asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on his intentions as regards the 50, 60 and 70 mph speed limits.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on his intentions as regards the 50 and 60 mph speed limits.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now abandon the 50 mph speed limit imposed during the oil crisis.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy—the hon. Member for White-haven (Dr. Cunningham)—told the House last week that the Government intend to circulate a consultation document seeking the views of representative organisations on the national 60 mph and 50 mph speed limits. The decision on the future level of limits will be taken when the consultation is complete. In the meantime, the present limits will be renewed for a further six months. I have no present plans to review the 70 mph limit on motorways.

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and thank him for that reply. Does he not agree that there is grave confusion about the speed limits, that many motorists do not know the limits for the road on which they are travelling, and that the police are finding it extremely—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking a question. Will he please come to the point?

Is the Minister aware that the police are not finding it easy to enforce the law, and will he do everything possible to expedite the review and change the existing limits?

I agree that some people do not know the limits. Nevertheless, compliance remains extremely high, and in July this year 81 per cent. of people were observing the law on the 50 mph limit. None the less, I take the general point that in the consultation procedure we must consider whether people are willing to take account of the law. I am anxious that we must not put motorists in a position in which they are overburdened by rules and regulations of which they are only hazily aware.

Since the speed limits involved were introduced only as emergency measures, why does the Minister not abolish them now, since the original reasons have disappeared?

The original reasons have not disappeared. Petrol is more readily available than it was at an earlier period, but it is still expensive, and by these measures we are making substantial savings on our balance of payments. None the less, we think that there is a case for abandoning them, and that is why we are embarking on the consultation procedures.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the tragic accidents, many of them fatal, that occur regularly on the A74? Rather than abolish these speed limits will he ensure that drivers adhere to them?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. This subject has a road safety content, and is not purely a matter of energy saving. He will be interested to know that on 50 mph and 60 mph limit roads the accident rate, as a result of these limitations, has improved by 10 per cent. I assure him that I am fully cognisant of the point that he makes.

How can the Minister say that 81 per cent. of drivers are observing the speed limits? Since the Department, the motoring organisations and other interested bodies must by now have marshalled all their arguments, will he now seek to cut the consultation time to about three months? How many months' consultation was there before the order was imposed?

We should like to cut down the period concerned. The period of six months is the maximum, but if the process can be completed at a faster rate, all well and good. The reason why I quoted a figure of 81 per cent. was that it was the proportion that came out of a sample survey in July.

Is the Minister saying that he regards as satisfactory a situation in which 19 per cent. of motorists ignore the speed limits? Is that the Government's standard for what is desirable or acceptable in obeying the law?

It is about the level of compliance that has been observed the whole time. It is very good when applied to the general area of speed limits.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to meet the leaders of the rail unions; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, I have met them informally already and I plan to meet them again soon.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the rail unions, will he tell them that the Government's consultative document is now discredited, as a result of the passage of time, and that several Ministers have refused to debate the issues involved? Will he give them a guarantee that in future under his guidance there will be full consultation before any other documents are produced dealing with the future of the railways? Will he also give a guarantee that, within that policy, there will be an effort to hold down rail fares?

I take note of my hon. Friend's soft and persuasive words, but he is a little unfair to the document to which he refers, which was not my direct responsibility. It was a consultative document, supported by a consultative process, and there was a great deal of written evidence. I am seeing a number of the bodies which submitted evidence. I hope that we shall arrive at a policy that makes sense, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to approve it.

When the new Chairman of British Rail was appointed he said that one ultimate objective was a reduction in manning by a figure of 40,000. Is that objective shared by the unions?

I do not think I can discuss matters that are really very much for the Chairman of British Railways, with all his responsibilities. I hope very much that the unions and management will get together to try to solve some of the problems of which the House is fully aware.

Will my right hon. Friend take on board very seriously the question of railway fares? Will he accept from all of us who travel regularly on the railways—in fact, most of us do so—that if fares go up much more it will begin to look like a plot to get rid of the British Rail system? We are all aware that if there is a threat to strike for even half a day the whole country is plunged into chaos. Will my right hon. Friend take note of that and consider putting fares down for once, instead of putting them up?

What my hon. Friend says is plausible. I have a great deal of sympathy with him and with all those who travel by rail and have to pay higher fares. However, if the necessary revenue is not raised in fares it must be paid in subsidy. If it is paid in subsidy, the burden falls upon the taxpayer or ratepayer. There is no way round that, unless services are cut. It is a difficult dilemma. I share my hon. Friend's view that we should try to reach a level of proper stability.

First, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post. I must warn him that he has taken over at a time when rail commuters face a crisis. Does he realise that over the past few years rail fares have doubled? The major reason for that has been the Government's failure to tackle inflation early enough. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the long-term solution must lie in controlling inflation and making improvements within British Rail?

I share the hon. Gentleman's view about the need to control inflation. That is at the heart of the Government's economic policy. However, whether or not rail commuters are facing large fare increases, we cannot get away from the fact that the revenue comes in fares or in subsidy. If we are to hold down fares, we shall have to increase public expenditure. I understood that the Opposition were not in favour of increasing public expenditure; on the contrary, they want to cut it still further.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration is being given to establishing an integrated road and railway transport system; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will now make a statement on the transport consultation document.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will now make a statement on the transport consultation document.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish a White Paper on transport policy.

Over 1,000 comments have been received on the transport policy consultation document and I have now begun a programme of oral hearings with the principal organisations to explore their views more fully. I hope to publish a policy statement, probably in the form of a White Paper, in the spring of next year.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. When he has considered the representations that he has received on the consultation document, will he consider suggesting, in a White Paper, the setting up of a National Transport Council, as outlined in the consultation document, its terms of reference being to integrate the road and rail systems? Will he bear in mind that if we had an integrated road and rail system some of the heavy freight traffic that is now carried in juggernaut lorries on highly congested roads could be taken on to the underused railways, and that that would be a far more effective and efficient system for the country?

My hon. Friend puts his finger on a number of important aspects of the consultation document, on which, as I have said, we have already received evidence and which we are now discussing with some of those who made particular points to us. I cannot possibly start to make policy-type statements now, tomorrow, or very soon. The important thing is to consider all these matters thoroughly. I hope that it will be possible to devise a formula by which we shall have stability for the whole transport industry for 10 years, 15 years, or perhaps even to the end of the century.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a delay until the spring is not good enough, bearing in mind that British Rail has already proposed to put up fares again in the spring? Some of my constituents will then face fares of over £400 a year to get to work. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the social and economic problems that this causes in a town like Reading?

I appreciate the social and economic problems that affect all those who are obliged to pay sharply rising fares. I do not wish to underrate that problem. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will reflect that if we are to make the right policy decisions, and if we are to have the consultation on which I have already been pressed today, the period of a year from the publication of the consultation document to the publication of a White Paper is not really a very long time.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of his right hon. and hon. Friends welcome the lengthy period of consultation that he is going through, but regard the proposed substantial increase in fares in the meantime as pre-empting his policy options? Is lie aware that as recently as May British Rail indicated that many passengers had stopped travelling by rail as a result of the fares increase, and that any further increase in passengers leaving rail and going on to the roads would be bound to increase subsidies and increase the cost of the road programme?

I am anxious not to preempt any of the options that I may have. For that reason I shall be less forthcoming that I might otherwise have chosen to be in making announcements in the meantime. I must put it to my hon. Friend that these are difficult decisions for management. It is a question of finding a balance, and this must be found within the public expenditure figures that are clearly set out in the White Paper that was published early this year. It will be hard enough for me to defend the existing rail subsidy; there can be no question whatever of increasing it.

Contrary to the answer that the right hon. Gentleman gave to the previous Question, does he accept that an integrated road-rail system would help to keep fares at a sensible level? Will he publish a summary of the representations that have already been made to him on the consultation document?

I have considered whether to publish a summary, but it would be very difficult to carry out. I think that most of those who submitted evidence have published it themselves, which they were entitled to do. I think that any summary I made would be open to argument, and would probably be as much condemned as the consultation document was by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the unsatisfactory features of the consultative document was the bad way in which waterways were described and treated? Will he assure the House that his review will include a review of the capital funding of common roadways and common waterways, which at the moment are not on a similar basis?

Alas, waterways were omitted from the responsibilities that I inherited rather over a month ago. However, I take my hon. Friend's point and shall consult accordingly.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there would be an integrated system in Wales and increased prosperity and efficiency for rail and road services if we had a Welsh National Transport Board? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is still an urgent necessity?

I note the hon. Gentleman's special pleading. I do not complain, but I do not believe we shall solve these problems by inventing boards and authorities to take on the responsibilities of decision-making, which I think is properly the role of Government and Parliament.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he will not delay the rebuilding or improvement programme for strategic roads, especially those serving the ports, while awaiting any formal integrated policy for transport?

I shall delay no necessary decisions, but, equally, I shall keep my options open.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had since taking office on the subject of road safety.

We have had several informal consultations on road safety and we have also started a programme of formal consultations with a wide range of bodies on transport policy in general. Road safety is one of the subjects discussed in these consultations.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the judgment of previous Transport Ministers that up to three lives a day could be saved by the introduction of compulsory seat belt wearing? If so, why have the Government allowed the seat belt legislation to collapse?

The Government have not allowed the seat belt legislation to collapse. It is our intention to press ahead, if we possibly can, at the earliest possible opportunity.

Will my hon. Friend reconsider the advice given by his Department to county authorities on the rationalisation of speed limits? Is he aware that in many rural areas people are extremely disturbed when they find that 30 m.p.h. limits are raised to 40 m.p.h. or 50 m.p.h. without, in their opinion, due care for the safety of themselves and their children?

I take my hon. Friend's point. I think that the criteria for fixing speed limits are fairly clear, but I hope that we shall be able to make more progress on that issue.

As the seat belt Bill received a Second Reading on a free vote by a majority of 110 as long ago as 1st March, should the Government fail to get it through in this Session by failing to provide suitable time in which its remaining stages can be completed, will they accept responsibility for the 20 people who are killed every week and who otherwise would be saved?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the Bill and the remarks that he made on the morning after we had to adjourn the debate on 14th October, but I cannot agree that the Government have to take responsibility for road deaths of that kind.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to eliminate the National Freight Corporation's deficit.

As the House knows, legislation will be introduced to provide specific statutory backing for grants paid to the Corporation to enable it to meet its financial obligations. Further proposals for eliminating the Corporation's deficit will follow when I have completed my consideration of its financial position.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the aggregated losses of the nationalised parcels and small carriers services—those of the National Freight Corporation, British Rail and the Post Office—are running at the rate of about £100 million per annum? Does he agree that such a situation is totally unacceptable and places an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer, and that management action to stop it must be taken?

I cannot confirm the precise figure that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned hut, as the House knows, the National Freight Corporation's transactions last year resulted in a deficit that is much greater than we can tolerate. However, the current figures show an improvement. although there is still room for more. I see no reason why, in the long run, the Corporation should be in receipt of a subsidy.

Has my right hon. Friend any plans to return two of the subsidiaries of the Corporation—National Carriers Limited and Freightliners Limited—to British Rail?

I have no such plans, but that does not mean that I may not have such plans. I put it in that perverse and roundabout way because this is one of the aspects that I must consider in reviewing the Corporation's present position and, equally, as part of my consideration of the consultative document. I shall bear in mind the point made by my hon. Friend.

Does the right hon. Gentleman share the view of the Chairman of the Corporation that the present financial structure of the Corporation is

"… a bad practice reminiscent of medieval usury."?

I do not wish to compete in language or in hyperbole either with the Chairman of the Corporation or with the hon. Gentleman, whose speech yesterday I missed but have read. I am led to think that the deficit will be substantially lower this year than last.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in every year to 1974 the Corporation made a profit on its trading account? Will he consider legislation removing from the Corporation the expensive commitment to pensioners whom it never employed and which was the basis of the comment by the Chairman about medieval usury?

I am also aware of the eloquent speech that my hon. Friend made yesterday. I shall take note of the point he has made. I am willing to consider anything, including that suggestion.

Is it not the case that the taxpayer is being asked to pay £100 million a year to support the National Freight Corporation and the deficits on British Rail freight operations? Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that the consultation document said that there was no justification for subsidising freight by road or rail? Does he accept or reject that view?

I think that I have already said that I do not believe that in the long run we can afford to have subsidy for freight operations. But that does not mean that there are not short-term problems, which, I hope, we shall solve on a commonsense and practical basis and not assume that they can be remedied overnight.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the Government's policy towards the encouragement of cycling in cities.

Cycling policy is essentially a matter for local decision. Local authorities must decide whether measures to make cycling safer in their areas are feasible and worth the expenditure involved. The Government encourage well-planned and economical measures to improve conditions for cyclists.

If the Government recognise the importance of promoting cycling in inner city areas, why are only 11 lines of the document on transport policy devoted to cycling?

Although only 11 lines were devoted to cycling policy, I am assured by my right hon. Friend that he learned to ride a bicycle in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I am sure, therefore, that the subject will get adequate coverage in our consideration of transport policy.

Despite his remarks, is my hon. Friend aware that the carriage of even a light-weight bicycle by train costs half the adult fare, whereas heavy luggage is carried free? When he next sees the Chairman of British Rail, will he draw this anomaly to his attention and tell him that those who use the railways for this purpose are not impressed by the ridiculous excuses that British Rail gives for this bad practice?

I am impressed by that point.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a state- ment on the progress made towards working out a new plan for the railways, as outlined in Volume I/7.6 of the recent transport policy consultation document.

Plans for the railways are an important part of transport policy. They are much in my mind as I consider responses to the consultation document.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the time factor in terms of the White Paper will be regarded by many of us as disappointing, but that at least there is an indication that the Government are prepared to consider seriously a timetable for this very important question? Will he assure us, as we have waited since 1948 for a definitive statement on the framework of transport policy, that it will be seriously considered, since it will be the subject of careful scrutiny by many hon. Members on both sides of the House and throughout the country?

I share all my hon. Friend's views on the matter. I am completely aware of the vital rôle of the railways in the life of the country and also of the uncertainty which has inevitably been with the railways during a period of contraction, but it would be wrong to try to forecast now what conclusions the White Paper will come to. Like my hon. Friend, I believe that a longer process of consultation and decision-making is more likely to produce the right answers.

Will my right hon. Friend consider making investment available for new rolling stock on branch lines, a lot of which is in poor condition and difficult to maintain? In the case of North-East Lancashire, unless something is done we shall not have an efficient rail service at all.

I am willing to talk to the Chairman of British Rail about any matters that are properly my responsibility rather than his, but I must add that all decisions on investment anywhere in the public sector must be considered very carefully in terms of the revenue they will produce and of the alternative possibility that they would entail increased subsidy at a time when subsidy cannot be increased.

In the context of co-ordinating policies for road and rail, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why increases in bus fares are subject to public inquiry whereas increases in rail fares are not?

No, I do not think I can. It is an interesting question, and I shall find a better answer next time.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present size and structure of the railway system is a national asset? Does he further agree that it would make national sense to have it fully utilised? Does he appreciate that the present costing policy of British Rail is tending to have two effects—first, that in the commuting areas, such as the highly industrialised areas of South-East England and Birmingham, it puts a heavy cost on the commuter, with effects on the social contract, and, secondly, that in country areas it tends to put lines in danger by driving customers away from them?

My hon. Friend has vividly described the acute problem faced by the railways. There are problems here which no one has been able to solve, and the situation affects all those who travel by rail and others who might like to do so. We shall have all these things in mind when we formulate our policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what are the prospects for expansion of British Railways over the next two years.

It is difficult for me to say. Expansion is really a matter for British Railways commercial judgment, based on their assessment of traffic prospects.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that it is part of the Government's responsibility to invest in British Rail? Would it not solve some of our employment problems, as the multiplier would apply in this case? Will my right hon. Friend take this up as a matter of urgency now that he is a member of the Cabinet?

I agree that we should always look for opportunities in British Rail for worthwhile investment, but to invest irrespective of the likely return is not in the best interests of anyone. It does not meet the necessary criteria of having a transport system which contributes both to economic growth and social need. We have to be discriminating, whatever the final decision may be.

Does the Minister agree that to maximise revenue at the expense of the volume of traffic would result only in contraction? Would it not be better for British Rail to concentrate on cutting costs and boosting traffic by more attractive fares?

That is a difficult question. I would like to believe that if fares were cut there would be such a surge of additional passenger traffic that revenue would increase, but the facts do not point in that direction. The substantial increase in fares over the last year resulted in only a small falling off in passenger miles. I do not recall the exact figures, but there was a 50 per cent. increase in fares and only a 5 per cent. falling off in passenger miles. I would like to believe otherwise, but I ask the House to accept the realities of life even when they are uncomfortable.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to alter the methods for the appraisal of BRB capital projects.

Not at the moment.

I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his appointment. The Minister responsible for transport has been left out of the Cabinet for too long. In any reappraisal, will my right hon. Friend recognise the tremendous export potential in transport technology being developed in the workshops of British Rail? Will he take steps to ensure that the know-how and the patent rights are not sold to overseas competitors? Will he also ensure that the workshops are utilised to the fullest capacity?

I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's kind remarks, and the similar remarks made by other hon. Members this afternoon. I am glad that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the high technology embodied in British Rail workshops and throughout British Rail generally. We have every reason to be proud of this and I shall do all I can to encourage the export potential.

As profitability is relative to capital investment, will the Secretary of State tell us when British Rail will make up its mind about the proposed discontinuation of the carriage of racing pigeons by rail?

British Rail was halted midway in its decision. In view of representations made, it is now formulating a view which may or may not be different from the one which it held hitherto.[Interruption.] I put it that way because this is one area in which a certain neutrality by the Minister is desirable.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the Chairman of the National Bus Company; and what proposals he has for further consultations.

A month or so ago, and I expect to see him again shortly.

When the Secretary of State met the Chairman of the National Bus Company, did he draw attention to the relative positions in the 1974 and 1975 balance sheets. which show that the company owns fewer buses and has undertaken 137,000 fewer passenger journeys? Despite this, the company was clever enough to take on 847 more staff to do this. That is a crazy situation, and it is why bus fares are so high. It is also the reason for the concern felt by busmen about losing their jobs, because the overheads are so great.

The position is slightly more complicated than that. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the annual reports of the company—not just last year's report, but each year, taking one with another he will see that since 1969 the company's staff has been reduced by about 10,000. I have great confidence in the chairman of the company. He, like other chairmen, in both the private and public sectors, is facing difficult problems at the present time.

When the Minister met the chairman, did he discuss the increase in the number of muggings of bus drivers, especially in my part of the world? Also, did he discuss the possible remedies which he or the Home Secretary might suggest in order to deal with this problem?

The answer to the first part of the question is "No"; therefore, the second part is not applicable. However, I shall draw the attention of the chairman to the point made by the hon. Gentleman, which is of very great concern not only to all those in the bus service but to all Members of this House and all those who are concerned with the prevention of crime.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment. When he does see the chairman, will he tell him that the Government have had the courage to reconsider the delicensing of certain public service vehicles so that operators can use minibuses to provide a better service in rural areas? At the moment, the National Bus Company is failing to meet public demand.

I would not think of speaking to any chairman in such a peremptory manner. I am ready to discuss with the chairman all the problems of the bus service, particularly the way in which the company can be ready to meet the needs of the rural areas as well as those of the towns.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take on the Blennerhasset Report on drink and driving.

My hon. Friend, the former Minister for Transport—the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert)—announced on 4th August 1976 that the Government accepted the Blennerhasset Report as a basis for new drinking and driving legislation, which will be introduced as soon as practicable. We have nothing to add to that statement at present.

Has the Secretary of State's Department consulted the police about the possibility of enforcing such legislation? Can he tell us, in particular, whether he accepts the view of my own chief superintendent that checks will be made only for one distinct offence at a time—that is, for seat belts, stolen cars, or drinking, and not an amalgam of all the offences at once?

We are in constant consultation with the police on the workings of the law, and their views are taken into account. The point that the hon. Member has raised is a valid one, and I shall certainly look into it.

How does the Minister square this with the statement by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Robert Mark, who said that in his view motoring offences should be made civil offences and not criminal ones?

I have no information about that point at the moment, but shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further changes he proposes to improve the standard of the driving test.

My right hon. Friend will make an announcement when he has completed his consideration of the comments made by interested organisations on proposals for changes circulated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment earlier this year.

As many people who pass the driving test seem quite incapable of parking a vehicle properly, will the Minister pay particular attention to including this additional requirement in the driving test when the requirements are next reviewed?

That is a point which is in the consultation document, and I agree that it is an important one.

Will the Minister disregard that suggestion by my hon. Friend? I, for one, would have my licence taken away tomorrow if parking were included in the test.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the results of the feasibility study of the Swindon-Oxford-Milton Keynes road to be made available to his Department, bearing in mind that this study was started in 1972; whether the study will include reference to the need for the southern relief road for Leighton Buzzard; and if he will make a statement.

The study is still in progress: and we hope to be able to make an announcement on its findings next year.

Is the Minister aware that the delay in reaching a decision on this route is holding up finalisation of the Bedfordshire County Council's structure plan? As the southern relief road for Leighton Buzzard is part of that plan, and this would be a great help to local industry and the grand design of Milton Keynes, will the Government speed up the decision?

I am sorry that it is taking so long, but it should not affect the council's plan, because it relates to the late 1980s. As far as Leighton Buzzard is concerned, as the hon. Gentleman knows, an inner relief road has recently been constructed, and the county council is now doing a traffic study of the southern relief road, which study will be published shortly.

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

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

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the new Chairman of British Railways.

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

When he does next meet the Chairman of British Rail, will the Secretary of State make it clear that a 15 per cent. increase in fares when wage increases are limited to 5 per cent. is totally inconsistent with the social contract? The majority of hon. Members on the Government side of the House believe that we should be thinking of increasing rail subsidies rather than phasing them out. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he has no intention of proceeding with the idea of reducing the subsidy to the London commuter area?

My hon. Friend puts his finger on the dilemma. He says that a 15 per cent. increase would be inconsistent with the social contract. It is true that any increase in fares bears on travellers, and this presents them with problems, but the alternative is an increase in subsidies or a cut in services. An increase in subsidies means increasing the amount that the taxpayer must pay. I can only say that within the foreseeable future the figures that are contained in the public expenditure White Paper are the only ones upon which I or the Chairman of British Rail can work. There can be no others, and certainly no higher figures than those. There are many claims on public expenditure. but decisions must be made and priorities determined.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is deep concern in North Wales at the proposal by British Rail to withdraw the old-established "Emerald Isle" service between Euston and Holyhead? Will he give an assurance that the Chester-to-Holyhead section of the line is not jeopardised?

I am afraid that I am very short of assurances today for any hon. Member on any question. This matter is for the judgment of the Railways Board, but I am sure that it will take note of the hon. Gentleman's remarks and that it is fully aware of the background to the problem of this well-known and well-regarded train.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the historic train to which the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) referred is one of the vital lines of communication for business and industrial purposes between North Wales and Euston? Is he aware that I am currently making arrangements to meet the officials of British Rail to discuss the service, and will he be good enough to take a continuing interest in the matter?

I shall be happy to take that containing interest, particulady if my right hon. Friend tells me that this is his means of arriving in London and joining us in the House.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many commuters will agree with Mr. Peter Parker's statement that we are in danger of getting lousy services at luxury prices? If there must be higher fares, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a greater chance of their being accepted by commuters if the loss-making lines are properly identified and if there is consultation with the commuters about what the proper and appropriate fare should be on individual lines?

That is an interesting suggestion. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and with my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) about the feelings of commuters. I hope that these issues will be presented to commuters in a way that will enable them to see the real options. It is wrong for people to feel that they are being unfairly treated, but it is right that they should recognise the alternatives that face them, this House and the country about the level of fares, the level of services and the alternative means of finding subsidies.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that no major railway system in the world survives without substantial subsidy? Will he give an assurance that there is no intention of reducing the existing level of subsidy?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is true that throughout the world railways have provided significant problems in self-financing. We have a great deal to be proud of here in the dedication of railwaymen to the railways over many years and the fine services that are still frequently provided. My hon. Friend will know of the public expenditure White Paper and will know, too, that it provides for a constant level of subsidies over the five-year period. I hope that it will be possible to maintain them, but no one can forecast the future.

May I take up both the pertinent question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and the Secretary of State's remarks? Is it not essential that rail commuters should have some idea of the allocation of actual costs per route? At the moment the global figure is given. Will the Minister ask the Chairman of British Rail to return to the former method of showing a profit and loss on individual routes, so that commuters may feel satisfied about where the subsidies are going?

The allocation of costs is one of the great theological questions facing the railways. It is difficult to determine the allocation of costs and to decide how far, by making a saving on one Inter-City line, for example, there are ripple effects elsewhere. However, I see the point of identifying individual rail services where there is a particularly large gap between revenue and costs, and of decisions being made in a clearheaded way about what ought to be done. I am sure that the Chairman of British Rail will have all this in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received following his instructions to the South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Councils to cut public transport subsidies or risk losing their transport supplementary grant.

I have asked all metropolitan authorities to reconsider their estimates of expenditure on local transport in 1977–73, and I am awaiting their replies.

When the Minister considers these replies will he bear in mind that these two metropolitan counties in Yorkshire have developed distinctive transport strategies which are only part way through development and that it would be ruinous to interrupt them? Will he bear in mind that in these counties the overwhelming number of bus journeys is for the purposes of productive work?

I agree that the two adjoining counties, under distinguished leadership, have developed distinctive and remarkably different systems. Obviously, I am most reluctant to use the authority I have through the transport supplementary grant to interfere with reasonable local option. I have to make clear to them, as I have to other metropolitan counties, that it is impossible to pour a quart into a pint pot. I am afraid that all the local authorities in the country must closely examine their total transport spending—the balance between revenue support and capital.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that in these heavily industrialised counties industry is a major contributor to the rate fund? Does he agree that, in the main, buses tend to be used more by the poorer members of the community and that, in view of these two factors, subsidising bus tares out of the rate fund is a sound Socialist measure, for the benefit of the less well-off?

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's distinguished leadership in local government. He has made a persuasive point. I am reluctant to seek to undermine a legitimate local option, because it is part of our own distinctive system. It remains the case, however, that all spending, whether raised on the rates or through taxation, is part of the total of public expenditure, and whether or not we believe that the present levels are right, and whether or not we accept the priorities, if we spend more in one direction we must spend less in another.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the policy of the South Yorkshire County Council is paying dividends, in that more people are travelling on public transport there, and that is what we need? Is it not more sensible to do that than to have buses standing idle in a garage because people cannot afford the fares? Is not this also a way of holding down the cost of living and helping people whose wages are restricted, and who are therefore facing considerable difficulties?

It is very desirable to see more people travelling on the buses. It is true that the bus often meets the needs of those who are least privileged and most deprived. However, if revenue from the buses does not meet costs there must be a charge on the rates. That may be a legitimate decision, but it is not consistent with public expenditure objectives. Let no one pretend that there is a soft option. If people pay less in fares they must pay more in rates.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about progress on the construction of the Humber Bridge.

The Humber Bridge Board still expects the bridge and its immediate approach roads to be opened to traffic in late 1978. A recent milestone in the building of the bridge structure was the essential completion of the towers to a point where superstructure work can proceed.

With all the money that is being wasted on this white elephant, will the Minister give an assurance that the construction of a decent road structure on the south bank will not be prejudiced?

On the contrary, it will accelerate it.

My hon. Friend has put the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Botherton) well and truly in his place. Is he aware that most people on Humberside are proud with the progress in the building of the bridge? We are particularly glad that work on the superstructure has started. Will my hon. Friend approach the postal authorities to see whether a suitable commemorative stamp can be issued to mark the completion of this considerable architectural achievement, which is the biggest bridge in Europe?

I shall have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, who I believe bears some responsibility for the Post Office.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he intends to take to prevent further violent disruptions of public inquiries into road projects, particularly those such as were held at Winchester, which have already been the subject of extensive public participation and inquiry.

The conduct of an inquiry is a matter for the inspector concerned, who can seek the assistance of the police in maintaining public order if he wishes.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that most regional trade union leaders and, I suspect, most hon. Members utterly deplore the mob tactics used in the recent inquiry at Winchester, whatever the merits of the case? Will he give an assurance that he regards the uncompleted part of the motorway route to Southampton—the link between the M3 and the M27—as a necessary part of the trunk road system of this country?

I deplore the use of violence of whatever kind—words or physical action—in motorway inquiries. It is destructive of a great deal that is valuable in our way of life and I hope that those responsible will be thoroughly ashamed. We have to distinguish between such action and the legitimate grievance of those deeply disturbed by a motorway route or perhaps not even too sure whether our overall plans are right. But there is a difference between Arguments of that sort and the ugliness that we have seen.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that part of the public concern is caused by suspicion of the existing forms of procedure and what people regard as the bureaucratic steamrollering tactics used by some Government Departments? Does that not give him cause for concern that there is no proper communication of the processes of government?

It certainly gives me cause for concern if reasonable people believe that they are not being fairly treated. I wish to make that clear. However, there is a distinction between reasonable people and those who use methods of which I do not believe the House could conceivably approve.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will be very much welcomed? Is he aware that many of us in the London area are concerned about the way that the Greater London Council is steamrolling the use of widening and diverting major lorry routes throughout South London? Is he aware that his attitude will be very much welcomed by residents throughout London?

It is obviously a question of finding a balance between allowing proper grievances to be aired and decisions to be made wisely and not so restraining the necessary decisions as to cause undesirable economic and social consequences. I am sure that this is the principle that should move us in these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will give a general direction to British Railways to sell their hotels.

No, Sir.

What are the hon. Gentleman's reasons for that reply? Is it simply that the hotels are the only profitable part of British Rail?

The hotels are extremely profitable, and I regard them as an excellent investment for the public sector. I deplore the continual denationalisation attempts from Opposition Members. Does this mean that they no longer believe in a mixed economy?

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a great shame if, for example, the Adelphi Hotel, Liverpool, which has always given excellent service, were taken out of public ownership? Is this hotel not a good example of the best type of public ownership?

The Adelphi is a splendid hotel and has been the scene of many Labour triumphs. My only preference, architecturally, is the Royal Station Hotel at York.

Will my hon. Friend resist the modern-day Dick Turpins in the Opposition and recall that they gave away to their friends the road haulage industry, Thomas Cook Limited, and the Carlisle State breweries? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition always have their eyes on the profitable parts of the public sector? If they want a deal, let us offer them British Rail.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I wonder whether we can get some assurance from the Opposition that they really do believe in a mixed economy.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the transport consultation document it was said to be Government policy to extend nationalisation in the road haulage industry and the ports? Is that still Government policy, or do they believe that in the sort of economic crisis that we now face it would be in the nation's interest publicly to abandon such rubbish?

My right hon. Friend's policy remains as it has always been.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on implementation of EEC regulations on drivers' hours.

Application within the United Kingdom of EEC Regulation 543/69, which is the one that the hon. Member referred to, has been deferred until 1st March 1977. My aim is to postpone implementation until an amended regulation, including suitable transitional arrangements, has been agreed.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I welcome what he said about delay? May we have an assurance that the Ministers who take part in these negotiations will be as robust as possible to ensure the maximum flexibility for member States in these matters?

I may be rather pale and not very tall, but I am fairly robust.

Why do we need these regulations?

They flow from the assent which this House gave in 1972 to Common Market entry. We and Opposition Members accepted the position then.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce any proposals for a national lorry route; and if he will make a statement.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 4th August by my hon. Friend the former Minister for Transport, the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert).

Can my hon. Friend indicate when this statement will be made? Is he aware that it is causing concern, not least among local authorities? May we have an assurance that no road, such as the A646, which runs parallel to a motorway will be included in any proposals for a national lorry route?

Consultations are still going on about the proposed national lorry route and I cannot say when there will be some clear guidance. One problem is that there is no consensus on the question of such a route.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise the concern caused by the delay in reaching a decision to those working in the motor and commercial vehicle industry? Will he prevail on the Department and his right hon. Friends to reach a decision and announce it speedily, in order to remove the grave uncertainty that already affects the motor industry as a result of the transport policy document?

I understand and sympathise with the point made by the hon. Member, but serious issues are involved, on which people are taking contradictory views. We have to allow adequate time for them to be resolved. However, we can make progress on local bottlenecks and difficulties. The regulations that many local authorities are passing under the impetus of the Dykes Act, for which I was partly responsible as a Back Bencher, are making a real contribution.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will review present methods of financing road construction by central Government and local authorities in England and Wales so as to ensure that financial and material resources are concentrated on the early completion of a dual-carriageway primary road system covering the whole of England and Wales.

Not unless I am persuaded that there is a particular case for doing so.

Will the right hon. Gentleman develop the excellent start he has made in his new post by having discussions on the system that has given this country probably the best minor roads and certainly some of the worst major roads in Europe?

I believe that part of my responsibility is to look at the motorway network and to discuss its adequacy and see how best it can be improved towards the end of this century, bearing in mind the other claims on resources of which we have heard today. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Has my right hon. Friend noted that this is yet another suggestion from the Opposition for large public expenditure?

Yes. We have had many suggestions this afternoon for large public expenditure, though I am afraid they have not all been from one side.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his frank answers today have been a refreshing change from many that we have received from Ministers? Will he accept our congratulations?

The hon. Gentleman should not speak too soon.