilisation of public transport? With that in mind, will he set about reducing the cost of public transport?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of public transport. I am glad to say that the resources devoted to it in recent years have been increased. The real problem is how we pay for improved public transport services. If they are not paid for by increased fares, which are unpopular, they must be paid for by taxation and rates, which are also unpopular. There is no easy way of providing a public transport system that does not make considerable demands, direct or indirect, upon those who enjoy its services.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the large rise in fares in recent years has had a serious effect on many hundreds of thousands of people? Will he consider the experience of foreign countries in Europe and experience in the United States of America and Canada before coming forward with his White Paper? In many of those countries extra help is given to commuters in other ways.

I shall consider overseas experience. However, we must face the facts. If fares are not to rise, services must be cut, or from taxation and rates there must be additional support for our public transport system. That means increases in public expenditure. We cannot have it both ways. That does not mean that public transport is not important. I recognise its importance and in my White Paper I shall be dealing with the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) raised in his initial Question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the latest swingeing increase in bus fares, especially in the Northern Region, is one of the most major disincentives in the use of public transport yet devised?

I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend says. However, if fare increases are not to take place other services must be cut, and cut severely, or there must be additional allocation of resources in our public expenditure totals at a time when, by common consent, there can be no increase in ceilings. If we are to spend more in subsidising buses and railways, however justified that may be, where are we to find the money to do so? Is it to be done by reducing provision for schools, house building and the Health Service? Where is the money to come from? It does not grow on trees.

In seeking to attract custom, will the right hon. Gentleman get someone to look into the question of catering facilities on trains? Bearing in mind the services provided and the quality of what is sold, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is profiteering on a grosser scale than in any other method of selling food that I know?

I have never seen, on the railways, profiteering of the sort that the hon. Gentleman describes. His experience is very different from mine. Considering the difficult circumstances, the railways now make available first-class food. However, this matter is wholly unrelated to the demands for public transport.

In view of my right hon. Friend's statement, is he not assuming that the elasticity of demand for transport is constant at every price range? May it not be true that we are now getting into price ranges where the demand for public transport is becoming more and more elastic?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I am not sure what conclusion he expects me to draw. It is true that public transport can price itself out of the market with fare increases. That is a grave risk. However, if fares are not to increase we must subsidise to a greater extent. I ask the House to face this reality. Where is the money to come from? Are other programmes to be cut for this purpose?

Bearing in mind British Railways' old-fashioned approach to the carrying of cycles, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that they have not understood the advantages of the modern bicycle? Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with British Railways and bring them up to date?

I am sure that British Railways will note that point.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the profit or loss which will be made by the National Bus Company during the current financial year.

The Chairman of the National Bus Company has told me that he expects to announce a small profit of about £3 million on revenue account for 1976. A similar result is expected in 1977.

Has not the Secretary of State failed to answer the Question? That is so because he has given an answer dealing only with revenue account. Bearing in mind the loss of £19 million made by the NBC in 1975 and the 12 million made in 1974, what is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the profit or loss for the current year, based on the same criteria for accountancy?

I am afraid that at this stage I have no information other than that which I have just given, but I wish the hon. Gentleman would be less grudging. I realise that he proposed a Bill to denationalise the National Bus Company in August and also that it was lost by a majority much larger than the difference between the two sides of the House.

The Secretary of State has taken the words out of my mouth, and I agree that it ill becomes the House to continue to abuse the National Bus Company, which is fighting difficult problems. Should not some reassurance be given about its future by both sides of the House? The National Bus Company has devolved power throughout the country. Is that not an example to other parts of the transport services?

I am sure that the NBC will appreciate the hon. Gentleman's kind and understanding remarks. It would be better if the House examined in more detail some of the problems faced by the NBC in its attempt to maintain services when the necessary revenue support, particularly in rural areas, is lacking.

Does the Minister agree that while we refer to the National Bus Company as a national company, it is in fact a collection of private companies brought together? Is there not a great opportunity for greater public control of this form of transport?

I agree with my hon. Friend's description of the origins of the National Bus Company. It has had a considerable task in developing a single company and, at the same time, allowing for local option and control. There are also problems in integrating the services of the NBC with those of municipal transport authorities. But here, again, progress is being made and there is scope for further useful developments.

The Minister said that this Question was related to the previous one. Is he aware that that is particularly so in relation to NBC and other buses running with many empty seats, especially during off-peak periods? Has the Minister yet discussed with NBC the sale, or other means of availability, of reduced fare concessions, or any of the other schemes that have been put to him as a means of increasing the revenue of NBC during off-peak services and assisting old-age pensioners and others without increasing public expenditure?

I understand that the NBC is looking into some of these ideas, and it has my encouragement in doing so.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the effectiveness of the present polices for salting motorways.

Yes, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that there is a considerable body of scientific opinion that says that the amount of salt being applied to motorways exceeds the optimum by two to four times and that this is causing considerable environmental damage, because of the concentrations of salt in the surrounding run-off of the motorway? Is the Minister also aware that his Department has authorised the use of an anti-caking element in the salt, which allows a considerable amount of cyanide into the water culverts around motorways?

I was aware of some of those points. The hon. Gentleman obviously knows a great deal about the subject. I was not aware of his last point, but I shall look into it and write to him.

Does the Minister realise that there is evidence to suggest that when excessive amounts of salt are used it makes the surface dangerous? If the Minister really wants to save money throughout the country, he should note that there is a disparate programme being carried out and that in some areas salt is thrown down on the road in shovelfuls.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is giving advice when he ought to be asking a question.

Does the Minister realise that those are the facts? Will he get the Road Research Laboratory to study the problem immediately, because this would save on the cost of salt, damage to vehicles and accidents?

I always welcome advice from my hon. Friend, especially when it is so extensive and forceful. If my hon. Friend has any evidence, perhaps from his own area, of salt being improperly spread, I shall look into it. My advice is that if salt is spread properly—and I concede that this begs the question asked by my hon. Friend—it results in a reduction in accidents.

Has the Minister any figures about the cost of maintaining roads arising from the use of salt during the past winter?

Approximately 50,000 tons of salt was spread on motorways in England in each of the last three years at an approximate cost in 1974 of £337,000, in 1975 £383,000 and in 1976 £400,000.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received, as part of the consultations on transport policy on the provision of rural transport.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has had about rural transport; and whether he will make a statement.

We have received many such representations in response to the consultation documents on the transport policy review.

Is the Minister aware that those on the Government side of the House who have rural constituencies welcome his decision to experiment with new forms of transport in rural areas, but does he appreciate that time is of the essence in this matter, as the problem is chronic? Will he give the House some information about how long the experiment will last and when he will be able to present recommendations to the House?

I certainly appreciate that time is of the essence. I strongly support my hon. Friend's view on that. The experiments are expected to run for 18 months, but we could obtain results on an interim basis, and they will be a basis for decision taking. However, we do not rely merely on experiments to lead us to conclusions. In the White Paper we are, in addition, looking at the whole matter of the traffic commissioners and licensing, and our conclusions will not necessarily rest on the results of the experiments.

Why is it necessary to have experiments, since experience is self-evident and there has been only too much experience of the deteriorating state of rural transport? Is the Minister not in a position to draw conclusions here and now and take action, rather than spending time on experiments?

That is partly true. We can draw general conclusions from the experience of the last few years, but we are dealing with a situation of extraordinary fragility, and it has reached a stage where, if we arc not careful, we could end up with a worse situation than that from which we started. However, in those rural areas where there is bad, or even no, public transport the experiments will be welcome.

The Opposition agreed to take the Second Reading of the Rural Transport Bill in Committee upstairs because of representations made to us about the pressure of business on the Floor of the House. As this is no longer one of the major problems faced by the Government, may we have an assurance that the Second Reading will take place on the Floor of the House, especially in view of the interest that has been expressed by my hon. Friends?

That is a question for the Leader of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has received from the British Railways Board and the National Bus Company on the possible replacement of rail passenger services by bus services following the transport consultation document; and if he will make a statement.

I have received no proposals, although the Railways Board developed ideas on these lines in its response to the consultation document published some months ago.

Is the Minister aware of the less-than-perfect record of bus services that took over from rail services and, after a relatively short time, ceased to function, thus depriving poorer communities of any transport? Will the Minister, when considering these matters in future, look into the ability of the bus company to maintain a service, and do so before the rail service is stopped, the route demolished and a community deprived of all transport, because no rail services can then be brought back?

I am aware of that point. My hon. Friend is right in saying that there has been a less-than-perfect record on previous occasions. If we are to have any form of integrated transport system we must approach the matter in an open way, examining how we can best meet needs with the resources available. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable that British Rail should discuss these matters with the trade unions, if that is its wish and judgment.

In connection with the representations made by the British Railways Board, will the right hon. Gentleman assure me and my constituents that we shall still be able to travel to Birmingham by express bus and that it will not be withdrawn at the request of the board, thereby involving us in more expense?

It is not for me to give assurances or not to give them. As I said earlier, I have received no representations of the sort implied in the initial Question. I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand the difficulties. Our discussions are of a very general sort and I cannot judge the outcome at this stage.