asked the Minister of Transport what he estimates the total cost of running the British Railways, which is not covered by receipts from customers, will be this year.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the latest estimate of the British Railways deficit for 1968.

We still expect the Railway Board's deficit in 1968 to be contained within the £152 million on which the Vote Estimate is based.

I do not know whether that was the answer that I was hoping to get. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, as a result of the changes in the Transport Bill, the taxpayer will have to pay more or less money in future to maintain the railways and the rest of the transport system?

The hon. Gentleman asked what would be the deficit this year and I gave him the estimate of £152 million. The projected estimate given as a result of the Transport Bill is £55 million for socially necessary lines. If the hon. Gentleman wants more information, perhaps he will put down another Question.

Was not one of the purposes of introducing the Transport Bill to enable the deficit on the railways to be reduced? Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that this will not be achieved this year?

There is a later Question about that. The hon. Gentleman has the same trouble as his hon. Friend who asked about the deficit for 1968. We are not yet at the operative date of the Transport Bill when Questions on these lines may produce the information which hon. Members require.

asked the Minister of Transport how many motor rail services have now been provided by British Railways with a view to encouraging long-distance tourists to relieve congestion on trunk routes by conveying their cars by train over a major part of their journey.

I understand from British Rail that it now provides a total of 21 Motorail services.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a great potential in the service, and will he do all he can to encourage it?

It certainly has great potential. This is ultimately a matter for the commercial judgment of British Railways, which has extended the service this year. I am sure that it will look for opportunities for further extension of the service in the future.

What is the percentage capacity used on the service, and the percentage profitability on capital employed?

That is rather a lot to ask at short notice. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question I shall be delighted to ask British Railways for the figures for him.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a further statement regarding automatic half-barrier crossings on railways in built-up areas.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement on the result of the recent inquiries into the efficiency and safety of automatic level crossings.

I would ask the hon. Members to await the statement which I propose to make at the end of Questions tomorrow.

I look forward to that. In making the statement, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that whatever safety improvements may be introduced for such crossings in open country there remains very deep public anxiety about more of the crossings being installed in built-up areas, particularly in the vicinity of schools?

Is the Minister aware that it is two months since the inquiry completed its detailed considerations? Will he give an assurance that his statement tomorrow will consider the position of existing crossings as well as those which might or might not be constructed in the future?

The intention is to make a statement in the House and to publish the full report.

asked the Minister of Transport what proposals for main line electrification he has received from British Railways during the past year; and how many of these schemes he has approved.

We have received proposals for further investment on the main line to Glasgow, which we are considering.

When is it likely that the work will be put in hand?

It is rather early to say. It is a very complicated and very expensive form of investment, and discussions are going on between British Railways and the Ministry on the possible profitability and desirability of such an extension.

asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the value of the grants, subsidies, capital write-offs and other financial assistance contained in the Transport Bill, to the revenue account of British Railways in 1969 and 1970.

About £140 million in each year, inclusive of grants for un- remunerative passenger services and surplus track and signalling expenses, relief of interest and depreciation on capital to be written off, and the transfer of the Board's "sundries" activities to the National Freight Corporation.

Is this fair competition to the hauliers, bearing in mind that many hauliers in the South-West would like the same facilities and aid being given to British Railways? Will he do something to rectify this unjust competition?

No, Sir. With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. The figure of £140 million is not a direct subsidy from the taxpayer. It is a capital write-off which recognises that past investment has been unremunerative. The losses were made at the time of the investment.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Members on both sides of the House have asked for financial help to keep branch lines open in their constituencies, including the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills)?

When?

This has always been the problem. It seems to me right that when a nationalised industry is asked to undertake financial obligations for social purposes it should be financed separately from the normal revenue of the industry.

Does the Minister's reply mean that next year the cost of the railways to the taxpayer will be £140 million as against £150 million this year?

I am sorry to repeat it, but the hon. Gentleman totally misunderstands the position. The figure of £140 million is not a direct burden on the taxpayer. It is recognition of a loss-making capacity which was totally unrealistic, and if this debt were not written off the railways could never have got out of the position in which they have been for so long.

asked the Minister of Transport how many freight train derailments occurred in the 12th months ended 30th June, 1968; and what were the comparable figures in each of the previous five years.

Firm figures for 1968 are not yet available, but there were 284 freight train derailments in 1967. I will, with permission, circulate the comparable figures for earlier years in the OFFICIAL REPORT. TO put 1967 figures in proper perspective there was an average of about 3 freight train derailments per million freight train miles.

But is not this a most disturbing situation? Some of us are deeply disturbed that a very serious accident will happen, with the loss of lives, before long. Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to overcome this problem, perhaps by reducing the speed limit?

The speed limit has been reduced on two occasions. It was reduced from 55 m.p.h. to 45 m.p.h. between 1963 and 1966. The Chief Inspecting Officer of the railways has discussed at length the whole question of freight train derailments with the Railways Board and is satisfied with the steps which it is taking.

In order to avoid public anxiety arising from this Question, would my hon. Friend agree that British Railways are still the safest in the world and that the toll of deaths from accidents on the roads is teriffic compared with the toll on the railways?

I agree that British Railways are safer relatively than any other railway in the world. But that is no cause for complacency. If my hon. Friend and other hon. Members read the annual report of the Chief Inspecting Officer, they will see that the question of derailments is dealt with fully. The Chief Inspecting Officer is satisfied that the Railways Board is doing all that is necessary.

asked the Minister of Transport why the Deputy Chairman of British Railways has a higher salary than the Chairman, and to what extent it is his policy that the Financial Director should also have a higher salary than the Chairman.

Remuneration broadly similar to that received in his former employment is paid on a personal basis to one of the two Vice Chairmen of the Railways Board. This does not prejudice any future decisions about the salaries of present or future Board members that may result from the recent reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes of remuneration at the highest levels in the private sector and the nationalised industries.

Is not the present position quite topsy-turvy? On this basis should not the Minister exchange salaries with his Minister of State?

That is a course which had not previously occurred to me and one which I have no intention of pursuing. I think that it is recognised that the salaries of those in nationalised industries need to be reviewed and they are being reviewed. I do not think that this is an issue between the two sides of the House or that the blame lies solely on one side. I think that it is pretty fairly shared. It is important to get the best people that one can get to run industries of this size.

asked the Minister of Transport in view of the Government's prices and incomes policy, what estimate he has made of the additional cost to British Railways of the wage award offered to the unions; and how much of this will be recovered in increased productivity.

The British Railways Board estimate that the total cost of interim settlement reached at Penzance will be £860,000 up to 2nd September, 1968. As my right hon. Friend told the House on 8th July, this is £170,000 more than the cost of the Board's offer on 22nd June. From 2nd September the interim arrangements will be absorbed into the main pay and efficiency settlement.

Would not the Minister agree that this settlement was made under pressure from the Government? Does it not make a mockery of Government policy when concessions like this are made before productivity is guarantsed?

No. This settlement was not made under pressure from the Government. It was made between the Railways Board and the unions. My right hon. Friend has made clear on many occasions that it is going to be part of a productivity deal which will offer important prospects for British Railways.

asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the effect on the 1968 railway deficit of the go-slow which started in late June, 1968.

asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the economic and financial loss to the nation of the railway work to rule 1968, and associated labour disputes to date; and by how much he estimates the accounts of British Railways will additionally be in deficit arising from such disputes.

The work-to-rule cost the Railways Board about £3 million in net revenue. In industry generally a number of firms were inconvenienced, but the effect on exports and on the economy as a whole was negligible. The disruption of commuter services led to some small loss of output in London.

Is the Minister saying that there will be no increase in the deficit as a result of this? Is he not aware that very considerable inconvenience was caused and that, as the result of the settlement, it appears to have been a wasted effort on everybody's part.

Of course there was inconvenience cause, and I said there was inconvenience caused. I think that in some ways it may have been exaggerated. As for the railway deficit, except for the period of the dispute, the results so far this year are encouraging, and the Board and the Government are confident that the deficit rate will be contained within the estimate.

What is much more important is whether the Ministry is satisfied that the settlement reached with the railwaymen is likely to be a lasting settlement and that we are not going to have in a few months' time a repetition of holding commuters and others up to ransom, notably immediately prior to the holdiday periods?

Yes, obviously, the negotiations are very delicate, but there is every hope on the part of the Board and of the unions that an agreement can be reached, and we also hope, and have every reason to believe, that the agreement will be a once-for-all one and not a recurring phenomenon.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the railwaymen will be very glad that he used the term "work to rule" and not "go slow", because the railwaymen work to rules laid down by the railways and give a measure of productivity which continues all the time on the railways?

On the question of productivity, there is no doubt that the Board and the unions together over the last number of years have made great strides towards increasing productivity, and I hope that, following the discussions at Penzance, the negotiations which are taking place now will improve productivity on the railways.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a statement on the preliminary findings of the inquiry into the railway accident at Sandridge on 12th June.

asked the Minister of Transport what were the findings of the inquiry into the fires which caused a fatal accident in a train at Sandridge on the St. Pancras-Bedford line on 12th June last; and if he will make a statement.

The cause of the accident was a total seizure of a gear-box as a result of lack of lubrication. This led to the failure of a universal joint, which ruptured the main fuel tank. The fire which resulted spread rapidly along the underside of the two rear vehicles, but did not penetrate into the passenger accommodation. The inspecting officer, who held the public inquiry on 2nd July, will complete and publish his report as soon as possible. Meanwhile I understand that the British Railways Board has decided to withdraw all vehicles of this type from this busy route as soon as this can be arranged.

I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that these two-car Craven units will be withdrawn. He will remember that I asked him to withdraw them some weeks ago and that he then refused—

Order. The hon. Member must ask a question.

How is it that the Minister will now withdraw them whereas he was not prepared to withdraw them at an earlier date?

The problem is that the vehicles on this route have to be built to work over the City widened lines to Moorgate, where clearances are restricted. There are a limited number of vehicles which could be used on this service, but the problem is being studied by British Rail as a matter of urgency.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents are becoming very disturbed indeed at the increasing number of fires on this line and that the Transport Users' Consultative Committee has unanimously demanded an independent inquiry to report to Parliament? Will he say why, in the new design, the number of doors has been reduced from 20 to four?

Because there was a great deal of interest in the matter, I should have liked to make an interim statement before the report was published, but I must ask hon. Members to await the publication of the full report in which the whole argument is discussed.

asked the Minister of Transport what advice was given to motorists by his Department at the commencement of the rail go-slow concerning the parking of vehicles in the controlled parking zones in Central London.

Responsibility for traffic arrangements lay with the Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis and City. In support of their advice to motorists my right hon. Friend issued a Press notice on 27th June reiterating advice on parking and showing the area in which parking meter charges were suspended.

Was there not some ambiguity in that many people parked at residents' meters without realising that they were not in a free zone although other meter bays were? Will he ask the police to exercise their discretion with the utmost sympathy towards anyone who has been summoned because of this?

The police were asked to exercise their discretion and I think that they did so, but I will certainly look into that. There was no ambiguity in the advice which my right hon. Friend gave in his Press notice.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he has taken, in suitable cases, to provide on roads for which he is responsible or to ensure that road authorities provide in other cases, traffic lanes reserved for omnibuses so as to speed up public passenger traffic in towns.

The volume of bus traffic on trunk roads is generally not high enough to justify bus lanes. In respect of principal and other roads we have advised local authorities that in preparing their traffic and transport plans they should consult bus operators and incorporate such measures as are needed to help public transport.

Whilst I appreciate that there are a number of instances of traffic lanes for omnibuses in London and elsewhere, does the hon. Gentleman agree that some countries, particularly Sweden and Holland, use them much more than we do? Perhaps he would keep this well in mind.

A number of local authorities are acting on this. I have a list of 11 local authorities which have put the proposal into operation, and I should be glad to supply the hon. Gentleman with a copy. Many more are considering it. I am sure that it is a measure that will be increasingly adopted.

asked the Minister of Transport what stage has been reached in his review of the operation of the 30 miles per hour statutory speed limit.

The Department recently published a Green Paper on speed limit policy which suggests that the speed limit for most roads in densely built-up areas should remain at 30 m.p.h. However, it also describes several types of urban road where a higher limit would not be detrimental to safety. These ideas will be thoroughly discussed during consultation.

Whilst I am grateful for the publication of the very useful discussion paper, would my hon. Friend agree not to be bound by the conclusions, and to accept that the 30 m.p.h. limit is violated in so many instances, and the law brought into so much disrepute, that the limit needs to be amended in a good many cases?

There are no conclusions; the purpose of the Green Paper is to have discussions, and we shall then reach our conclusions. I could not agree that the 30 m.p.h. limit should be abolished altogether, certainly not at present, because there is a high level of accidents to pedestrians and cyclists in urban areas.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the biggest problems is adequate enforcement, that the Green Paper is very disappointing on criteria, and that there should be absolute clarity as to the limit to be enforced?

Irrespective of what limits we might care to impose, the police could never watch all of them all the time. It would not be sensible for them to attempt to do so. The right answer is to say precisely what we hope to do following the discussions on the Green Paper: to have the right limit which motorists will want to obey.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied with the operation and reliability of the emergency warning lights on the Ml and M45 motorways; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir, not entirely. Some time ago the emergency warning hazard signals were modified so that the police could switch them on or off from their vehicles without having to stop. Recently we have found that some of these signals, particularly on Ml, have been switched on and off by interference from air-borne electronic equipment. We are currently making investigations to eliminate this problem.

Is the Minister aware that in my experience the lights are flashing so often when there is no emergency that there is a real danger that motorists will ignore them when there is an emergency?

We are acutely aware of this problem, and that is why we are now taking remedial action.

asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has to simplify the procedure and reduce the number of statutory agreements to be fulfilled before a motorway can be constructed.

Some simplifications of the procedure have been introduced over the past year. Further substantial improvements would require legislation, on which I would refer to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) on 19th June.— [Vol. 766, c. 1077].

Does the Minister agree that existing procedures are now totally out of date? Would not it be better if more generous compensation were paid to owners and there were less opportunity of objecting?

I am not sure that we can arrive at that conclusion until Parliament has had every opportunity of considering the matter. Important questions are raised here about the right of individuals and local authorities to object to highway schemes. It is a highly controversial matter which will no doubt be considered by Parliament in the near future.

asked the Minister of Transport by what date all road signs in Great Britain will conform to a standard pattern.

Most regulatory signs were converted by the end of 1967 and the remainder will be converted by the end of this year. My right hon. Friend hopes soon to consult representative organisations about terminal dates for conversion of the other signs.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential in the interests of safety that signs should conform to a standard pattern as early as possible? Would he say something about the Minister's statement last week about the possibility of using kilometre road restriction signs and their cost?

We recognise the need for rapid conversion, which arises from the possible consfusion caused by differing systems of signing, on road safety grounds, better traffic flow grounds, and so on. I cannot recall my right hon. Friend saying anything last week about the metric system.

asked the Minister of Transport what will be the total number of miles of motorway completed by 1st January, 1969, 1970 and 1971, respectively.

For England and Wales the target figures are about 550, 600 and over 700 miles respectively.

By what year in the 1970s does the Minister of State hope that 1,000 miles of motorway will be completed, because the phrase "the early seventies" has always been used? Can he give a more precise date?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate all the problems connected with statutory processes and other such matters. For example, recently a portion of the M4 has been set back on account of the incidence of foot-and-mouth disease. It is very difficult to make such forecasts. In 1970 we hope to have completed over 700 miles and to have more than 200 miles under construction. Therefore, when talking about "the early 1970s" perhaps I should be so bold as to say "before 1973".

asked the Minister of Transport in view of the fact that one of the newly constructed oil refineries in the Immingham area will soon be serving 400 tankers a day, up to 6,000 gallons each, and at the peak period over one tanker per minute, and that other new refineries will soon be in production, if he will now authorise the enlargement and strengthening of the main road to the Doncaster by-pass, and the bridge over the River Trent.

Widening is in progress on lengths of the A.18 and A.160 and proposals for further widening on the A.18 and an extension of the M.18 are included in the forward programme. Other proposals for this route, including a new bridge over the Trent, are contained in the trunk road preparation pool.

In view of the fact that another great refinery will soon be coming into operation and that Immingham is likely to become a second Rotterdam, will he not give very high priority to a trunk road leading to Doncaster so that the oil traffic can get to the Midlands?

The length of the trunk road between Thome and Scun-thorpe will be substantially improved by proposals announced in the second instalment of the trunk road preparation pool in April this year. One of these includes provision of a new bridge over the Trent at Keadby and the alternative of the present rail-road bridge which has recently been strengthened and resurfaced. This is as far as we can go at this time.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the great need for improvement of all road and rail links in Humberside and that the overwhelming priority must be given to the Thorne canal bridge and Thorne by-pass?

I believe there is another Question on the Paper on the Thorne by-pass section which is scheduled to start in 1970.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the capital value of trunk road projects to be commenced in the financial year 1968–69; what percentage increase this represents compared with the financial year 1964–65; and what was the comparable percentage increase in the four-year period ended 1963–64.

Authorisations in respect of new construction and improvements of motorways and trunk roads in England and Wales should total about £220 million in 1968–69, an increase of about 104 per cent. over the total authorisations issued in 1964–65 in respect of new construction and major improvements. The total authorisations for the four years are expected to exceed £750 million. The increase between 1959–60 and 1963–64 was 118 per cent. when the total new construction and major improvements authorised by the previous Administration over the four years came to only £394 million.

Is not the trend completely in the wrong direction, and what are the Government doing to reverse that trend for the future?

No. Decidedly not. I do not accept this at all. The contemplated level of expenditure on new construction and improvements in 1968–69 is about four times the expenditure of 1959–60 and twice as great as the 1963–64 figure.

asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the anxiety among residents, whether he has now reached a decision as to the siting of the D-ring road so far as it affects the Borough of Harrow.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement on the route of the D-ring road.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to make a further statement about the London D-ring road proposals so far as they affect the constituency of the hon. Member for Ealing, North.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now able to make a statement about the proposals for the D-ring road so far as they affect the constituency of the hon. Member for Harrow, East.

I cannot yet add to the reply given on this subject on 2nd July.— [Vol. 767, c. 221–2.]

Is the Minister aware that the people of Harrow will be very disappointed by that reply as they have been in a state of anxiety for a very long time? Will he explain why he cannot adopt the recommendations of nearly all the local authorities concerned? Will he confirm that he has had their recommendations? When does he expect to reach a decision on a matter which is causing great anxiety to the people of Harrow?

The hon. Member will appreciate that a number of people are involved. There are the local authorities to whom he referred—the five boroughs who commissioned the Buchanan Report on the subject; there is the Greater London Council, who have primary responsibility in the matter; and we, too, are concerned in respect of grants. He will appreciate that all concerned have to discuss the points raised in the Buchanan Report submitted by the five boroughs concerned. I appreciate the concern about this matter. We are processing it as rapidly as possible. In the meantime, the Greater London Council has announced that it is prepared to buy owner-occupied property which is affected by blight or to consider any measures to alleviate hardship.

While I recognise that this matter has been under discussion since Professor Abercrombie was in vogue in 1944 and that my right hon. Friend has shown more activity about it than his predecessors showed, may I ask my hon. Friend to recognise that my constituents look for a very early decision, particularly if that decision throws out the G.L.C. scheme? To what extent has the decision been delayed by consideration of the report which has been prepared on behalf of the five local councils?

Of course it has been delayed. We quite deliberately took the decision, on account of the representations made by the boroughs, to permit them to commission consultants—Professor Buchanan and his partners—in order to make a study, and to permit them to make their comments on the G.L.C. proposals. We deliberately allowed that, and it delayed the consideration of the scheme. That was inevitable. Some weeks ago we received the report, which is being discussed among ourselves, the G.L.C. and the boroughs, and we shall endeavour to reach an agreement and to announce proposals as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Transport when he will authorise the planned A41 by-passes from Kings Lang-ley to Tring.

The scheme was included in the first preparation pool announced in February, 1967. Preparatory work is now fairly well advanced and we hope to publish the draft Order to establish the line of the road by mid-1969.

When will the Minister authorise the road itself? We have known the line of the road for a long time. What we need is the road, because we have a heavy congestion of lorries passing through a series of built-up areas, which makes it very dangerous to the local residents. When shall we have the scheme itself?

When the early preparation work is finished, the timing of the start will depend on when funds are available for trunk road schemes and when the scheme has the necessary priority compared with other trunk road schemes. Thereafter, progress could depend on the statutory processes and on the objections made to the proposals, if any objections are made.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a further statement on the Dovercourt by-pass for traffic by-passing Dovercourt High Street en route to Harwich dock yard.

The proposed new road from Ramsey to Parkeston Road is already in the preparation list of principal road schemes. I assume the hon. Mem- ber refers to its continuation eastwards into Harwich.

When the Essex County Council, which is the highway authority responsible, is ready to begin preparatory work on this second stage of the by-pass we shall consider including it in our preparation list.

Does not the Minister agree that this road should be given every priority as it is a road to a very important port?

The question of priority is a question for the Essex Council, which is the highway authority.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of improvement to east-west road communications from the City of Kingston upon Hull.

On the route running due west from Hull, the M62 is expected to be completed from Lancashire to Ferrybridge on the A1 by the end of 1972. Proposals to extend it to Gilberdyke on the A63 were included in the trunk road preparation pool in February, 1967, and are at present at a preliminary stage. Work is expected to start on the Elloughton by-pass on A63 in the autumn of 1969. A possible diversion of the trunk road in Selby is being investigated.

In addition there are schemes for improving the route in a south-westerly direction towards Doncaster.

Do these improvements include the approaches to the Humber Bridge?

As we have said, that is taken into account in the elaboration of this very important and extensive network which my right hon. Friend has programmed.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that, because of its geographical position, Hull is the most isolated of the major ports? Will he not, therefore, accept that there is a need, at the earliest possible moment, for a first-class exit to the West, to the A1?

What my hon. Friend said may be the position which we inherited from the past, but it will not be the position when my right hon. Friend's programme has been carried out.

Despite the promise made at Hull in the General Election, will the. Minister resist the pressure for a Humber bridge and, instead, build roads in and out of the ports on the Humber, because we in Lincolnshire do not want the whole of the road traffic from Yorkshire?

My right hon. Friend will consider this matter in the light of the consultants' report but, whatever his prejudice, the hon. Member will be bound to acknowledge that we have programmed a most elaborate and extensive network to improve communications around Hull.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that, although we recognise the importance of roads on both sides of the Humber, there is a definite need for a bridge across the Humber and that the Government are committed to the building of such a bridge? Is he aware that we on Humberside look forward to an early statement on the building of the bridge?

As my hon. Friend knows, this matter is connected with other prospects for development on which we are awaiting the report of the consultants. The matter will be decided and announced by my right hon. Friend when we receive that report. In the meantime we are going ahead with investment totalling many millions of £s to improve communications to and from Hull.

asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in his discussions with local authorities on the proposal that they should assume responsibility for the scheme for training learner motor-cyclists which is now operated by the Royal Automobile Club/Auto-Cyclist Union; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for the training of learner motor-cyclists in the light of the recent report on this subject.

Further discussions with local authorities associations on this are planned for next week.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the report of the working party with its constructive suggestions was published a year ago and that four months ago I was told in answer to a Question that discussions with local authorities were complete? As the existing organisation providing this training is running at a loss, despite the grant it receives, is it not time that there were some signs of progress?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, but he will understand that there are many local authorities and that we wanted to give them the opportunity to express their views in writing. We have only recently collected all their views. I can assure him that there will now be no delay in proceeding with the discussions.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to ensure that portable red reflecting road accident prevention triangles which do not comply with the relevant British Standards specification are not used on public roads.

We have no evidence of non-complying triangles causing danger.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are triangles on sale which can be blown over or blown round in a breeze and therefore give no protection but merely a false sense of security? Is it not ridiculous to allow the import of triangles which do not comply with the standards which we require?

We are working to international standards for these triangles and it would be wrong to anticipate any change.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce regulations to ensure that private cars are provided with a means of keeping clear their rear windows, so that inside driving mirrors are of greater assistance to drivers in observing overtaking traffic.

The United Kingdom is participating in discussions on this in the Economic Commission for Europe. My right hon. Friend will make a decision in the light of the outcome of these discussions.

But I hope that something can be done about this soon. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the most vulnerable parts of a car are the side panels, and that many fatal accidents result from a car pulling out and being struck a glancing blow by an overtaking car? Surely something can be done to prevent such accidents by insisting on provisions for clearing the back window of a car, so that the inside mirror can be of some use?

It is true that rear vision for the driver is essential, but this can already be achieved in a variety of ways. We do not consider that this is a matter of such urgency that we need to anticipate international action. We shall consider it again in the light of possible international regulations.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement about the agreement with the Motor Insurers Bureau in relation to compensation for victims of hit-and-run accidents.

I regret that the hope expressed in reply to the hon. Member on 19th June has not yet been fulfilled. Progress has been made in discussions with the Bureau, and we are still hopeful that remaining points of difficulty will be resolved, but until then we are not in a position to make a statement.

Why has there been such a delay, particularly since negotiations have been going on for more than two years? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no difficulties have arisen over the appeal procedure, which is absolutely vital to the satisfactory working of any arrangement?

I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment, but it takes two parties to negotiate and we cannot dictate to the Bureau. There are outstanding difficulties on points of complex detail which are too lengthy to give at the Despatch Box.

Is the Minister aware that there is very real anxiety over the delay in completing the negotiations? I recognise that there are two sides to them, but every week that passes without their being completed very real human hardship is caused.

I recognise that, but I remind hon. Members that the Bureau is always willing to consider representations, and victims benefit greatly from present arrangements. Over £1¼ million has been paid out since 1946.

asked the Minister of Transport how many letters and other representations he has received to date on the Transport Bill; and what percentage of these letters were, in general, opposed to the legislation.

We have received a great many representations about the Bill. They reflect a wide range of views on its merits.

But since so much opposition to the Bill has consisted of politically-inspired circulars displaying profound misunderstanding of certain of the proposals without any reasoned criticisms of the policy, I see no point in attempting an analysis of all the letters received.

As the Minister has not answered the Question, can he possibly answer this supplementary question? To what extent has he had representations from the fishing and agriculture industries, and what are their reactions to the proposals?

It is quite true that there have been representations from different bodies which have been worried about some of the misleading statements made about the Bill and from groups such as fishing and agricultural organisations, particularly in Scotland. The replies have stated the conditions imposed in the Bill, of which the hon. Gentleman should be aware, to the effect that, if it is more costly and more inconvenient to the consignor, the railways will not be given the job.

In view of the importance of this piece of legislation, is it not essential that we should know the number of objections received which have been based on factual knowledge of the Bill?

This is extremely difficult, because some letters praise parts of the Bill and express worry about other parts. It is not simple to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests. I should say at a guess that my predecessor and myself have received 5,000 to 8,000 letters on the Bill, but it is very difficult to make an assessment of the number of those completely against, those completely for and the very large mass in the middle which are either ill-informed or approve of some; parts of the Bill.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a great many of the letters which Members have received have been based on completely wrong assumptions of how the Bill will operate? Is he further aware that leading members of the Opposition Front Bench have visited certain constituencies and conveyed misleading and wrong information, which has certainly multiplied the number of letters?

My hon. Friend served on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill a bit longer than I did and heard the sort of statements which were made. It should not be any surprise to him that certain Members have been going round the country making even more misleading statements.

rose—

Order. The debate is over.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when visiting some constituencies, particularly in Scotland, we find not only the letter writers but those whom we meet are against the Bill?

My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have travelled to Scotland quite a bit and seem to have met a quite different group of people.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Transport if it is his policy to require all goods vehicles which come within the scope of quantity licensing to be fitted with tachographs.

All goods vehicles over 30 cwt. unladen weight will, unless exempted, have to be fitted with tachographs. The requirement will therefore apply to vehicles subject to quantity licensing.

By what date does the Minister of State expect all vehicles to be fitted with tachographs?

I cannot say at the moment. It depends on the supply position. This matter is now under discussion. We will proceed with the programme as rapidly as possible.

How does the Minister of State propose that the legislation will be enforced if tachographs are not fitted to vehicles?

We have had legislation for a long time on such things as drivers' hours without having tachographs. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain how during the last 30 years that legislation has been enforced. This is a matter for the police. We said during the debates on the Transport Bill that we thought that the installation of tachographs was an important new enforcement measure to get a higher degree of respect for the law.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) what is the latest estimate of the cost of nationalising the docks;

(2) if it is still his policy to proceed with legislation to nationalise the docks.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement about the Government's intentions with regard to the nationalisation of the ports.

As I stated on 19th June, the Government's decision to extend public ownership in the ports stands. Detailed proposals, which will take account of the consultations we have had and include proposals as to compensation, will be announced as soon as possible.—[Vol. 766, c. 1100.]

Is this yet another version of the menu without prices? Is it not time that the country was given a much clearer indication of what this will cost; and, if so, how can the Government possibly justify expenditure on this scale at this late stage in the decline of their reputation?

As the hon. Gentleman is not aware of what the scale of the expenditure is, I do not know why he is getting so heated about it at this stage. The organisation of the port industry is a very complicated one and the problems are very great. That is one of the reasons why it is important to take the ports into public ownership and why it is taking a long time to work out the best way.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that as already so much expenditure in our ports is public expenditure a great deal of the compensation that is to be given is to be given only to those who actually use the men in discharging the cargo? As dockers are not yet slaves, the amount of compensation is not likely to be all that great.

My hon. Friend is right to draw a distinction between public ownership in this field and public ownership in, for example, the steel industry. Much of the investment is already public investment.

Is the Minister aware that the National Ports Council, the Confederation of British Industry, and virtually every user organisation connected with the ports are unanimously opposed to the nationalisation of the ports? Why, therefore, does he give this such a priority?

Everybody accepts a very heavy degree of public ownership in the ports industry. This has been so for many years. The hon. Gentleman is being unusually doctrinaire on this issue.

asked the Minister of Transport by what date he now expects that the network of goods vehicle testing stations will be fully operational.

By 1st October in England and Wales and 1st December in Scotland.

I welcome the fact that there will not be another postponement of this scheme. How far has the Minister progressed in the recruitment of manpower for the testing stations? By what date will all classes of vehicles be covered?

The hon. Gentleman obviously knows that we have had difficulties in the recruitment of manpower, but we are making steady progress. He is right to state that there is no intention to have any further postponement. Therefore, in spite of the fact that we are to have a three-months' delay because of the Minister's decision to make the postponement, we shall adhere to the original timetable announced at the time of the passage of the Road Safety Act.

asked the Minister of Transport what consultations he has had with British car manufacturers about a safety standards code; and if he will make a statement.

Discussion between the Ministry and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders about the introduction of new safety features in British made vehicles is a continuing process. The latest development is that described in my right hon. Friend's reply on 8th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson).—[Vol. 764, c. 74.]

In view of the United States experience over the introduction of a code, does the Minister of State still consider the introduction of a code in Britain desirable? Does not sufficient machinery already exist for the setting down of safety standards?

The position here is somewhat different on account of the Construction and Use Regulations which we have been issuing for very many years. My right hon. Friends have been taking continuously the initiative in the Economic Commission for Europe to try to get standard practices in Europe, and in that regard to take into account the American safety code. In this process we are working towards notification ourselves.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the progress which has been made in the Channel Tunnel project.

asked the Minister of Transport when he now estimates that the Channel Tunnel will be completed.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to announce a decision as to which of the private consortia submitting proposals for the financing and construction of the Channel Tunnel is to be selected for finalising this aspect of the project; and whether, in view of the tendency of construction costs to rise, he will take action to accelerate his decision.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is yet in a position to state which of the three groups tendering for the construction of the Channel Tunnel has been chosen; and when the tunnel is likely to be started and finished.

The French Minister of Transport and I have been considering the proposals of the three private groups and I expect that we shall very soon make a joint statement of progress and intentions. I regret that it has not in the event proved possible to time that statement for announcement to the House today but it will, I hope, lead to an agreement with a selected financing group by the end of the year. On this basis, and if the resulting studies confirm the case for the tunnel, it should be possible to complete construction by 1976.

I am glad that the Minister has been able to give this information. Can he estimate when the decision on whether or not to construct a tunnel will be taken?

There is a good deal of work to be done. Inevitably, our French colleagues have been somewhat preoccupied of late with other matters, though this has not been a major factor. It is also a United Kindgom problem in that we are seeking to reconcile public and private participation in this venture and at the same time work together with the French. It is a complex job, but, as I have said many times, before a decision is taken to go ahead with the tunnel there will be a major debate in the House.

As this matter has been going for at least 12 years under intensive study, can the Minister give an assurance that, if it is possible, he will announce the result before the end of the Recess?

I certainly hope that we shall be able to approve an announcement in a very short time.

Although we understand that the Minister had hoped to be able to give a definite answer today, and whilst fully appreciating that the French situation is a tricky one, can we be certain that before the Recess is over the Minister will make a public statement? Will he tell us how he will make it so that we can discuss it in some form?

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that it was unwise for one to be certain about anything in this place above all others. I would certainly hope to be able to make a statement on this next stage in the course of the Recess, presumably by just making a public announcement. In all fairness, this is not purely a question of difficulties which the French have experienced. It is a very complicated exercise with very large stakes involved.

Bearing in mind the answers given to Question No. 24, is the Minister satisfied that he has his priorities right?

It is not a question of priorities. It is important to have a transport system which enables people to move rapidly around Britain and which transports people and goods in and out of Britain.

asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the additional burden in local rates which will be carried by residents in local authorities covered by passenger transport authorities in the year 1970 in consequence of the provisions of the Transport Bill relating to public transport reorganisation.

Any cost to the rates of public transport in these areas will depend on the policies of the passenger transport authorities concerned. We cannot estimate something that will depend on local decisions.

Is the Minister aware that Government policy in several fields is having the effect of shifting the burden of taxation from central Government to local authorities and that it is important for the local authorities to know what this burden is? Will he get out an estimate in this case as soon as he can?

No. I cannot agree with that. The Transport Bill, as I think the hon. and gallant Member will be aware, provides several new forms of financial assistance for public transport, such as bus replacement grant, capital grant, rural bus subsidy, and so on. These will be available, of course, to the passenger transport authorities. Whether they decide to run services at a loss or not is a matter, as we said, for local decisions. Therefore, we cannot estimate what the results will be.

asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of providing compensation to redundant railwaymen in the five-year period commencing 1st January, 1969, and to lorry drivers made redundant as a result of the provisions of the Transport Bill.

Until the National Freight Corporation and other new bodies have been set up it is not possible to make a reliable estimate of costs likely to fall on British Railways or other authorities under Clause 130 of the Bill, which provides for compensation for loss of employment or worsening of position as a direct result of certain transfers or reorganisations under the Bill. The new licensing provisions in the Bill are not expected to reduce the number of driving jobs in the road haulage industry, as the industry will continue to grow.

Would the Minister not accept that there is a great deal of concern, and that his optimism that the numbers of jobs for long distance lorry drivers will not diminish is not shared elsewhere? If he is prepared to accept compensation for railwaymen, will he not accept the same principle for long distance lorry drivers?

No, the whole principle of the Bill and the quantity licensing provisions in it were based on the fact that we believe that the road haulage industry will continue to grow. We think it will grow up to 1975 by something over 10 per cent. and that there will be no difficulty in the lorry drivers getting jobs and no possibility of redundancies.

Is the Minister not aware that the effect of quantity licensing could be that in certain localities, when quantity licensing has become effective, there will be considerable redundancy of long distance lorry drivers? What will happen in those localities?

The hon. Gentleman knows that this was discussed at great length and he also knows that quantity licensing will come into effect only gradually and that any transfer of traffic to the railways will be more than offset by the total growth of the haulage industry.

Has my hon. Friend taken account of the condition that where freightliner trains are operating already the result may be that some long distance lorry drivers will be transferred to short distance work?

Of course, there may be a change in patterns of work, but the total tons mileage of the road haulage industry, as everyone concerned is well aware, is expected to increase over the next few years.

asked the Minister of Transport what salary is to be paid to the Chairman of the National Freight Corporation.

This has not yet been decided.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement about the appeal notices, under Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, concerning the recent increase in bus fares of between 30 and 40 per cent. in North-East Essex.