asked the Minister of Transport what estimates she has of the length of motorway under construction and to be completed during;968 and 1969; and what steps is she taking to ensure the continuity of the road building programme.

We estimate that some 300 miles will be under construction and about 32 miles will be completed in 1968. The comparable figures for 1969 are some 400 and about 45 miles respectively. The new trunk road preparation pool and principal road preparation list procedures are designed to ensure that a large volume of road improvement schemes is prepared in good time to match the future resources allocated to road building.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the cuts in the road programme announced yesterday are likely to disrupt the planned growth of the use of men and machines by road construction companies and that this will ultimately lead at some stage to an increase in the cost of each mile of road built?

No, I cannot agree. We, too, have to exercise some restraint in the expanding programme for which we are responsible. My right hon. Friend is determined to maintain the momentum of major road construction, and any curb in expenditure will be applied in order to ensure that that momentum is maintained.

In maintaining this momentum, will the hon. Gentleman make certain that the utmost priority is given to linking the M5 with the M6 in the Midlands, which is surely the greatest area of congestion in Britain today?

Yes, Sir. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the utmost priority is being given to the motorway links and that this will be maintained.

asked the Minister of Transport whether she will make a statement about future progress in the planning and construction of the M11.

Consideration of the extension of the route southwards is proceeding. The views of the local authorities on the route as a whole will be sought and considered before a final decision.

When does the hon. Gentleman expect the final decision to be taken? When will he be able to publish the places for the interchanges, since this aspect is causing a certain amount of concern in my area?

At this stage it is not possible to say when the route will finally be published. There are a number of objections, and discussions are still being carried out. Only when the final objections are resolved will it be possible to answer the hon. Gentleman fully.

asked the Minister of Transport when the M4 motorway is now expected to be completed.

By 1971. There are, however, difficulties on the 6¼ mile section between Winnersh and Holyport, as I mentioned on 20th November, which may in part prevent this.—[Vol. 754, c. 281.]

Is the Minister aware that there is an ever-increasing need for the finishing of this road, particularly bearing in mind the needs of Wales, where road hauliers will have to pay much heavier charges because of the Transport Bill? Surely they deserve a decent road where no railway facilities are available?

We are aware of the urgent need for this road. Unfortunately an unwithdrawn statutory objection makes it necessary to hold a public inquiry.

Will the Minister bear in mind the needs of Bristol in this matter, and tell the House how many miles of the M.4 have been both planned and started since October, 1964?

If the hon. Member would put down a Question I would be able to give an Answer that would be more helpful to him than an off-the-cuff reply. The line is now fixed for the remaining 71 miles, between Tormarton in Gloucestershire and Winnersh southeast of Reading. If the hon. Member would like to put down a Question I will get more details.

asked the Minister of Transport if she will take steps to secure that all highway authorities place "Give Way" signs at least 100 yards back from the road junction.

No, Sir. Like all regulatory signs, "Give Way" signs are placed as near as possible to the point where their message applies. If the signs are not sufficiently visible to approaching drivers, advance warning signs should also be provided.

Does not the Minister agree that if these signs were in many cases placed considerably farther back, the driver would get much earlier warning of a forthcoming crossroads, which is what all this is in aid of? Will he consider this again also?

If the sign is too far away and a bend or a bridge intervenes, the sign is obscured at the point where the greatest impact should be made in warning the driver that he is approaching a junction. The signs are intended to be positioned where they will make the greatest impact as the driver is approaching the hazard. We feel that the distance at which these signs are placed should give him ample warning of an approaching hazard.

asked the Minister of Transport what discussions she has had with the Greater London Council about conducting a further London traffic survey.

The Greater London Council has suggested ways in which this work might be developed. My right hon. Friend is considering these.

I am indebted to my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. Would not he agree that the changes in the scene since the last survey make nonsense of its projections—in particular, such things as changes in commuter services in the Southern Region and electrification? Has not the pattern of London traffic changed, thus justifying another traffic survey?

As my hon. Friend points out, there is a continuing need for such a survey. We are awaiting a further report which the G.L.C. will publish in the next few months arising from the London transportation study. In the meantime, our technical experts are considering how a further survey should be carried Out.

asked the Minister of Transport if she will make a statement about road accidents and casualties during the Christmas period.

The provisional figure for the number of road accidents in Great Britain for the five days beginning on 22nd December is 3,096. The corresponding, figure for Christmas, 1966, was 4,239.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the figures which he has just announced vindicate the decision of the House in relation to the Road Safety Act? Will his Ministry give maximum publicity to the figures which he has quoted?

I am sure that due note will be taken of these figures, but it is still rather early fully to judge the contribution which the Act has made.

Can the hon. Gentleman give the ratio of accidents to the volume of traffic at Christmas and corn-pare it with a corresponding figure for the previous year?

This is one of the important matters which we shall have to have before us before we can evaluate the effect of the Act. We shall have to have figures of the traffic flows which are as accurate as possible, and so far we do lot have them.

Is the hon. Gentlemen aware that sales of petrol over the Christmas period were down by 5 per cent. as compared with a year ago, so that there was very much less motor- ing? One would naturally expect a 5 per cent. fall in accidents with less traffic, although one welcomes the great fall.

That is why it is so important to have all these facts before coming to a final decision. At the same time, these are very significant falls.

Would my hon. Friend remember when considering these figures that the volume of traffic was probably affected by the introduction of the Act?

The earlier figures which I announced when answering Questions last time I indicated that the figures we had up to 10 o'clock at night showed that there were no falls in traffic—indeed, there was an increase. If after that time there were falls in traffic, for which we do not yet have figures, and if after having drunk too much people were no longer driving, then that is something to be encouraged.

Has there been any comparison of weather conditions this Christmas and last Christmas? I welcome this considerable improvement, but would not the hon. Gentleman agree that further steps are necessary to prevent the continuing high accident rate?

We do not yet have a full analysis of the weather conditions. All these are obviously matters to be considered. While the figures are encouraging, they are still too high.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the success indicated by these figures reflects great discredit on those pressure groups, those interested groups, who seem to put profits before road safety?

Can the hon. Gentleman say what steps his right hon. Friend is taking to prevent accidents arising out of the danger of the new automatic half-gate level crossings?

There is a later Question on this subject. As the hon. and learned Gentleman should know, my right hon. Friend has announced a full public inquiry into all these matters.

asked the Minister of Transport how many licences (V.R.1 and 2) for the transport of abnormal loads she has issued in each of the last three years.

The movement of abnormal loads exceeding 90 feet in length or 20 feet in width or 150 tons in weight is authorised by Special Order and loads of lesser length and weight having a width from 14 feet to 20 feet by V.R.1. As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that he has been restrictive in the issue of these licences and thereby prevented Scottish heavy industry from competing in English markets?

I cannot agree that there has been restriction of the issue of these licences. The hon. Gentleman will remember that fairly recently he was in contact with the Ministry when we went a good way to helping a Scottish firm in this matter of heavy vehicles travelling south.

Have there been any consultations with industry with a view to seeing whether some of these abnormal loads could be assembled at their destinations instead of at the place of origin, as they are a nuisance to other traffic?

Before an authorisation for the transportation of any of these loads is issued, great care is taken to examine with industry the possibility of reducing the size of the load in order to keep heavy vehicles on the roads to a minimum. Before my right hon. Friend introduced this provision there were many consultations with industries, including the heavy haulage and normal haulage industries.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the total sum involved by way of write-offs of capital, annual subsidies, loans and grants in the Transport Bill.

I apologise for the length of this reply.

Is not the answer £1,922 million, a staggering figure? Is it not madness for the Government to proceed with a major nationalisation Bill after we have had such staggering cuts in the economy?

It is foolish of the hon. Gentleman to lump together sums which represent capital write-offs on many of which, because of the railway deficit, the Exchequer has been bearing the interest burdens, together with sums which are grants, many of them demanded by hon. Members opposite for maintaining socially necessary railway services, and other kinds of grants for the improvement of public transport. I have set out to the fullest extent for the hon. Gentleman's benefit the real picture presented by the Bill which we shall shortly be discussing in Committee.

How much capital expenditure was written down in connection with railway finance during the 13 years of the previous Government?

I do not have the exact figure with me, but my hon. Friend will know that a considerable sum in connection with British Railways was put in suspense by the previous Government.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he will not prevent people abroad from reading his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) by galloping through it? What sort of effect does he think this figure will have on confidence?

A very great part of the Answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Cathcart was given in the winding-up speech on the Second Reading of the Transport Bill. I have made the point again in reply to the hon. Member, and I would imagine that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have been pressing so hard to keep open railway lines which are enormous loss-makers, will keep a bit quiet about some of the financial provisions of this Bill.

asked the Minister of Transport how many representations she has received from Scottish organisations, firms and individuals about the proposed new burdens and restrictions on road haulage in the Transport Bill; and what reply she has sent.

asked the Minister of Transport how many representations she has received from industry, commerce and transport undertakings objecting to the proposals for read carrier licensing and additional taxation in the Transport Bill; and what reply she has sent.

We have received a large number of such representations from all parts of the country. They have all been carefully considered, and in reply we have explained how particular proposals fit into the freight transport policy.

Would the Minister agree that almost every Organisation concerned with Scottish development has bitterly opposed this Bill? Does he agree that the general assault on private road haulage will do the maximum damage in Scotland, where we have long distances to cover and so much heavy industry?

I cannot agree with the hon. Member. There has been general agreement about certain parts of the Bill. The quality licensing, for example, has been very much welcomed by most of the industry, together with the exclusion of the light goods vehicles. There will be no extra penalties on Scottish transport organisations because of this Bill. [Interruption.] It will be spread throughout the country.

Why will the hon. Gentleman not give a figure of the number of representations? Will the Minister now make a major contribution to the national economy in this time of crisis by dropping this whole Bill, and in its place restoring the cuts in the road programme, announced yesterday?

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that we on this side believe that the Transport Bill will be of positive help to the economy. We have for a long time needed a rational approach to transport and believe that my right hon. Friend's Bill is just this.

While I accept the Bill, is my hon. Friend aware that in the Govan division the makers of large marine engines are very seriously concerned about the possible increase in charges to those who supply English ship-building companies as against their English competitors? Will he look into the validity of those fears?

This is a question that we are certainly looking into. I would remind my hon. Friend that in reply to the Second Reading debate my right hon. Friend specifically mentioned this problem. She is aware of it. In Committee she will be open to considering the possibility of changes for the development areas.

Will the Minister explain why, when these Questions have been on the Order Paper for some weeks, he is unable to give the numbers asked for? Secondly, will he repeat and confirm his undertaking that no Scottish transport concern will be adversely affected by the Transport Bill?

What I said was that no Scottish transport firm will be adversely affected as against any other firm in the country. Scottish transport firms will be treated no differently from transport firms in any other part of the country. As to the question of numbers, there was a large number of representations from all over the country. The Questions asked for the representations from the Scottish organisations and this is a figure that we do not have. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] We can get it. The representations are not always against the Bill. Some are very much in favour of some proposals, such as light vehicles being excluded, and the quality licence.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that Answer, I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter again on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Transport what estimate she has made of the additional costs which will be borne by the manufacturers of pressure vessels in Scotland by the abnormal load charge on the transport of their products.

I regret that this information is not available.

Is the Minister aware that that is most unsatisfactory? Is he further aware that it will cost between £2,000 and £4,000 extra to take these vessels to the South of England? Does he realise that it will be an impossible burden on Scottish heavy industry?

The hon. Member asked specifically for the extra costs involved in pressure vessels moving from Scotland to England. I should say that the movement of about 3,000 extra large, or heavy loads are required to be reported to the Ministry each year. It would be possible, although it would be a lengthy process, to pick out exactly how many of these authorisations applied to pressure vessels from Scotland.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated yield from Scotland in a full year of the abnormal loads tax and the wear and tear tax on road vehicles proposed in the Transport Bill.

Separate figures for Scotland are not readily available of the yield from the abnormal loads charge. The annual yield from the wear and tear charge on lorries registered in Scotland is estimated at about £3 million.

Is the Minister aware that it is shocking that he cannot give an estimate for something which he is proposing in a Bill? Is he further aware that, as regards the second figure, it is far too much to ask Scotland to pay for this tax? Will the Minister, although she has made a guarded statement concerning the possibility of exempting Scotland from the abnormal loads tax, now consider an amendment which would exempt Scotland from the wear and tear tax?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the Ministry only receives notice of the movements of the largest loads. This is why it is not possible to give any accurate estimate of the number of abnormal loads, which the hon. Gentleman wishes. At the same time, my right hon. Friend has given an indication to the House that she will look at this sympathetically in Committee. On the second part of the question, the hon. Member is misconceiving the situation if he suggests that there will be any great difference in the effect of the other charge as it applies to Scotland, or any other part of the country.

If the hon. Member has no estimate of the yield from the abnormal loads in Scotland for a year, has he been able to calculate the number of orders which involve abnormal loads or bulky loads, and which will be lost to Scotland as a result of these new taxes? Has he any idea of the effect that this will have on unemployment in Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman should know better. He is asking a hypothetical question. I have given an indication that my right hon. Friend will look at this sympathetically. In this connection we have received a number of representations from my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite. We shall look at the situation and submit an equitable proposal to the Committee.

Before my hon. Friend gives too much away in the face of these plausible arguments, may I ask when we shall have the study of road costs? Any giving away of principle to hon. Members opposite must be related to road costing.

I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that it will be published in a matter of weeks.

asked the Minister of Transport what estimate she has available of the percentage of the travelling public in Scotland who use passenger road transport and passenger rail transport, respectively.

It has been estimated for an average week of 1965 that 59 per cent. of the population aged over three in Scotland made some use of buses and that 7 per cent used rail.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that these figures show that there is a very serious imbalance between road and rail transport? Would he not further agree that anything which is done to rectify the imbalance could help to alleviate road congestion?

I sympathise with my hon. Friend's desire to see greater use made of the railways in Scotland and, indeed, in the whole country. That has been one of the main purposes of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and his group, in identifying socially necessary railway services and introducing the system of grants incorporated in the Transport Bill. We hope and trust that it will have the effect which my hon. Friend desires.

asked the Minister of Transport what estimate she has made of the numbers of the travelling public in Scotland using public transport in 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967.

It has been estimated for an average week of 1965 that three million of the population aged over three made use of public transport. Estimates for other years are not available.

Would not my hon. Friend agree fiat these figures illustrate that a very high percentage of the population use public transport? Would he not further agree that there is a case for an extension in this field rather than a contraction?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It shows the considerable importance of public transport in Scotland, in particular, and the need to make some improvement. The financial assistance and other measures incorporated in the Transport Bill will, we hope, stimulate the improvements necessary.

Would my hon. Friend separate the figures which he has given in order to show the figure for North-East Scotland where it is particularly important having regard to the rail closures there?

If my hon. and learned Friend will table that question, I will do my best to supply him with the figures he wants.

asked the Minister of Transport if she will set up a joint working party with the Minister of Health to consider improvements for vehicles for disabled drivers.

The machinery for considering improvement of vehicles for disabled drivers is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. We will help in any way we can.

On the point of road safety, does the Minister seriously believe that these three-wheelers are the safest sort of vehicles for these disabled people, who already have enough to bear? Would he not go and drive one of these vehicles himself and then look at this matter again?

The Ministry has examined these vehicles and passed them on grounds of construction, use and safety. As a matter of personal interest, I would be only too pleased to take up the hon. Member's offer to drive one of these vehicles, on which I would certainly give an opinion.

Would the Minister agree that these vehicles are particularly unsuitable for haemophiliacs because of the very large number of protruding items within the very small space within the vehicle? If haemophiliacs knock themselves against these protuberances, they are liable to spend long periods in hospital. Will the hon. Gentleman look into this specific point?

As I have said, the design of these vehicles is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health, who laid down a detailed specification for the invalid tricycle, which, in their view, is suitable for the particular illnesses and disabilities of the patients. Our advice to the Ministry of Health is purely advisory on any technical matters on which we feel that we are able to help.

asked the Minister of Transport if she will exclude Scotland from the proposed licensing system of lorries on journeys over 100 miles.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) and the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) on 20th December, 1967.—[Vol. 756, c. 1243–44.]

Is not this a blatantly ridiculous proposal concerning Scotland, where the centres of population are so far apart? Is it not likely that journeys of under 100 miles in Scotland will be the exception rather than the rule? How does this proposal square with the Prime Minister's assurance yesterday that the growth of the Civil Service must be arrested?

As to the growth of the Civil Service, these licences, if issued, will be valid for five years and, therefore, there will be much less paper work than there was previously. Concerning the 100-mile limit in Scotland, the figures from all the surveys suggest that a surprisingly small number of journeys of vehicles within Scotland are over 100 miles. We believe that the proposals in the Transport Bill will certainly not adversely affect Scotland as against the rest of the country.

Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that he is using in answer to this Question the Answer which he gave to an earlier Question when he said that there was no discrimination against Scotland? The point is that there are areas of Scotland which are so dissimilar to the rest of the country that special provisions are needed to meet their needs. Will he please try to meet those provisions?

In my answer to the right hon. Gentleman on 20th December, I said clearly that in areas where there was no possibility of the railways being able to provide a service equal to or better than that of road haulage, the licences would be granted automatically. I see nothing in that Answer to contradict what I have said today.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is largely a stunt by the other side of the House and that in the Highlands of Scotland particularly, where there is virtually no railway system, there can be no question of these licences not being granted?

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. I should also pay tribute to the fact that his detailed work concerning the transport of heavy loads had a considerable influence on my right hon. Friend in her decision to reconsider the question of development areas in Committee.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in framing the legislation to implement the recommendations of the White Paper on Transport of Freight, she will take into consideration the need to preserve the availability of road haulage at competitive rates for seasonal trades such as the potato trade between Eastern Scotland and England which British Railways are unable to handle.

We are satisfied that the arrangements proposed for the licensing of road goods vehicles will not reduce the quality of transport services and will ensure that the individual requirements of particular trades and consignors are fully taken into account.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a few years ago the railways offered specially favourable rates to get the seed potato trade on to the railways but that they have since proved incapable of carrying this traffic? Is not this precisely what will happen under Clause 69 of the Bill, except that the railways will not even have to offer favourable rates?

The railways will always require to offer favourable rates. Furthermore, under the Bill presented by my right hon. Friend, the railways will need to prove to the independent licensing authority that they have sufficient rolling stock and traction engines to complete the job for which they have contracted.

asked the Minister of Transport when the proposed carrier licensing authority is examining the criteria of cost, to what extent will the cost to the consignor be taken into account.

Licensing authorities will be able to take into account any costs to the consignor which will have an effect on the transport operation.

To what extent will a penalty clause be taken into account in the case of a railway strike and failure of the consignor to deliver his goods to the consignee in time?

I will look into this matter of the penalty clause.

asked the Minister of Transport when the proposed carrier licensing authority is examining the criteria of reliability, what allowance will be made for industrial disputes.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) on 27th October, 1967.—[Vol. 751, c. 582.]

To what extent will strikes on the routes concerned be taken into account?

Strikes will, of course, be taken into account. There will be special authorisation. I think it should be remembered that only a small part of road haulage will be controlled by the quantity licence. There should be plenty of capacity available to cope with short-term disputes, and short-term licences will, in any case, be given freely during such a dispute.

asked the Minister of Transport what representations she has received from chambers of commerce and other representative bodies in Scotland regarding the Government's proposal for abnormal charges on road haulage; and what reply she has sent.

We have received letters about the proposed abnormal loads charge and other proposals in the White Paper on the Transport of Freight from the Glasgow and Aberdeen Chambers of Commerce. A number of firms have also written. In our replies we have drawn attention to the undertaking my right hon. Friend gave in the House on 20th December, to consider whether the effects of the charges could be mitigated on firms in development areas.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one firm in Scotland has calculated that the movement of a single drum in two parts outwith the railway gauge will cost £8,000, thanks to the abnormal load charges? In view of this, are not the Minister's assurances about reconsideration totally inadequate?

I do not see what else my right hon. Friend could be expected to do but reconsider in respect of development areas, and this she did very promptly when representations were made to her, but I think the House should realise that the abnormal load charge is some sort of compensation for hold-ups which abnormal loads cause to other industrial traffic also using the highway.

Will the Minister bear in mind that these loads are already under complete Government control, and that merely to charge extra money such as this can only have a negative effect; that it cannot have any effect of turning those loads on to the railways because the railways cannot carry them at the present time?

I agree that, in some cases, what my hon. Friend says is perfectly true, but I have in the last few weeks myself dealt with a number of actual instances where an application for a licence has been made and where it has been discovered that the loads can quite easily be put on the railways. Part of the reason for the charges is to try to keep these loads off the roads to the greatest extent possible, because, as I said earlier, they do hold up other very important industrial traffic.

asked the Minister of Transport if she will conduct a survey in conjunction with the local authorities and the police, into the growing incidence throughout the Greater London area of the all-night parking of commercial vehicles on the public highway in residential streets, with a view to curtailing this increasing nuisance which is having a detrimental effect on amenities in many localities.

This is primarily a matter for the Greater London Council, the traffic authority for Greater London. The Council are at present carrying out a pilot study into this problem in the London Borough of Islington.

While welcoming that statement, is the Minister of State not aware that there is still widespread concern at the procrastination of the Minister over this problem, and that, the longer it takes to tackle it, the more incapable of solution it will become?

This is not a question of procrastination by the Ministry, because it is a matter for the local traffic authority which, as I pointed out to the hon. Member, already has powers. In the Transport Bill, we intend to augment the powers, in addition to those which local traffic authorities have already, to deal with the problem. However, it must be done by the local traffic authorities themselves.

rose—

Order. Mr. Swingler, to answer Questions Nos. 66 and 67.

asked the Minister of Transport if she will refuse her consent to further closures of certain railway passenger services in the East Midlands, pending consideration of the Transport Bill.

My right hon. Friend cannot give such an assurance but, in reaching decisions on any current closure proposals, she will certainly give full weight to the railway policy considerations reflected in the Bill.

Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that there is great concern in both Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire about the rate of closures of stations and services for local passengers? Is it not strange that, at a time when the House is considering a Bill to facilitate co-ordination of all local passenger services, including rail, British Railways should be determined that there should be nothing left to co-ordinate?

I know the concern of my hon. Friend, who has written to me about this issue. He knows that we are awaiting the report of the T.U.C.C. about a particular closure in his area. I must also tell him, however, that the economic planning council has been asked to look at the wider implications for traffic in his area.

asked the Minister of Transport if she will make a statement on the proposals submitted to her by British Railways relating to the modernisation of the Waterloo to Portsmouth line.

In the past seven months my right hon. Friend has approved two investment proposals affecting this line among others: re-signalling in the Surbiton- Woking area and the construction of 200 new electric-multiple-unit coaches.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable feeling that this line has been the Cinderella of recent railway development, notwithstanding the valiant efforts of the staff? In view of the important plans for economic development in South Hampshire, can my hon. Friend assure us that within available funds this line will have priority in future?

I thought that I had given some comfort to my hon. Friend when I indicated the expenditure on re-signalling which had been authorised and which amounts to £1·1 million. That should bring some comfort to his constituents.

asked the Minister of Transport whether she will direct the Inspector of Accidents to prepare an annual report on the maintenance and safety standards of British Railways, Southern Region.

No, Sir. The Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways prepares an Annual Report on the Safety Record of the Railways as a whole. The Reports, which are available in the Library, give statistical information for each region.

As the Minister is now fully aware apparently of the maintenance standards of Southern Region, could the hon. Gentleman tell us how often the track is inspected by platelayers responsible for each stretch as against the previous situation?

This is entirely a matter for the Railways Board. It has taken a number of steps since the Hither Green accident. The maximum speed of trains has been reduced and the patrolling of the line increased between Chislehurst and Hither Green. Both are temporary measures. As regards the general situation, we should await the report of the inspector.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the condition and standard of the Southern Region service since the introduction of the new timetable has led to very many extra breakdowns, widespread concern and chaotic service for the unfortunate passengers? Would he consider the matter from the public safety point of view?

I have very great sympathy with the passengers in this area; I live in the area myself. But, as the hon. Member knows, this is a matter for the Railways Board. Representations have been made by passengers to the T.U.C.C., which is considering the matter.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most passengers who have to travel on the Southern Region believe that the vast number of defects which come to light every day—points failures, signal failures, rolling stock failures, and so on—are affecting safety in the region? Will he have a report published which will show the travelling public that a thorough investigation into safety has been carried out by the Ministry and which will reassure passengers?

I have explained in a letter to the hon. Member the responsibility of the Minister and the responsibility of the Board. A report will be published on the Hither Green disaster. There is no general power for the Ministry to conduct a general inquiry. But I know that the hon. Gentleman has indicated that he would like to talk about this subject to the general manager of the region. He was invited so to do, and in his letter to my Minister he suggested that there was little point in doing so. I would suggest again to him that he should raise these matters with the general manager.

In view of the very widespread anxiety of passengers in this region, involving many thousands of passengers, would the Minister suggest to the Railways Board that it makes an independent inquiry into the safety and timetable factors? I recognise that the railways have had great difficulty in introducing the new timetables and have been successful in many ways, but, because of the public anxiety, it would be in the interests of the railways if there were an independent inquiry to point out the difficulties.

There are two different matters. First, there is the issue of safety and this particular accident. An inquiry is now taking place into that. On the issue of the timetables, representations have been made to the T.U.C.C., which is looking into the matter. The responsibility of the Minister is quite different from that of the Railways Board.

asked the Minister of Transport whether she will ensure that the feasibility of proposed changes in British Railways, Southern Region's, timetable are referred to the appropriate transport users' consultative committee before they are made.

No, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a spokesman for British Railways last night said that the inconvenience was likely to go on for another 12 months? This is quite intolerable. Will the hon. Gentleman give a direction that we should revert to the old timetable until such time as a proper timetable can be devised?

This is a matter for the Railways Board. It is not a matter for the Minister. It is not a proper matter for a general inquiry, as is suggested by the hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members should be aware that what the Railways Board tries to do is to ensure a better utilisation of its stock and capacity and to provide a better service. It has gone through a difficult period—difficult for the public and difficult for the Board. While the responsibility is entirely the Board's, I think that we should extend to it some sympathy for trying. It could have adopted the soft option and not tried anything else.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in these days of national planning the South-East Regional Economic Planning Council was never given a chance to comment on the new timetables, despite the fact that over a period of time they might result in a considerable shift of population in the area? Will my hon. Friend ensure that this does not happen again?

The Economic Planning Council has a number of responsibilities of which I am sure my hon. Friend is aware. This is not a matter which comes within its province. There is statutory machinery for it. The T.U.C.C. and any member of the travelling public, including my hon. Friend—I know that he uses the service—can make representations. Representations have been made and they are being considered.

In view of the concern over this matter, may I, with very great respect, point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that there has been only one supplementary question from this side of the House on these two Questions?

That is a matter for the Chair.

asked the Minister of Transport when the first stage of the freightliner grid will be complete.

The first stage of the freightliner grid was completed with the opening of terminals at Hull and Edinburgh, on 1st and 8th January, respectively.

Would my hon. Friend say how many of these terminals have been placed in development districts?

Of these 15 terminals at the first stage, five are in development areas—Glasgow, Aberdeen, Newcastle, Stockton and Liverpool. Of course, the one in Cardiff is just outside a development area.

Bearing in mind the exciting news about freightliner service, is it not a shame that the Minister was not able to stand by British Railways and allow them themselves to keep this wonderful new service instead of letting it go away under the Transport Bill?

The shame should be upon the Opposition. My right hon. Friend was trying every possible means to open these terminals, and eventually succeeded—[HON. MEMBERS "After two years."]—in spite of the taunts and derision from hon. Members opposite. That is where the shame should be. I am sure the whole House should be encouraged by the decisive step she was eventually able to take, after a good deal of discussion, to get the terminals open.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the weight of traffic now being carried by the freightliner grid.

The freightliner grid is now carrying traffic at the rate of about two million tons a year, or 4,000 containers a week.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that the growth in this traffic will help to provide a greater amount of stability for the railwaymen working in the industry? Will he urge the Minister to press on with the second stage as quickly as possible in extending these facilities?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This growth in traffic, which Js very substantial, must bring great encouragement to my right hon. Friend, and satisfaction to the railwayman, whose confidence in the Minister's arguments that the opening of the terminals would bring general benefit to the railwaymen, was rightly placed. I am sure that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House should be rightly and properly ashamed of their taunts and derision over a long period of time.

asked the Minister of Transport if she obtained the advice of the Morris Committee on the proposal to remove the freightliner business from British Railways.

It is misleading to suggest that the freightliner business is to be removed from British Railways. Paragraphs 17–20 of Cmnd. 3470 make it clear that the Railways Board will retain a very substantial interest in the freightliners after the National Freight Corporation is set up. Although the Joint Steering Group's terms of reference did not include the relationship between the N.F.C. and the B.RB. my right hon. Friend has consulted a number of persons on her proposal, including some who are also members of the Group.

In view of the fact that the group is now being broken up by the Minister, would the Minister have any objection to the individual members of that group expressing publicly their views upon the National Freight Authority set-up?

My right hon. Friend consulted the members of the group confidentially, as, indeed, she did others. Naturally, this does not prevent members of the group from expressing an opinion in public about the policies my right hon. Friend has outlined in her White Paper, but clearly, the nature of the discussions she had with them remains confidential.

In view of the nonsense being talked by the Opposition in this matter, will the Minister feel slightly happier if I tell him that the freightliner terminal at West Hull is a success and that the whole of Humber- side, businessmen included, are very happy about this one?

I am very glad to hear what my hon. Friend has said. As my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made clear earlier, the freightliner network is being developed, and developed rapidly. It is a great combined rail-road operation, and it is up to the National Freight Authority to sell it to the maximum extent.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether, in view of the devaluation of sterling and the representations of the Confederation of British Industry and the British Shippers' Council regarding the damage to the economy arising from the nationalisation of our ports, she will now reconsider this proposal;

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of devaluation, she will postpone the nationalisation of docks and harbours.

No, Sir. Reorganisation of the ports on the basis of national ownership is necessary to strengthen the planning of a national ports system, to increase efficiency, and to improve working arrangements.

How far can the Government be mesmerised by the psychedelic qualities of its own dogma? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that virtually every institution in the private sector to which the Government are appealing to help the export drive is opposed to these measures? Will not the Government make some small concessions?

The organisations to which the hon. Gentleman refers in his Question have, as I have said previously, represented to us that, while they are opposed to public ownership, they are in favour of changes being made in the structure of the port industry to establish a strong central planning authority. In the Government's view, this cannot be achieved effectively without extending public ownership of the ports. We have many nationalised ports through which the nation's imports flow. Some of the ports where trouble occurred were not nationalised.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that if the "hippies" on the benches opposite had put more capital into the ports and reorganised them earlier, there would be no need to nationalise them?

On a point of order. So far as I am aware, Mr. Speaker, there is no precedent in this House for the use of contemporary slang and an opprobrious term such as "hippies" to refer to my hon. Friends and myself. Would you rule that the term "hippies" is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn?

We are behind in Questions. I hope that we will not have points of order during Question Time. Mr. McNamara.

Would not my hon. Friend further agree that nationalisation is part and parcel of the agreement of the dock workers, together with decasualisation, to create a new atmosphere in the ports and to get them running as efficiently as we want them?

We have had to take immediate measures to improve the ports because of the amount of obsolescence which the Government inherited in all respects. It is generally agreed all round that important changes must be made in the ports industry. In the Government's view, this cannot be achieved satisfactorily to get the planning authority which we need without public ownership.

Why are the Government acting ahead of the nationalisation of the ports against private enterprise by imposing a limitation of 100 miles on the radius of motor transport from Harwich, which means that we cannot trade with the Midlands?

That is not so. If I understand the hon. Member aright, what the Government are proposing in the Transport Bill is that it shall be put before the licensing authorities whether it is more economical in the national interest to carry goods by rail or by road over these distances in lorries of a certain weight. That does not mean that licences will be refused to road hauliers. If road hauliers can do a better job, they will get a licence.

What is the cost of these nationalisation proposals? Is the Minister aware that the Manchester Ship Canal Company is the only company which has reduced its costs in recent years?

I am very glad that that has been done by the Manchester Ship Canal Company. There are many interesting comparisons to be made amongst the ports, one-third of which are already nationalised, and I do not receive many complaints about them. Much trouble has, nevertheless, occurred in ports which are not nationalised. When we consider all these factors, if we are to get the planning authority which is generally desired, in the Government's view we shall not achieve it except on the basis of public ownership.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for having raised a point of order during Questions.

I hope that hon. Members will not raise this kind of point of order during Questions. Now that it has been raised, may I say that I did not hear the word "hippy". Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker is a "square" and is not quite aware of all the connotations of some of the modern terms that are floating about. I am quite certain that whoever used the word was not accusing hon. Members on the Opposition benches of taking drugs, but was using it in a frivolous sense.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to delay the House, but perhaps I might draw your attention to the fact that the Dictionary of American Underworld Lingo clearly defines the term "hippy" as being someone dulled by many years of imprisonment.

I had hoped that we could proceed with the important business of the day.

asked the Minister of Transport what authority she has given for further investment by the Railways Board in cross-Channel ships.

My right hon. Friend has recently authorised the Board to spend £2,200,000 on the construction of a new multi-purpose vessel for the Dover-Dunkirk service.

While very much welcoming that reply, may I ask whether the Minister will impress upon the new Chairman of British Railways the urgent need to strengthen that section of British Railways management dealing with shipping services so that we can avoid a recurrence of what happened a few years ago when British Railways closed down the cross-Channel services from Southampton and an independent Norwegian firm stepped in and made a magnificent profit?

Of course, as my hon. Friend knows, this was a decision taken before our time.

Will the Minister save money by axing the absurd project of a Channel Tunnel?

That hardly arises from this Question.

asked the Minister of Transport what capital improvements are planned for ferry services to the Isle of Wight.

My right hon. Friend has recently approved an expenditure of £275,000 gross by British Railways on the construction of an additional passenger and vehicle ferry for the Portsmouth to Fishbourne service. For 1968, too, the Board plan to introduce H.M.2 hovercraft on the Isle of Wight service.

Would the Minister indicate when a start is to be made on this? Will it be in time to help relieve the pressing unemployment in some of our shipbuilding areas?

Yes. This proposal of British Railways was urgently considered, and they will place an order as soon as possible. There is a hope that the physical work will start this winter.

Will the Minisster also bear in mind that the railways have made heavy losses over the running of hovercraft in the Solent and should not be encouraged in continuing to make losses when they are already making a £150 million loss?

I have not got the figures with me, but I am sure everyone will welcome the innovation of hovercraft services which, obviously, are still in their experimental stage. We hope for great things from them.