Following the usual practice, I propose, with the Committee's agreement, to put en bloc the Questions in sequence on clauses and schedules to which no amendment is offered. I shall read out the list of numbers of clauses and schedules in sequence, and if any hon. Member wishes to speak on any one of them he should say so at the time.

We shall now take Clauses 1 to 32 en bloc if that is agreeable.

I appreciate that the Bill is purely consolidation, but I wish to make one or two points.

Will the hon. Gentleman indicate with which clause he is dealing?

I am dealing with Clause 1 generally, Mr. Murton.

I beg to move

That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/2133/75 and R/646/76 on Lawyers' Services.

This debate is provided on the recommendation of the Select Committee, and it is happily timed, because, while it is always difficult to make a firm prediction about future progress it is likely that it will be considered by the Council of Ministers at an early date, and the Ministers will need to be in possession of the views of the House.

This draft directive is concerned with the provision of services on a temporary basis in one member State of the EEC by lawyers qualified in another. Its purpose is to facilitate the provision of these services on a reciprocal basis while providing adequate safeguards to ensure that their clients the public, are properly protected. It is not concerned with lawyers engaging in regular practice in another State; it is not concerned with the mutual recognition of qualifications; it is concerned with visits for particular business. But that objective is important, and it is one which the Government fully support.

The proposal to abolish restrictions on the provision of these services was first made as long ago as 1969. In the European Parliament it was met with something less than universal acclamation, and by 1972 official negotiations had reached an impasse.

In 1974 the position was radically altered by the decision of the European Court in the cases of Reiners against the Belgian State and of Van Binsburgen, where it was held that those articles of the Community Treaty which confer the right to provide professional services in all Community countries did not require to be activated by directive but that they had had direct effect throughout the EEC since 1969.

The court rejected the argument that that right was not applicable to lawyers because it involved what Article 55 calls "official authority". It follows that a lawyer qualified in one member State has the right, arising directly from the Treaty, to provide services in another State under whatever conditions are generally applicable to lawyers there.

But the court agreed that the right did not extend to allowing someone to perform functions in a member State which the national law had justifiably and in the public interest reserved to qualified members of its own legal profession. Consumers, too, have rights and they are entitled to a measure of consumer protection in order to ensure that those who offer legal services are properly qualified to provide them.

In consequence of this decision, and in the new situation created by the accession of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, a meeting of Ministers of Justice of the EEC countries in November 1974 instructed the Commission to prepare a revised draft. This is it. Unlike its predecessor, it is not framed directly to allow lawyers generally to provide services. It takes account of the decisions and it clarifies the rights which exist already under the Treaty and sets out the conditions and safeguards under which those rights are to be exercised.

There are always problems when one seeks to arrange for those practising a profession in one country to render services in another. The structures of the profession may be different in the two countries. But if we are dealing with law, the problems are multiplied. The doctor who understands the human body in this country is likely to find that bodies function similarly in France. But a lawyer familiar with one legal system may find that he has no expertise either in the substantive law or the procedure of a different system. So, a qualification to practice German law, however impressive, is not a certificate of expertise in English law, or vice versa.

The way in which the directive approaches the problem is first to refer to all services performed by the legal profession, not just to legal advice and advocacy—matters which in this country we sometimes call "non-contentious business". This is in contrast with the original 1969 draft, which was confined to advocacy and advice.

The directive then turns to the problems arising from the differing structures of the profession by specifying a list in respect of each country of the classes of person there designated generally as lawyers. In relation to the United Kingdom, that includes advocates, barristers and solicitors. It declares that freedom to provide services means the freedom to provide those services which are undertaken by the designated profession in the host State, although a visiting lawyer may retain his own title—for example Rechtsanwalt or avvocato.

It makes an important distinction between court work and other work. In respect of court work, a visiting lawyer will be subject to the rules of professional conduct of the host State and may be required to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practices before the court he is visiting . In respect of other work, the rules of professional conduct to which he is subject are those of the country where he qualified, subject to a certain matter to which I will advert later.

Before turning to some of the specific questions which have arisen, I will mention a point which may strike those who have read the text. Like other EEC documents, this one is couched in general terms—what some of us call "open texture". It is inevitable where it has to be implemented in nine countries, because it cannot use the precise legal terminology of any of them. It means that we are not governed by a word which might have a technical meaning in Scots law but not in English law, or vice versa.

I turn next to some of the specific issues which have given rise to discussion in the United Kingdom. Over the last year there has been very full consultation between the Government Departments concerned and the representative bodies of the legal professions. The Government are most grateful for the assistance which the professions have given. In addition, we have had the benefit of the report of the Select Committee. We have also had the Eleventh Report of the Select Committee in another place.

As a result of this detailed examination, our negotiatiors in Brussles have been able to argue a number of points where we believe that the draft could be and has been improved. In respect of most of them, we confidently expect that the proposals which will ultimately be submitted to the Council of Ministers will be in an acceptable form. Hon Members will have found in the Vote Office a supplementary explanatory memorandum submitted by the Lord Chancellor's Department, dated 9th November, which draws attention to the likely changes of substance.

Perhaps the Solicitor-General will be dealing with this matter later, but will he say whether the amended form of submission to the Council of Ministers will, as far as he knows, take the form of an amended instrument by the Commission to the Council, or whether it will be prepared within the Council machinery itself? It has very serious consequences from the point of view of scrutiny and I should like to know in which of the two forms it is likely to be.

I understand that it will be an official document. If I am wrong about that I shall endeavour to correct it at a later stage, but I take the right hon. Gentleman's point.

I now turn to some of the specific questions which have been discussed in this country. Anxiety was expressed about the need to reserve to lawyers of the host country an unshared right to prepare specific classes of legal document which may require specialised knowledge of a particular branch of the law. Mention was made particularly of the preparation of documents relating to the transfer of land and to the administration of the estates of deceased persons, as well as to the drafting of pleadings.

Part of the problem was that in relation to conveyancing and probate it was said that the directive did not create genuine reciprocity between the United Kingdom and the Continent, because in Europe these activities are the preserve of notaires, who are excluded from the scope of the directive, while here they are the function of solicitors who are included in the directive. The result would have been that an avocat could come over here to do this work, which he could not do at home, while a solicitor would not be entitled to undertake such activities when visiting another member State.

This anomaly was pointed out in the European Parliament by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker Smith), and the Commission submitted an amendment to cover the point. Subsequent negotiations have led to a revised text which is likely to protect member States if they wish to reserve to prescribed categories of lawyers the preparation of formal documents for obtaining a title to administer the estates of deceased persons, and the drafting of formal documents creating or transferring interests in land.

The proposed provision is discretionary but it would enable the United Kingdom to reserve the preparation of the chief documents in connection with conveyancing and succession to nationally qualified lawyers. There is no specific exemption for the drafting of pleadings but, as I have indicated, by Article 5 member States may impose an obligation on the visiting lawyer in relation to court work to act in conjunction with a lawyer practising before the court in the host country and who would, where necessary, be responsible to that court.

In addition, the visiting lawyer will be subject to the conditions and rules of professional conduct of the host Member State. This will enable an adequate measure of control to be exercised over the visiting lawyer in respect of all aspects of court work, including the drafting of pleadings and the conduct of cases in court.

A further problem is the position of the non-practising lawyer. In the United Kingdom, a lawyer who is employed by a commercial undertaking or public body remains a member of his profession and subject to his professional code of conduct. He does the same work and can act for his employer in the same way as if that employer were a private client. On the Continent it is more usual for the employed lawyer to be required to leave his profession altogether on accepting a salaried position, although this varies and in some member States the situation is closer to that of the United Kingdom.

The Commission's proposal did not take this distinction into account, and in relation to United Kingdom lawyers the scope of the directive was limited to those in private practice. Perhaps not surprisingly, the bodies representing employed lawyers felt that they should be allowed the benefit of the directive where they are required to go abroad on behalf of their employers. I am pleased to say that this view has found favour in Brussels, and the directive is likely to refer simply to barristers, advocates and solicitors, without specifying that they shall be in private practice.

This is subject to one further qualification. A new provision is to be recommended which will allow those member States which do not permit lawyers in the salaried employment of a private undertaking to represent that undertaking in judicial proceedings to exclude foreign employed lawyers to the same extent as their own nationals. The Government's view is that this is acceptable in substance. If an employed lawyer could appear in a country which did not allow its own employed lawyers to do court work, there would be reverse discrimination. In any event, most employed lawyers employed abroad will be concerned with advice rather than advocacy, but the form of the new provision may leave something to be desired. It speaks only of lawyers employed by private undertakings, and it will have to be further considered in Brussels.

There is one other outstanding matter of importance. This concerns Article 4(4), which deals with the code of conduct which is to be applied to the visiting lawyer in relation to non-court activities. As I said earlier, he would be subject to the professional rules of the country where he qualified and those of the host State would not apply; nor would what are described as the conditions of the host State, which might include detailed requirements about the organisation of lawyers' offices, or the way in which they keep their accounts.

This position is not acceptable to the majority of member States and, consequently, in the Brussels negotiations it has been proposed that, while the lawyer should remain subject to the rules of professional conduct of the State where he is qualified, this should be without prejudice to what the text calls the "fundamental ethical principles" applicable in the host State, with particular reference to certain generally accepted principles, such as confidentiality.

This solution would be acceptable to the United Kingdom and, I understand, to our own profession, but certain member States are not content with that. They seek to apply not only the fundamental ethical principles of the host State but all the conditions, which would bring into play an array of complicated professional requirements which it is hardly practicable to apply to a lawyer on a purely temporary visit.

A solicitor might find himself barred from giving legal advice in a State which has a rule that a lawyer may have only one office because at home his firm happens to have two offices. The Government's view is that that solution would be objectionable and would defeat the objective of the directive, which is to facilitate services.

I do not believe that this difficulty is insuperable. I repeat that in the Government's view the position with regard to the directive as a whole is satisfactory, subject to finding an adequate solution to that problem. But, of course, the Government will take into account the views that hon. Members express today. Obviously, it is an advantage in some situations for a client to have the services of people skilled in the law of a different country without unnecessary restrictions.

Before concluding, I apologise in advance to the House that I shall have to leave during the debate. My right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be here. Unhappily, the saints who were able to perform the miracle of bilocation did not leave us their secret. But I hope that hon. and learned Gentlemen will accept that there is no disrespect intended.

The House will be grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for his characteristically clear and cogent exposition of the matter of this directive, which has been a long time coming into being because of the various difficult considerations surrounding it, to which he gave expression and explanation.

I am sure that the House will readily excuse the hon. and learned Gentleman. We know the difficulties always attaching to his office; and those difficulties, if I may say so without striking any partisan note, are scarcely likely to be less at present than in the normal case. I am sure that we shall be very happy to have the matter left in the able hands of the learned Lord Advocate—certainly those of us who have known him and admired his contributions to the House over a period.

This directive is concerned with the liberalisation of lawyers' services in the Community. We can see from Article 3(c) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community that this directive seeks to serve one of the main objectives of the Community as there expressed in the words:

"the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital".

This objective is furthered by Article 59 of the Treaty which refers to the progressive abolition of

"restrictions on freedom to provide services"

and in Article 60 which in paragraph (d) includes in the category of "Services"

"activities of the professions."

The full realisation of this principle would involve the right of establishment by professional men of one member State in the territory of other member States as well as the recognition of their qualifications to act or advise ad hoc on a temporary basis across the frontiers of those member States.

This directive, as the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, is concerned only with the latter aspect—with the freedom to provide services, not with the full right of establishment which is envisaged by the Treaties as something to be achieved at some stage in the development of the Community.

There are two desiderata in these matters, both valuable in themselves but, as so often happens, not easy in their reconciliation. The first desideratum is a reasonable interchange of professional skills between the member states—a sort of cross-fertilisation. The second is that this should be achieved without any lowering of professional standards and qualifications and without the consequent prejudice that such lowering would have for those for whom the services are provided. That is a reconciliation easy to state but a good deal more difficult to achieve.

That being so, it is not surprising that this directive has taken so long to come into being. I myself have been actively concerned with the evolution of the directive over a period—that is, in its latter stages, of course, following the accession of the United Kingdom to the Community. I have been engaged in effect in two functions. The first has been as Chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, where it has been my duty to preside over the discussions on the directive at the various sittings of the Committee. I say "to preside", but I should perhaps indicate that the chairman of a committee in the European Parliament is not like the Chairman of a Standing Committee in the House. He has a participating role as well as a role of guiding the procedural processes of the committee.

The second function was as spokesman for the European Conservative Group in the debates upon the matter in the plenary session of the Parliament. In this second regard I made some modest contribution with a number of amendments designed to improve the directive which, by common consent, is better now in its revised form than it was when it originally came to the Legal Affairs Committee some time ago.

The Solicitor-General has kindly re ferred in particular to my amendment to Article 1(1) of the directive which was accepted by the European Parliament in plenary session. That is the amendment which refers to the conveyancing position and the wording of which is to be found in Commission Document R 646/76 and also in the Lord Chancellor's supplementary memorandum of 9th November. That memorandum also refers to other improvements or probable improvements in the directive some of which again were the subject of amendments which I moved in the European Parliament.

Certainly it is the view of the Law Society and of the Senate of the Inns of Court and Bar that improvement has been achieved. During the passage of the directive through the European Parliament—that is, through the Legal Affairs Committee and through the Parliament as a whole—I was in close consultation with these two bodies, but did not in any sense regard myself as mandated by either of them, though as a practising member of the Bar I obviously have a connection with the one and, indeed, as a practising member of the Bar have a connection with the other since that, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, is where our clients also come from. Nevertheless, I did not give any uncritical acceptance of the suggestions which were put before me. I studied them closely, and I certainly agreed with some of them and had some success with them, such as the one which has been mentioned in regard to the conveyancing position, and so on.

On the other hand, I did not think it possible to accept the suggestion, put forward at one stage, that the visiting lawyer when engaged in actual court proceedings should be put under the control of a lawyer in the host State. I do not think, and I so stated in the European Parliament, that "control" is the mot juste to apply to the relationship between one professional gentleman and another. I did think, and I canvassed this possibility in the Legal Affairs Commmittee and in the Parliament, that the addition of the words

"under the supervision of"

as well as

"in conjunction with"

might have strengthened and defined the position in regard to the protection of the professional standards of the host State; but I believe that the provisions of Article 5 of the directive as we have it in its present form are a sufficient protection, that the visiting lawyer

"must work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the court in question and who would be, if necessary, responsible to"

that authority.

I believe that in essence there has now been achieved a directive which is reasonably satisfactory for its important purposes. It strikes as well as may be the difficult balance between liberalisation, on the one hand—that is, the elimination of restrictive practices—and the protection of professional standards, on the other. That is, after all, a considerable achievement.

The liberalisation of services and mutual recognition of professional qualifications are not easy in any calling or discipline. But, as the Solicitor-General has indicated, there are particular and inherent difficulties as far as the practice of law is concerned. These difficulties arise in applying the agreed principles to the idiosyncratic practice of the law. They derive from the very nature of the practice of law as compared with the practice of other professions, such as medicine, architecture and engineering.

The practice of law lacks the universality of those callings. A doctor's skills are readily exportable. His knowledge and training enable him to deploy his skills, with minor adaptations, in any part of the world. With law it is different, because both procedure and content differ from country to country. In one sense there is only one profession of the law, but in another sense there are parallel professions in individual countries.

To draw attention to these differences is not to derogate from the principle of liberalisation. It is merely to illustrate the difficulties attached to the application and implementation of that principle. The difficulties have been accentuated by the expansion of the Community, and the differences between the patterns of court procedures. In the original six member States procedure is based largely on Roman and civil law, with the investigatory approach, compared with the United Kingdom and Ireland which have the adversary concept, and emphasis on oral evidence and cross-examination, with the restriction of the judicial function to that of hearing and determination.

There are certain fundamental differences in structure, pattern and approach, but in spite of these, British lawyers certainly would welcome help and co-operation in fitting cases from lawyers from other EEC countries, whether in consultation and advice, or in the actual preparation and presentation of cases in the courts. The difficulties which I have identified do not detract in any way from our desire as a profession to cooperate with EEC lawyers, and to welcome their participation in our proceedings.

Of course, the difficulties condition the method of applying the principles, and therefore impose the need for safeguards. These safeguards are not designed to protect the preserves of lawyers of the host countries; neither are they designed to exercise any monopoly or restrictive practice to protect the position of lawyers. On the contrary, they are to safeguard court procedures and the interests of the litigant, whose legitimate interest in seeing that his case is presented in conformity with the procedures of the court is and should be a paramount consideration both for lawyers and parliamentarians alike.

I conclude by welcoming the directive in its improved and amended form and with a word for the future. The Commission will, no doubt, now embark on preparatory studies on the second and more difficult aspect of this matter—the implementation of the freedom of establishment for lawyers. There are many difficulties here and a solution will need to be sought by the full process of consultation with the representative organisations of the legal profession in the various member States, and in full consultation with the European Parliament, its legal Affairs Committee, and, of course, with the national parliaments of the member States.

There is much work still to be done in this context. I see it as parallel work—work on the elimination of restrictions where possible on the one hand, and work to achieve suitable regulation of the activities of foreign lawyers in the host country on the other. Perhaps there should be undertakings given by foreign lawyers to comply with a code of ethical rules which might be devised in the Community as a whole, along the lines of the International Bar Association rules of professional ethics.

Meanwhile, we can congratulate ourselves on the appearance of this directive in its improved and practical form, and on a long and not always easy exercise in co-operation among the institutions of the Community, the legal professions and parliamentarians. I hope that we shall see its fruits in the strengthening in the Community and in member States of service to the public, and the maintenance and strengthening of the rule of law.

The directive is another example of how the purist aim of dismantling all the barriers created by nationality—an aim so desirable in theory—is difficult to implement in practice, and to some extent undesirable for the United Kingdom.

The foundation of this document is that there is a profession of lawyer which is, in practice, interchangeable in operation between the nine countries of the Community. However, the truth is otherwise because of the differences between our common law and the law based on the Code Napoleon. These differences are very substantial and the operation of procedures arising out of the substantive differences may cause difficulties. The position of the notary in foreign systems is not comparable with that of any lawyer in the United Kingdom, for example.

I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir Derek Walker-Smith) for proposing the amendment in the European Parliament which resulted in the removal of this anomaly. As a practising lawyer and a politician, I also pay very great tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend's excellent work as Chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee in the European Parliament. Too few lawyers in this country appreciate the dedicated work being done on their behalf and on behalf of our citizens who are represented by lawyers like my right hon. and learned Friend.

Fortunately, the practical results of this directive are likely to be limited. Possibly they will mean little more than Irish lawyers practising in English courts. The average French, German, Dutch, Belgian, Danish, Italian and Luxemburger lawyer is no more competent to advise a client in English law, or to be effective in audience before an English court, than an Englishman is in their countries. There is good sense in Article No. 5 which requires a foreign lawyer to work in conjunction with a British lawyer when the two are serving jointly the interests of a British client. This needs no further elaboration.

I ask the Lord Advocate whether he will direct attention to two problems which arise out of the directive. The Solicitor-General said in opening the debate that after the Van Binsbergen case there was a meeting of lawyers in Europe which resulted in the new directive. But the directive states

"Whereas pursuant to the Treaty all restrictions on the provision of services which are based on nationality or on conditions of residence have been prohibited since the end of the transitional period."

Therefore, what follows is based upon that "whereas" assumption that all restrictions on conditions of residence have gone. Nevertheless, it appears that the Van Binsbergen case shows expressly that restrictions on residence are permissible where they are necessary for the administration of justice—for example, the requirement that a solicitor must have an office within the jurisdiction, or that it is for the public good to require a compulsory subscription to a guarantee or compensation fund. There appears, therefore, to be a contradiction between the situation as it is and the situation envisaged by the directive. If there is a discrepancy there, lawyers in this country would like it resolved.

The second matter concerns Article 4(4), which deals with activities relating to the representation of a client in judicial proceedings. It provides that these proceedings shall be carried out in each host member State under the conditions laid down for lawyers established in that State. The word "conditions" is causing concern because of uncertainty about its meaning. In a meeting at the end of October of the Joint Committee of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Community the United Kingdom delegation asked the other delegations what they understoood the word "conditions" to mean. It received a variety of vague replies. Even the Germans, who are Insisting upon the inclusion of that term, could not say what it means with any precision. The Joint Committee resolved to recommend that the word be deleted. and I should like some indication from the Lord Advocate as to the effect of that request.

I wish to acknowledge the good intentions and hard work that has been done on this subject by the Senate of the Inns of Court and the Bar and the Law Society in trying to make the directive workable in accordance with the ideals of the Community. It is their desire, as it is the desire of any lawyer concerned with European matters, to see not that the profession itself is protected against competition, but that the interests of the British litigant and the protection of the British citizen are, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, the paramount consideration.

I echo immediately the welcome given to these directives by the Solicitor-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).

I was glad that the Solicitor-General was able to deal with so many of the points of detail which have been raised by the many parties which have been considering these directives and have written to us about them.

I am not able to form a view of the Solicitor-General's comments on these points of detail sufficiently quickly to say much about those comments now. But I think that the value of his having made them today is that it will enable the professional bodies which are interested in this matter to consider what he has said about the up-to-date position, and then to write to us on those points about which they still feel any misgivings. I believe that that is the correct way in which to conduct the various stages of exercises such as this. In that way we may feel sure that those outside the House who are interested have had every opportunity to keep abreast of what is happening inside Government circles and inside the House, and we are able in our own turn to keep fully informed of their feelings on the subject.

I have however some comments to make on points of details, and certain questions to ask. Let me say at once that I should not take exception in the least if the Lord Advocate felt unable to give me specific answers off the cuff today. I think that very often that is not of much value. If the question is worth asking, it should be worth considering before the answer is given. I therefore preface my observations with those qualifications, and I would much rather that the right hon. and learned Gentleman took time to consider the questions and gave me a considered written reply in due course if there if any problem about giving an immediate answer.

I turn now to the agreeable task of making further acknowledgements. It is my very real pleasure to pay tribute to the great part played in these matters by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East. Too few people may know that it is largely due to his personal skill, expertise and efforts that this directive is now so very different from that which was first put before the countries of the Community for consideration. It is right that we should publicly recognise that.

The amendments on which he has played such a significant part contribute most notably to achieving those important reconciliations and balances of which he has spoken. In doing what he has done my right hon. and learned Friend, a long-standing and honoured Member of this House, has made an immense practical contribution to overcoming all the difficulties of which he has spoken so eloquently this morning.

I pay tribute also to the professional bodies for having got together so very well on this matter. They have got together in this country, in the United Kingdom generally and in Europe. That is a welcome development. At times there have been dangers that the different parts of the profession throughout the United Kingdom might be going their own independent ways rather than getting together to discuss their problems. Here we have the opposite.

It is a development much to be commended and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East will agree that it has contributed significantly to the results which have been achieved. Although it is always invidious to name individuals, I want to pay a special tribute to Mr. David Edward, QC, Treasurer of the Faculty of Advocates, who has played such a leading role in the process of the several parts of the profession reaching a combined view and putting it forward in Europe, as well as giving us a summary of the remaining points to be considered.

Article 1 is enormously improved by the addition of the words starting "Notwithstanding". However, I am in a little doubt about what exactly are the words proposed. I assume that the words in the Document 646/76 are those most likely to be inserted in the directive in its final form. I hope that is so because in other drafts and references to the draft of this article which I have seen the word "formal" has crept in. I think it would be unwise to use any adjective other than "legal" which is the one used in Document 646. Otherwise we could be introducing further difficulties of interpretation in our own legal terminology. It is difficult enough to be precise in our own terminology, but when one is trying to be sufficiently precise to achieve the same meaning in the legal terminology of nine countries, one must be even more cautious.

I hope that the Lord Advocate can deal with the points raised by the Scottish Law Society on Article 1(1). Does the wording in Document 646 cover the preparation of writs relating to heritable or moveable property and the appropriation of documents to found or oppose an application for the granting of confirmation of executors?

The Lord Chancellor's supplementary explanatory memorandum says that it is expected that the designations in Article 1(2) will be changed so that "solicitor in private practice" is replaced by the word "solicitor" alone. I notice however that in the amendments proposed in Document 646 it is said that Article 1(2), the list of designations, is "unchanged". May we have an assurance that we can take it from the Lord Chancellor's memorandum that Document 646 is not the last word on this matter.

The discussion on Article 4(4) is about the inclusion or exclusion of the words "conditions of". I understand that they are not in the directive and never have been. They are not included in the amendments proposed in Document 646. Is it therefore that some member States—Germany has been referred to specifically—now wish these words to be included, even though they are not recommended in Document 646? If so, our practical position is one of resisting inclusion rather than seeking exclusion, which is a rather stronger position. I should like an assurance that that analysis of the situation is correct and that it is proposed to resist the inclusion of the words "conditions of". That would reassure those people who are concerned about this matter.

In some drafts sent to us by various bodies—I have here one from the Senate of the Inns of Court and the Bar which has the words "Text sent from the Lord Chancellor's Office on 20th October 1976" written on the top of the photostat copy—Article 5 (1) reads:

"they must be introduced, in accordance with local rules or customs, to the presiding judge and, where necessary, the President of the Bar in the host Member State."

I cannot find these last words in the directive of 1975, in the amendments proposed in Document 646 or anywhere else except in this draft and one other. I cannot find them in any official documents.

I should be glad if the Lord Advocate could tell us whether it is proposed that these words be added, what is he basis for them, whether there has been agreement between member States which makes their introduction a formality and what will be their effect. I am far from clear how the first part of the sentence could be applied in this country though I see how the second part might be applied here and might be very useful.

The Law Society of Scotland has suggested that when an advocate from overseas comes here occasionally to practise he should be required to nominate whether he is practising as an advocate or a solicitor. The Lord Advocate would know better than I the basis of that point and I hope that, today or in writing later, he will be able to clarify the matter.

Perhaps I may point out that there is no difference between barristers and solicitors on the Continent. The legal profession is one profession. Only in this country is there a separation.

That is the point. As long as we have separation—and there are many people who think that for sound reasons in the interests of the public it is desirable to maintain that distinction—it may be important that, when a lawyer comes here from somewhere overseas where there is not that distinction, he should indicate in which of our classifications of lawyer he is purporting to practise. I express no view on that either way. I merely make the point in the hope than an authoritative view may be obtained on it. The reason for this matter's being raised is the very reason posed by the hon. Gentleman in his intervention.

Mr. David Edward, in the note which we have all had, referred to detailed submissions made to the Lord Chancellor's office about the proposed Article 6. No doubt those detailed submissions will receive the full consideration which all other points raised with the Lord Chancellor's office obviously have received so far. I express the hope that we may in due course be advised about the views of the Lord Chancellor on those detailed submissions and what action may be taken about them. I gather that there have been discussions over the past two years relating to Articles 5 and 6, ending with an agreement reached in Perugia among all the Bars and Law Societies of Europe. Is the Lord Advocate able to tell us whether Article 6 gives effect to what was then agreed, or whether it has not proved possible to give effect to that agreement? If the latter, in what respect does Article 6 fall short of or differ from what was agreed on that occasion? That information would be of enormous assistance, because we should then know what is left in issue.

I should also like some assistance on the question of timing. I seem to have gathered several different versions of the text, over the course of the week. I notice that one refers to two years and another to 18 months. I am far from clear as to which is the latest official figure or what is now expected to be the period allowed for implementation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East said that this was a comparatively minor matter in view of what is yet to come and. he referred to the directive on the right of establishment. There is another interesting directive to come—on the recognition of qualifications—which will be even more difficult than those in the medical and scientific spheres, for the very reasons to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate can give us any indication of the progress that is being made, or whether we are likely to see detailed progress on these matters.

I should like the Lord Advocate to address his mind in particular to what seems to me one of the most important aspects of what we are talking about—namely, the effect of this on our domestic law. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I served on the Foster Committee, which deliberated for quite a long time on how this House was to retain supervision or control over law-making in the Community which would oblige us to change our domestic law. It was because of the importance of that that the Foster Committee was set up. It was because of the importance of that matter that the Foster Committee made its first recommendation for explanatory memoranda and it was because of that that paragraph 3 of the proposed explanatory memorandum—the effect on law—was perhaps, in his mind and mine, to be the most important of all the provisions in the memoranda.

We are talking not just about how these provisions will affect the different practices of the different professions, but about how they will affect the domestic law of this country. We have in my view rather less than the full information which it ought now to be possible to give.

In the first two memoranda issued by the Lord Chancellor's office, reference was made to the need which would arise to amend the Solicitors Act 1974 and in particular the provisions of Section 22. I should have thought that, as the result of the draft as it will be if the amendments in Document R/646/76 go through, there must be a need for amendment of Section 22 and probably of Section 23. The possible amendment of Section 23 has not yet been referred to in any memorandum, so I may be wrong in supposing that would be necessary. However, I doubt whether I am wrong in thinking that.

Furthermore, the one subject on which we have not touched very much is prohibition on the issuing of any writ or process by anyone except a qualified person. I refer now to Section 20 of the Solicitors Act 1974. I do not find it easy to see how these provisions could go through in their present form without necessitating some amendment of Section 19 and/or Section 20. I express no view whether that is a good or a bad thing. I merely express the view that we ought now to take stock, as we are getting close to a final draft for this directive, of what amendments to our domestic law would be necessary on the basis of agreeing this directive with the proposed amendments.

We ought to take stock for two reasons. First, we must consider the effect of translating this into practical terms. Secondly, it is important that before this directive is agreed to by the Government, there should be a statement on the lines of the explanatory memoranda setting out clearly what changes it is now believed will be necessary. That is the whole purpose of dealing with directives in this way.

This is an important example of how useful and necessary this procedure is. If people are told in this way what amendments of our domestic law are necessary, they then have an opportunity to comment upon them—and we are all entitled to look to the Government, in view of the procedure that we have adopted, to specify what they believe the necessary amendments to be. For the reasons which I have indicated and whilst I accept that I may be wrong, I doubt whether the extent of the amendments which would be necessary has as yet been set out and specified. I think that it should be.

I end as I began by welcoming this directive and paying the warmest of tributes to all who have had a hand in bringing it this far with such a large measure of agreement.

I fear that this will develop into a rather dreary date. It is not being attended by many of my hon. Friends, and it was only by accident that I found myself in the Chamber for the purpose of hearing the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival).

I think that we have lost a golden opportunity to harmonise our professional legal system with that of the Common Market countries. We continue to maintain a difference between the two professions of solicitor and barrister, and I think that the time has come to merge the two. The hon. and learned Member for Southport did not commit himself either way on that topic, but I have long felt that the two professions ought to be merged and that barristers and solicitors in this country should be treated in the same way as lawyers in all the other European countries.

I will make my comment on that shortly in an endeavour to be as neutral as I can and to avoid going off at a tangent on matters that are no doubt interesting but have nothing to do with this debate. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that on the Continent all lawyers are treated alike, but he could not be more wrong. One finds that there are avocats, avoués and notaires, to mention only three kinds in France alone. The hon. Gentleman has based his argument on a false premise.

My impression is that vis-à-vis the courts they are treated in the same way. Any lawyer in any of the Continental countries can act as an advocate or notary in whatever capacity he wants to carry out his legal professional duties. That is why, although I see nods of disapproval—

Disagreement, not disapproval.

I am fortified in my belief by the knowledge that what I am saying is not altogether disapproved of. Hon. Gentlemen opposite think that I am wrong in fact, but I believe that in principle I am right. That is the only contribution I wish to make to the debate.

I begin by expressing my gratitude to all those who have taken part in the debate for the general welcome they have given to the directive.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) made it clear that he wishes to see a fusion of the legal professions in this country, whether or not there is such a fusion in any other country. It is true that this matter is under discussion, and no doubt it will be the subject of evidence to the two Royal Commissions that are under way on the legal profession. My hon. Friend need not feel that his point of view will not be represented in a proper forum because this directive does not deal with the matter.

That lets me out.

I hope that despite his remark from a sedentary position my hon. Friend will continue to stay with us.

The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) was most gracious in what he said about the directive and the consultations that have taken place, and I should like to associate myself with his remarks in that general connection.

I associate myself also with the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) to the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East for his activities on the European scene and in particular his work as Chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament.

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his comment on the adequacy of Article 5 as it stands. He touched on an important matter that was exercising the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central—namely, the universality of the legal profession. With delicate courtesy he left aside many of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend referred and which, as Opposition Members made clear when my hon. Friend was speaking, raise issues that are far from simple.

We in this country assume that the legal professions on the other side of the Channel are unitary, but that assumption is far from accurate. This is a matter on which we need not feel that an undue attack is being made on the legal professions as they exist in this country, but that does not mean that there are not difficulties. Clearly there are, and they have been touched on in this debate.

The Law Society of Scotland made a point on this issue and stressed the anxiety—this was referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival)—that a Continental practitioner may come to Scotland and attempt to exercise the rôle of solicitor and advocate because he can do that in his own jurisdiction. The answer to that, although I do not give it authoritatively—luckily, I cannot give authorative replies from the Dispatch Box—is contained in Article 4 of the draft directive as its stands, particularly if one works out the consequences of paragraphs 1 and 3 of that article. I hope that that will meet the case, although I do not pretend that this is a matter that is entirely free from doubt or that I am attempting to give an authoritative answer.

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Southport for the prospective immunity that he conferred upon me from giving instant opinions. I am not a great enthusiast for instant opinions, and I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman said that he is not either. Therefore, I shall not go beyond what I feel I can honestly say on these matters from the Dispatch Box today.

I hope that I can comment fairly widely on the points that have been made during the debate, but I shall not attempt to give positive answers where I feel that I cannot do so. I give a general undertaking that if I do not today touch on a point which has been raised—hon. Members will understand this—if it is possible to do so I shall write and give further guidance later.

I turn first to the point raised by the hon. Member for Burton. He raised an interesting matter on the memorandum submitted by the legal profession about the effect of the Van Binsburgen case and the meaning of the first "whereas" in the preamble. This is a reference to the abolition of all restrictions in the preamble and it is a matter which, along with other matters, is under active consideration by the Council's legal service. That is the only factual answer that I can give the hon. Gentleman. The ultimate interpretation of what the European Court decided in the Van Binsburgen case must be a matter for the European Court itself, and the hon. Gentleman will understand why I do not venture into that field.

The next point raised by the hon. Gentleman—and by others too—arises on Article 4(4) where one sees the words "conditions of". The question is whether they are in or out. The answer is that the words are out, but there is a danger that there may be pressure to put them in. As I understand the situation, it is vital for us, in order to meet such pressure, to have a clear understanding of what "conditions" means in its various translations in European languages. Certainly the precise meaning, or even any clearly-defined meaning, of this term is hard to seek. The German word bedingung is fraught with a penumbra of vagueness. That may not be altogether untrue of the word "conditions" in the other European languages concerned.

Can the Lord Advocate give some indication of what the Germans have in mind as being the meaning of the word "conditions"? It seems to be somewhat superfluous. Can the Lord Advocate personally explain why the word "conditions" is causing this problem?

I shall take refuge in the prospective immunity which the hon. and learned Member for South-port conferred on me, but I think that linguistically and legally the word is different. It is a matter which the Government are most actively pursuing. It is obviously vital to know what conception is embodied in that particular terminology.

The hon. and learned Member for Southport raised a number of detailed points which I shall try to answer in the sequence in which he presented them. He made an interesting observation about the use of the word "formal" in Article 1(1) and indicated that "legal" would be better. It is difficult to choose precise words to confer a general meaning in the different languages of the different juridical systems of the member countries of the Community.

I was pointing out that the proposed meaning includes the word "legal" and does not include the word "formal". I was expressing a view that there would be no virtue in seeking to change it to "legal" and that the concept of "formal" would be even more difficult.

I misunderstood the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman made. If he prefers the word "legal" without any qualification by the word "formal", I can understand the point. My personal view is that the hon. and learned Gentleman has an accurate approach to this matter.

I have already dealt with the question of "conditions" and I cannot elaborate on that. In connection with Article 5 (1), the hon. and learned Gentleman asked me what was the meaning of the words "where necessary". He drew attention to the fact that under Article 5 there is the concept that visiting lawyers should be introduced to the presiding judge and where necessary, the president of the Bat in the host member State. The hon. and learned Gentleman gave qualified approval to the latter saying that that would be a useful exercise but he rather questioned what was intended by the words "where necessary". I cannot answer him specifically but, with his approval, I shall write to him and try to give a rather fuller explanation of why those words are there.

I cannot give an answer to the earlier point about introduction in accordance with local rules or customs. But it would not be inappropriate, in countries where practitioners are far from the capital, or even another State, for the judge to meet a strange practitioner who comes from another jurisdiction, so that the judge can know who the person is. That would seem a fairly obvious courtesy, and maybe that is all that is intended. This is perhaps another matter about which I can write to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

The hon. and learned Gentleman expressed certain anxiety about Articles 5 and 6 and the effect that they might have with regard to the exercise of two functions in this country—the advocacy functions and solicitor functions of practitioners coming from a jurisdiction where both facilities might be exercised. I think I have already answered that point.

My understanding of Article 4, particularly paragraphs 1 and 3, is that it would exclude a practitioner from exercising both roles, and I think he would have to elect—as the Law Society of Scotland suggested—the function he intended to undertake.

I have noted the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman made about Article 6. This matter, including the matters raised by Mr. David Edward, are under consideration. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about the explanatory memoranda dealing with the list of practitioners in Article 1(2). I can assure him that the most recent memorandum from the Lord Chancellor is accurate and that the words "practising" and "in private practice" have been deleted.

As far as timing is concerned, again I do not think I can give an instant reply. The hon. and learned Gentleman drew attention to the discrepancy between two years and 18 months. That may not be an absolutely vital discrepancy, but it is interesting. I cannot give any guidance today, nor can I give any guidance about progress on reciprocity.

The hon. and learned Gentleman raised an interesting point about the Solicitors Act 1974 in particular. The answer that I shall give applies both to that Act and the corresponding Scottish statute. A visiting lawyer will be subject to the provisions of the Solicitors Act in so far as he carries out the activities of a solicitor. As at present drafted, these enactments would appear to prohibit certain activities being carried out by persons other than English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish solicitors, advocates or barristers. Since under the EEC Treaty and the operation of this directive some of those activities are to be opened to visiting lawyers, the provisions of the Solicitors Act will have to be varied—as the hon. and learned Gentleman envisaged—to permit a visiting lawyer, in terms of United Kingdom law, to carry out those activities.

The relevant provisions will require to be detailed and it would be premature to consider what may be necessary, or how a legislative change should be effected, until the directive solidifies in its final form. I particularly note the plea made by the hon. and learned Gentleman that at as early a date as possible a fuller explanation should be given in a statement by the Government about their intentions in this regard. I take note of that request.

I go a little further and express the view that we have now gone a sufficient distance along the road that we should now say, before the matter goes further, certainly before the directive is agreed, what amendments to our domestic law would be necessary if the directive went through as it is now envisaged.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is pressing me hard. I must respectfully stick where I stood. A hypothetical examination of the amendments which would be necessary at any particular stage of this draft directive would be rather time-consuming and not necessarily helpful to the general public. I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, but I would be wrong to suggest that it would necessarily be impossible to produce a statement about the Government's thinking on this until the directive had been formally ratified by everybody If I can go further than that, I shall write to the hon. and learned Gentleman to that effect.

In conclusion, may I touch on one or two matters in addition to those which have been raised both in relation to the law of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland and—

The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was about to touch on one or two matters that had not been raised in the debate. Unfortunately, I was outside the Chamber when he started his remarks. I am not sure whether he dealt with the question I raised, which was whether we shall have a new draft directive from the Commission to consider in the light of the further consideration which is now being given. The essence of the problem is contained in Article 6. The House will perhaps want to know exactly in what form that is to be presented in due course before the final decision is taken. Is the Lord Advocate able to help me?

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I had noted his question, which I intended to answer by saying that it was one of the questions on which I would hide under the immunity which the hon. and learned Member for Southport was kind enough to confer on me at the outset.

First, I draw to the attention of the House a matter on which my hon. and (earned Friend the Solicitor-General touched. It has been possible in recent negotiations on the directive to achieve a text which, generally speaking, avoids the use of technical legal terms, whether of English, Scottish or Northern Irish art, and to use language which is in that sense neutral and equally understandable in all the United Kingdom jurisdictions. Hon. Members may have noticed that that point arises on the memoranda that were helpfully submitted by various members of the legal profession.

I am thinking in particular of the memoranda by the Law Society and the Law Society of Scotland. Hon. and learned Members will have noticed that there are at least two different meanings to "writ". For example, in Scotland there is a reference to "writs" in connection with hereditable and moveable property, and that has a totally different meaning from "writ" in the sense in which it is used by the Law Society in its submissions, "writ" there meaning an initiating legal document. In litigation it has that use in Scoland too.

Differences of that sort show how important it is to try to get non-technical words which convey the necessary meaning in the various jurisdictions of the United Kingdom and of the other member States of the Community. That is a point which the legal professions rightly stress in their submissions to the Government.

The consultation with the Scottish legal professions as well as with those of other parts of the United Kingdom has been very full. On behalf of the Government, I am grateful that all the bodies concerned have expressed satisfaction at the way in which they have been brought into the consideration of the technical problems of drafting and the professional problems of providing proper safeguards for the public and maintaining the high standards of professional services in this country. Those are important aspects of the consumer side of the exercise about which hon. Members have been rightly concerned.

Consultation with all the professions in the United Kingdom is still continuing. The fact that there remain some anomalies in the present draft and some matters on which the professions are dissatisfied does not mean that further consideration will not be given to achieving the best directive which is possible at the end of the day. The Government will be giving further active consideration to the representations which have been made to them by the professions and, of course, to the matters which have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members today.

The debate has come at the best possible stage in the drafting of the directive when we have a draft which is the product of mature discussion and consideration between representatives of the member States but which is still open to further discussion and further representations on behalf of the United Kingdom.

In reply to the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), I am informed that it is likely that the Commission will put forward amendments to the draft but that it is unlikely that it will put forward a new draft directive. That is, I hope, a specific answer to the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

That is an answer, but the question which is left uncertain in my mind is whether the amendments will constitute such a new instrument as would provide for its being further considered by the House. That is the crux of the problem and it is one which I hope, if not now, will be clarified later.

I should clearly be wise to accept the second alternative put to me by the right hon. Gentleman. If I can, I will write to him and give further clarification.

The matter is open to further discussion and representations on behalf of those concerned in the United Kingdom and of the United Kingdom as such, but at the same time the directive has been under consideration in the Community for a substantial period, and it is gratifying that there is a reasonable prospect of realising a measure which is likely to be of benefit to those classes of the public who need the services of members of foreign legal professions.

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of the latest proposals of the Council of the European Communities for Road Worthiness Tests following draft Directives R/1795/72 and R/1614/74 and in the light of the United Kingdom's leading position in this field welcomes these proposals as an important step forward towards harmonising vehicle testing arrangements within the Community.

The debate has its origin in proposals put forward in 1972 by the Commission of European Communities—draft Directive R/1795/72—for securing common basic requirements for testing roadworthiness of vehicles. These proposals were subsequently amended in 1974—draft Directive R/1614/74—to take account of the views of the Economic and Social Committee and the European Parliament. Hon. Members have had the opportunity to see both documents.

The Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation expressed the view in more than one report that these proposals ought to be further considered by the House in the light of the costs involved in implementing the arrangements proposed. That further consideration has been deferred until the present time because the proposals have been undergoing radical reappraisal, and the outcome is the new draft directive described in the memorandum made available to Members and which is in the Vote Office. I apologise to the House for the short time that the supplementary memorandum has been available in the Vote Office. That is largely because the seal of approval was not put on the radical changes until last Thursday's meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers in Brussels. .

The proposals in the original draft directives were discussed by the Scrutiny Committee, and in the subsequent negotiations its comments have been very much borne in mind. The present proposals differ in scope rather than substance from the original proposals, but it is gratifying that, in the light of the Committee's concern over the costs involved in implementing what was first proposed, we have been able to get a draft scheme put forward which is much more acceptable from this standpoint. However, before going into detail I should like to say a few words about the general context.

The purpose of the proposed directive is to ensure that certain categories of road vehicle are periodically inspected to determine whether they are in a fit condition for use on the public road. By this means, vehicle standards are improved and the danger of a vehicle defect causing a road accident is lessened. Everyone in the House will agree that we should do all we reasonably can to reduce the terrible toll of death and injury on our roads.

Whilst it is notoriously difficult to determine the real cause of accidents, the best information we have indicates that about 2½ per cent. are the direct result of vehicle defects and in a further 6 per cent. they are a contributing factor. Eight and a half per cent. is a significant proportion, but one needs to ask oneself how much worse the situation might be without the arrangements which already exist in this country to maintain checks on the condition of vehicles. It is clearly essential to maintain effective testing arrangements and standards.

Three schemes for the annual inspection of vehicles are currently operating in this country: the MOT test for cars, vans and motor cycles; the heavy goods vehicle test for heavy lorries and trailers; and the public service vehicle inspections for buses and coaches. Each scheme is tailored to the needs of the vehicles covered and becomes progressively more onerous as the weight and passenger-carrying capacity of the groups increase. Although these schemes are not, and cannot be, a guarantee of a vehicle's roadworthiness throughout the year—roadworthiness being the continual responsibility of the owner and driver—there is no doubt that periodic testing of roadworthiness makes an important contribution to vehicle standards and thereby reduces the number of accidents caused by vehicle defects.

The proposed directive as it now stands is largely confined to requiring the periodic testing of commercial vehicles, and the obligations imposed will be very similar to those already applying in the United Kingdom. It will entail only minor changes in existing arrangements in the United Kingdom and primary legislation will not be needed. We shall be free to maintain our more comprehensive testing arrangements for our domestic vehicles, and the directive will not affect our right to take action in the courts against any vehicle which is shown to be unroadworthy.

The directive has been greatly reduced in scope, not only because of the need to find common ground with those member States which have no test schemes or only rudimentary ones but also to convince all concerned that any additional expenditure involved in implementing the directive will be an effective use of resources for road safety purposes.

Although the vehicles covered represent only about 6 per cent. of all road vehicles, they are regarded as the most important for the safety of life on the roads, and they represent a useful starting point towards securing a wider harmonisation of the test requirements of member States. However, it is our intention to ensure that the directive as eventually approved leaves us a necessary element of flexibility in deploying the resources we already devote to controling the roadworthiness of our own buses and lorries.

The new proposals will require member States to introduce schemes for the compulsory annual testing of buses, coaches, heavy lorries and trailers, taxis and ambulances within a period of one year from the adoption of the directive. These tests must be carried out under State supervision and will cover a comprehensive range of items affecting the roadworthiness of the vehicle. Member States will accept the tests carried out by other States as equal in status to their own, thus implementing a system of generally accepted minimum standards of testing for this important group of vehicles.

Some significant items have been dropped from the original proposals. It has not proved possible to obtain agreement for the testing of cars, vans, and motor cycles. While ideally it would have been preferable to have, covered these items, I realise that some member States are embarking on roadworthiness testing for the first time and are reluctant to adopt a really comprehensive scheme until they have had experience of what is involved.

However, it is envisaged that further proposals will be put forward in due course, and it is a cause for satisfaction that some of the proposals originally contemplated are not included in the present draft. We will not be committed to the testing of public service vehicles at half-yearly intervals, which in our view would have entailed an over-lavish use of the testing procedure, nor will we be required to test vehicles other than periodically—that is, we will not be required to test on change of ownership, after accident repair, when a vehicle is imported into a member State or when a vehicle is found to be unroadworthy on a spot check. These are contentious matters on which no consensus could be achieved and they have been left to the decision of the individual member State. Similarly, the administrative rules necessary for the effective implementation of the test scheme have been left to the good sense of the member States.

Finally the directive allows transitional provisions to enable member States to introduce the testing scheme in a gradual and controlled manner. Hon. Members will recall that our own testing schemes were introduced on a gradual basis, and it is only sensible that the new directive should allow for similar arrangements.

At first sight, the proposed directive may not seem in itself to contain much of practical significance for the United Kingdom. It is, however, an important first step forward towards the wider establishment and harmonising of testing arrangements and standards in Europe We hope in due course to see more comprehensive arrangements developed, but we recognise that a balance has to be struck between the costs imposed and the contribution made to road safety. We think that the proposed directive is broadly satisfactory from this standpoint, and on that basis I commend the motion to the House.

As the Minister has said, the original proposals were published in 1972. They were amended, and it was the 1974 proposals which were considered by the House of Lords Select Committee in June 1974.

The Select Committee summarised the proposals in three groups. First, the draft directive would require vehicles to be tested in circumstances not at present calling, under the United Kingdom law, for a test—that is, change of ownership or after an accident. Secondly, the draft directive would require more extensive tests than are called for under our present legislation. The third matter concerns the enforcement of test requirements, in particular the requirement that vehicles shall carry discs certifying that they have been tested for roadworthiness.

Since then, the proposals have been radically altered. The scope of the directive is much more limited, and clearly that is reasonable. As the Minister mentioned, the prime consideration has been cost. It now affects mainly commercial vehicles, and the regulations which will apply already substantially apply in this country.

However, essentially these proposals are rules governing roadworthiness tests of vehicles which travel within the Common Market. In other words, they require standards to be adopted on European journeys rather than on national journeys. Perhaps I could make the point in a different way. It should be made clear that, even though the EEC rules do not require such standards, they do not prevent them from being made a part of domestic law.

A matter which gives cause for serious concern is the position about tests of vehicles after they have been involved in accidents. That was a term of the 1974 directive. In my view, the position in this country about the requirements is full of danger. If a car is involved in a serious accident, even if it is an insurance write-off, there is no requirement in our law for the car to be tested before it goes back on the road.

Let us suppose that a 1976 car is involved in an accident and that it is written off by the insurance company, which means that, from the insurance company's point of view, it is cheaper to pay a cash sum to the insured motorist than to repair the car. However, what often happens is that the car is bought by a firm which perhaps specialises in the business of written-off cars and is repaired and sold. There is no requirement that the car, in spite of the damage to it or of anything else which has happened, should be inspected before going back on the road.

It is worse than that. If a 1976 car is involved, it would not be subject to the normal MOT tests until it was three years old. That is totally unacceptable. The traditional road safety slogan has always been "Keep death off the roads." This system does not seem to ensure that. It is unacceptable for the purchaser of the car and it is unacceptable on road safety grounds.

I find it extraordinary that this situation has been allowed to continue unchecked for so long and has been ignored despite the changes that have been made in road safety laws and consumer protection measures. I am not alone in my concern about this. During the past few days I have discussed this subject with a number of respectable motor trade organisations. The Motor Agents' Association, the Institute of Automobile Assessors and the Vehicle Builders and Repairers Association find the position unsatisfactory and want it to be changed. The Motor Trader, which has a fine reputation as a campaigning magazine for road safety standards, also supports change.

The position is totally unsatisfactory, and must be reformed as a matter of urgency in the public interest. Badly damaged vehicles should not be allowed back on the roads unchecked after repair. The danger to the driver of that car and to other road users is self-evident. Unfortunately, this practice has been allowed to continue for year after year. Apparently, the only thing which will make the Government move is a dossier of cases of this kind. I do not seek to make a party political point on this question.

I am glad to say that the Institute of Automobile Assessors has agreed in principle to co-operate with such a survey. If members of the public who have had experience of cars badly damaged in accidents finding their way back on to the road in a dangerous or unsatisfactory condition would contact me at the House, their experiences will be added to the report that we intend to present to the Department.

A vehicle which has been seriously damaged in an accident should be subjected to inspection before being allowed back on the road. This would apply to insurance write-off cars as well as to other seriously damaged cars. While at the very least there should be an MOT inspection, there is a strong case for a more rigorous inspection of the chassis as well.

The Government may claim that this point is covered by the law which requires that no car should go back on to the road in an unroadworthy condition. Theoretically that is correct. In practice this is an argument that does not stand up. For that condition to be enforced it must be detected, and that depends on the police. There is no question but that the police are already over worked and overstretched. I believe that there should be a regulation system which does not place responsibility on the police, for inspection after accidents. This would build up a better system.

There are two other topics which I wish to raise and which are covered in the 1974 directive. The first concerns tests on change of ownership. This was a requirement of the original EEC rules, and was one of the points which the House of Lords Select Committee made. There are a number of people who would like to see this rule apply to domestic law. Even though it is not a requirement internationally that change of ownership cars should be subject to inspection, the law in this country should be changed. I have an open mind on this, but I should like to hear the Government's view. The case for such a rule rests on the fact that it would ensure more regular checks than at present. By choosing the point of sale, it also identifies a crucial moment.

A company or a person selling a car which has passed an MOT test six months previously may realise that waiting for a full 12 months to elapse means that the condition of the car would require expensive repairs. They may be tempted to sell the car which is not up to MOT standards but is covered by a current MOT certificate midway in the test period.

A great many cars fail their MOT test. The latest figures show that more than one-third of all cars tested each year fail their MOT test. That is almost 4 million cars a year.

I wonder whether I could have the attention of the Under-Secretary for a moment—

Order. I believe that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is relaying to the Under-Secretary the answers to the points which the hon. Gentleman is raising.

I did not realise that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) had become the Under-Secretary's PPS. I am glad to hear of his promotion.

In case the Under-Secretary missed what I said while he was being briefed, I repeat that about one-third of the cars tested each year fail their MOT test. That amounts to almost 4 million cars a year. That is an enormous total. The two most common grounds for failure are faulty steering and faulty brakes. Both conditions have undoubted road safety implications.

I quote from the magazine Motor Trader which states

"What we find of particular concern is that, if our figures are projected right across the board and about one-third of the vehicles which fail are driven away in what testers consider to be a dangerous condition, then around 1·3 million such vehicles are driven on the roads each year. Taking a figure of 300 test days a year as a base on which to work this gives a total of about 4,300 such cars a day."

This makes clear the dangers in this system. We shall not change the whole system but what is suggested is that when a car changes ownership, at the point of the sale an MOT test should be required. It seems that newspapers like the Motor Trader have made a strong case for this. I should like to know what the Government's view is on this.

My next point concerns second-hand imported cars. It was a requirement in the directive considered by the House of Lords Select Committee that such cars should be subject to a test. What information can the Minister give about the number of second-hand imported cars? Secondly, can he say a little more about how requirements in this country compare with those in other countries such as Italy and France? If there is a large trade in that respect and the requirements are not as strong as they are in this country, there is a potential loophole in the regulations.

We welcome what has been decided, but I wish to stress that simply because the EEC directive does not cover dangerous cars is no reason why domestic law should not cover a situation that gives many people grounds for concern.

Nobody in his right senses would oppose this first step, although he might wonder whether it is as important a step as the Government would have us believe.

The point made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) about re-examining vehicles after accidents is valid and should be examined. It is right and proper that any member of the EEC should know when a vehicle is approaching him that at least some minimum standards of safety have been observed abroad.

Can the Minister estimate the extra cost of these examinations? That is of enormous importance.

To which examination is the hon. Gentleman referring?

If the Minister had waited for me to finish what I was saying, he would have known the answer. I admire his keenness. Unless examinations can be held quickly, and unless there is an adequate number of inspectors, a great deal of harm will be done and hardship will be felt by operators who will have to join the inevitable queues waiting for vehicle inspection. They will not be able to operate because their certificates will not have been forthcoming. We have already before us the disastrous example of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre in Swansea which must cause the Minister to enter into a great deal of time-consuming correspondence. We can only hope that a shortage of examiners and inspectors will not prevent operators from transacting their business or licensing their cars.

I wish to make a few brief comments in this debate.

The hon. Gentleman has the Adjournment debate

Thank you for reminding me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I welcome that news in the informal way in which you announce these matters in the Chamber.

I wish to mention one or two points in connection with two of the draft documents. I endorse enthusiastically the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) and I hope that the Minister will give him a powerful reply. In view of the dual manner in which we as members of the European Parliament examine legislation passing, as it were, through both Houses, perhaps I could make one or two points in a European context from a legislative rather than from a procedural point of view, and also try to set the background to the progress of these draft directives.

I should like to congratulate the Scrutiny Committee, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), since it undertakes valuable work in highlighting the importance of proper debates on these subjects.

The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) said that this was a relatively unimportant matter. I do not disagree with him. Because of the nature of our tests in the United Kingdom, the effect of the draft directives is reduced, despite the growth of intra-Community traffic. Therefore, this can be regarded as only one small step forward for mankind. In that sense it is relatively unimportant. Nevertheless, the documents are useful and a step in the right direction.

I think I am right in saying that the European Parliament deliberated on these matters as long ago as 1973. Therefore, at that time we, as new members of that institution and of the Community, were also new to the problems set out in the directives. However, the directives were given more than a fair wind and were speeded on their way with a degree of enthusiasm in respect of what was regarded as fairly technical matters. They will become part of the overall corpus of documentation in vehicle law. I shall attach great importance to any decisions that flow from the Commission in regard to vehicle safety, in which area the United States has led the world. No doubt we shall be hearing more on that score in due course.

I wish to draw attention to the dilemma in which the Executive finds itself, and indeed in which it puts the House, following the haphazard way in which technical documents of this kind, some of which have a political content, are dealt with. These draft directives are obviously suitable matters to be sent to a Standing Committee. I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, who obviously has other pressures on him these days, should decide that this matter should be taken on the Floor. I remember that in the summer some documents were taken upstairs in Committee which were of much greater importance, weight, and circum stance, containing more political content and having greater economic repercussions than the matters now before the House. Perhaps the Minister will broaden his ministerial horizons in his reply and tell us why he thinks that these matters should be taken on the Floor.

Although the Scrutiny Committee makes its recommendations, in the final analysis it is the Government who take the decisions. There have been instances where the Government have not followed the Scrutiny Committee's advice. However, it would be wrong of me to try to represent the Scrutiny Committee's view on these matters. Indeed, I cannot remember its specific recommendations, but if the Government have the good fortune to have another Session of Parliament—which is another matter—the Executive should sort itself out and try to observe some kind of consistency. It should lay down which of these documents should go upstairs to the relevant Committee. Weightier subjects should come to the Floor of the House.

There will be consequential amendments to domestic legislation from the adoption of the directive, and one year after the adoption is the implementation date as a result of a European Parliament suggestion in 1973. The amendments will affect such legislation as the Road Traffic Acts. Can the Undersecretary of State say when they might be brought before the House? Will they stand on their own, or be part of the regular wider consolidation of road traffic legislation?

I wish to contribute a few remarks about the interesting point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). It should be remembered in this connection that the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee originally embodied two quite separate directives and included the perhaps rather more crucial directive relating to driving and vehicle licensing. Those were the points that were predominant in the view of the Committee at the time, although clearly it also had in mind questions which are not unimportant concerning the roadworthiness test.

This highlights a point which I consider to be of great importance. Bearing in mind that the sole effect that the House can have on the legislative process of the Community is by influencing Ministers' minds, it would be infinitely more valuable if such influence took place within the framework of major debates on major subjects, so that if we were talking about this and allied subjects in a major debate on transport policy we would be doing a useful task. As it is, there are about six of us here discussing very narrow issues in a totally selective context, and that is valueless.

I have consistently recommended that there should be debates of a substantial kind which would deal with a variety of different matters, all of which are being pursued within the framework of the Community. For example, we have a great series of different directives relating to the textile industry, which is of the greatest importance as a total matter for the House. If only the Government would put down these major issues for consideration, we could have proper debate of real value.

I fully understand what the Minister has said about the difficulties of producing a supplementary explanatory memorandum, but that again highlights precisely my concern. It is useless for the House to be dragged in to say a few words on a subject between one moment when great amendments have culminated and the next moment when they are adopted. That frustrates the total purpose of the operation in which we are engaged. I make no direct charge against the hon. Gentleman. I am attacking the purposes being pursued by the Government in this matter, because they are wrong and they are not what was intended within the framework of Community legislation and its being debated in this House.

I assure the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) that I sympathise with the position in which all those interested in these matters from the European point of view have been put by the way we have handled this matter. Nevertheless, he will recall that there was planned to be a transport policy debate last Thursday, which was frustrated by a Standing Order No. 9 debate. I make no particular point about that—a matter of party politics was involved—but, there was the possibility of that opportunity for a transport debate, for which we have fought for some time, when these things could have been considered in a coherent form.

If that were the Government's intention, they should have put down this and other directives as being allied to that debate, but they did not. If we are seriously to consider these matters within the framework of transport policy, well and good, but they must be carefully cited in the matter of debate.

I understand the point. It is something which may be possible in future. I know that consideration has been given to this aspect in relation to other debates, major and minor, through the linking together of these things in a coherent fashion. For example, following a major debate on transport, we could perhaps have debates on directives relating to transport afterwards on the same day, which would be a sensible way to proceed

In reply to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), I would point out that we are trying to carry out the wishes of the Scrutiny Committee in having a debate in the House on this subject, but I agree that, from a Back Bencher's point of view, it would seem more sensible to take such matters upstairs in Committee. The hon. Gentleman made the point that upstairs in Committee one could have a more sensible exchange of views rather than have merely half a dozen people gathered here on a Friday.

The hon. Gentleman asked when the Statutory Instruments to amend our regulations will be introduced. They will relate almost exclusively to the position of taxis and ambulances and they will be very minor. I imagine that they will come in as soon as the directive is passed—next year perhaps. I cannot be more specific than that.

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) referred to a test after an accident has taken place. I understand and sympathise with his view, but there are two principal objections to it. First, there is the technical matter of defining a serious accident. The hon. Member will agree that accidents to cars and lorries are of all kinds. If we are to have sensible law, we must have a distinction between those which do not matter from the road safety point of view and those which do matter. The drawing of that line is not easy.

In our view, the major point is that to add that test to the ones which already take place would not be a cost-effective way of increasing road safety. The contribution to road safety arising from an extra test would not be great enough to justify the resources we would have to spend on it. That is the sort of reason that the Scrutiny Committee had in mind when it recommended that the comprehensive arrangements suggested by the EEC should be toned down to take account of cost factors. There would be a substantial addition to that cost if we did what the hon. Gentleman suggested.

In addition, as I have said no less than twice already in my short period as a Minister, in the absence of a very good case I am reluctant to add to the regulations surrounding the motorist, and so far I am not convinced that such a case has been made in this matter.

I realise that the hon. Gentleman has not had much notice of the points I made, but I do not regard what he has said so far as satisfactory. Successive Governments have had many years in which to work out some kind of definition, even if it applied only to the road tax, which is definable. How does he mean that it would not be cost effective? On what figures does he reach that judgment? Does he have figures on this question, or is it simply a ministerial excuse?

On the last question, the hon. Gentleman will understand that the Department—not under his regime, but certainly under the previous régime—has introduced regulations helter-skelter into motoring. To ignore a self-evident danger of this kind seems to me to be a most extraordinary omission on the part of the Department.

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. What I meant by cost effectiveness was exactly what I said—that the addition to road safety in this area, which we estimate would be quite small, would not be justified in terms of the extra resources that would have to be spent on this kind of testing. I have not any exact figures, but the general nature of the argument is perfectly apparent and I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman is confused by it.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. If, for the sake of argument, a simple MOT test were required for cars involved in write-off accidents—these being easily definable—before they went back on the road, what extra resources would be required?

I should need notice of that question concerning an MOT test after a write-off accident. I do not have figures at hand on that precise point, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, but I think that the general position is clear.

If the hon. Gentleman ever gets into my position, he will see that the work being done on road safety is of a very high standard. We are among the world leaders in this respect, as is evidenced by the fact that we are talking about an EEC directive in which other people are adopting measures that we already have. Indeed, they are rather less than we already have. The hon. Gentleman must understand that one does not have particular figures on hand on that sort of precise point.

The hon. Gentleman, moreover, has shifted his ground from his original proposal. At first he was talking about the cost of accidents as a whole and he was suggesting that we must have MOT tests relating to accidents as a whole. He now says that we must have them when there has been a write-off accident.

Clearly my original point holds. I would not accept that it is impossible to define when a car is involved in a write-off accident or a serious accident. This is a departmental excuse of the bleakest kind. I am not shifting my ground in saying that there is a minimum definable situation which so far the hon. Gentleman has totally failed to answer.

The hon. Gentleman insists that we are making an excuse. On the contrary, we are telling him our view, which is that these additional measures would not be cost effective—

Based on no figures.

based on the figures which we have discussed over many years. As to change of ownership, there is no evidence that vehicles offered for sale are any less roadworthy than other vehicles of similar type. On the basis of 4 million changes of ownership, the estimated cost of implementing this suggestion is £16 million in fees alone, apart from any other consideration. There is no evidence that there would be any substantial increase in road safety as a consequence of introducing an additional measure on a change of ownership, quite apart from the one that we have already discussed after an accident has taken place.

It is a matter of fine judgment of cost benefit, and we are bound to say that we do not think it is justified at the moment. But the Department is always prepared to consider a case. I undertake that we shall consider the hon. Gentleman's statement and the evidence he has adduced during the course of the debate. If there is a need to change our mind, we shall look at it. Every aspect of this matter is constantly under consideration, however, and every effort is made to see that we adhere to the maximum standards of road safety consistent with reasonable common sense in regard to the costs involved.

That aspect was brought out by the contribution of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who has had to depart. He made the very point that we should not introduce extra tests and then find that we have not the manpower resources to deal with them adequately, so that people have to wait before they can use their vehicles. We must bear in mind that a large cost element is involved. We agree with the Scrutiny Committee that it must be taken into account. That is why we are satisfied with the directive as it is.

The hon. Gentleman has given a number of undertakings that he will consider various things. Will he also undertake that the information he has in the Department, but which he has been unable to produce today, concerning accidents, write-offs and seriously damaged cars will be provided to me?

I undertake that any figures which are available in the Department on these specific points will be made available to the hon. Gentleman.

I understand that the motion standing in the name of the Lord President of the Council concerning Standing Order No. 73A is not to be moved.

Not moved.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I understand that in the circumstances today, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, it is not proposed to move this motion or that on European secondary legislation, nevertheless, as they involve some very important issues affecting the constitutional rights of the House, I hope that the Government spokesman can give an assurance that we shall have ample time to debate them and take decisions on them at a reasonably early date.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As guardian of the interests of the House, will you take consideration of the fact that the proposals contained in these motions were derived from a statement made to the House no less than three months ago and that this is the first occasion on which we have had the opportunity of discussing them? Simply not to move them in this abrupt way seems to me to be the most distressing mistreatment of the House. I call upon you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to protect our interests.

This is not a matter for the Chair. It is entirely up to the member of the Government concerned to move the motions or not, as he wishes, or for any other member of the Government to do so in his place. It is not a matter which concerns the Chair.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that hon. Members who are present can imagine some of the circumstances in which the Government do not wish to move these motions and perhaps discuss the amendments. I hope, however, that it is proper for me, on a point of order, to mention the undertaking to which the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) has referred. It was given, I believe, on 3rd November 1975, so that the motion fulfils part of an undertaking that was given over a year ago.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can we not have an assurance from the Government spokesman that time will be given to debate these motions at a reasonably early date?

It is not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter for the Government.

I have not been present during the course of the discussions this afternoon, but I have noted the representations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and by the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). I will ensure that they are drawn to the attention of my colleagues.

The House is accustomed to dealing with matters on the Adjournment at a much later time either on a Friday afternoon or late at night on other weekdays. It may be regarded in retrospect as fortunate for a number of reasons that today it is possible for us to devote more time to this debate.

I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate it. It is about the undeniable and well known fact, about which the newspapers have been writing in the past week particularly, that commuters in the Greater London area, whatever means of transport they use, are fed up. They are increasingly feeling at the end of their tether. I know very well that that phrase may have been used on previous occasions.

There is a growing feeling among millions of citizens in the Greater London area—I include those citizens who live outside the fringes of Greater London itself—that reform is necessary, that a strong and firm hand will be needed to get a grip on things. An increasing number of commuters are feeling battered, bruised, bewildered, resentful, angry, and prone to violence on a number of occasions, as perhaps the Secretary of State for Transport has seen for himself, about the way in which the services continually let down the consumer.

I am very grateful to the Secretary of State and to his colleague for finding the time to attend and answer this debate. The debate will have been useful if the Government state that they are prepared to make some energetic responses to that which I and succeeding speakers, if there are any in this debate, will enunciate and express, not on behalf of ourselves directly, but on behalf of the millions of hapless consumers of deteriorating services on buses, tubes and trains. That would justify the debate; and that, therefore, is the solemn obligation that the Secretary of State for Transport must undertake.

There has been a little publicity of late—overnight, perhaps—about the payment that the Government may be prepared to make to the transport management authorities—London Transport, in particular—to enable them to deal with the serious financial problems now afflicting them. We may hear more about that in due course.

I am also grateful for this opportunity because it enables Members of Parliament together, crossing party lines and acting in concert, to seize their opportunity to try to reassure the public outside that we as their elected representatives are not ignoring their collective plight, are as worried as they are, and share the view of the media as expressed in the past week particularly, but all the time by definition, that there is a growing number of problems in this whole area which must be tackled.

I must first inflict a number of statistics on the House. I apologise for that in advance and I hope that the House will be patient with me as I give them. I must set the background to this by stating the depressing facts and figures which bring home to us all as ratepayers, taxpayers and commuters in London just how serious the problem is and how intractable it will be unless firm action is taken by the central Government, by the Greater London Council and, indeed, although this is much more remote by definition, even by individual boroughs.

Let us look at the background to the situation. London Transport has engaged on a policy of re-equipment over recent years. That would have been justified if only the immediate operational results had been there for the consumers to see. This is the hideous dilemma. Despite the large sums that have been spent—we are living in a highly inflationary era, despite the Government's policy, when the pound will not be worth as much six months hence as it is today—results have worsened in practical terms.

It is easy to criticise transport authorities. They have a very complicated and difficult task. It is an enormous headache for them to run a huge consumer transport network like London Transport's Tube and bus services. We accept that. I am reluctant to use this word, but the only word that can describe their policy of spending in recent years is "profligacy", because it has produced no results which would have been justified, for instance, if only travellers had been able to say "I remember how appalling these conditions were four or five years ago on the journey I make every morning and every evening. How much better they are now."

One can make that comment in respect of only a small number of services, be they bus, Tube or train. The criticism applies to most of the services. I deliberately except the Victoria Line from that criticism.

Hear, hear.

Most people regard the Victoria Line as an outstanding example the other way, and I am happy to pay tribute to London Transport in that respect. I note the Government Whip's enthusiastic "Hear, hear".

However, that is the exception. It is the most recent line to be built. It carries a message for all of us and for the management of London Transport. The deterioration of the old rolling stock and the track on the London Transport network is one of the major headaches, and London Transport must tackle this problem with energy.

There is, too, inevitably a political consideration. It is all very well for 64 Labour Members apparently to support a campaign by a London newspaper to get a better deal for the commuter in the London area, together with the relevant Greater London Council committee or its chairman. We are well aware that the GLC elections will be upon us in due course. The change of political management at County Hall has coincided with a striking deterioration in the management skills at London Transport itself.

That is a serious charge which I make with reluctance.

I cannot explain exactly the labyrinthine methods by which the result will have been achieved within the internal arrangements of London Transport's own management, but the political nature of the ultimate financial control has a direct reciprocal effect on what the direct managers, with all their practical problems, do at the lower level.

Let us consider the policy of the introduction of the enormous revenue subsidies on which the GLC embarked under the change of political management across the river. The GLC gets a substantial slice of this money from the Government, and that is why it is in the final analysis, as with all these financial matters, the ultimate responsibility of the Government to propose new solutions if that is what the public believe are increasingly necessary.

I remind the House that in 1973 none of these revenue subsidies was applicable to these services. I include buses in that In 1974 fairly small amounts of money began to be paid. The sum of £8 million was spent on concessionary Tares. Admittedly that is a separate subject. By 1975–76, £15 million was spent on revenue subsidies on the Underground, £78 million on buses, and £11·9 million on concessionary fares. In the current period, £79 million—more or less the same sum—is to be spent by way of revenue subsidies.

It would be different if the commuter were able to say that as a result of that major switch in financial policy the fares had been contained. That is the ultimate rationale of such a policy. After all, we are talking about revenue subsidies and not capital re-equipment.

However, what has happened to the long suffering consumer? Fare rises in April 1975 amounted to 36 per cent. on average; in November 1975 they amounted to 26 per cent. on average, and in July 1976 to 25 per cent. on average. Now the sword of Damocles is hanging over us, in that London Transport is to make an average increase of 15 per cent. next summer, bringing the total average increase in two and a half years to 146 per cent. That is the measure of exas- peration of the commuter—partly caused by the swingeing increase intself, and partly caused by the physical deterioration in many services, which is the final insult.

The statistics of passengers vis-à-vis staff and the way in which these have moved over a period are depressingly alarming. Over a three-year period the number of miles travelled by passengers have decreased while staff numbers have increased. In 1973 passengers travelled 3,246 million miles on the underground, and 2,958 million miles on the buses, making a total of 6,204 million miles. That was an increase of 0·43 per cent. over the previous year. During the same period staff numbers were reduced to 54,897.

In 1974 passengers travelled 3,210 million miles on the Underground, and 3,061 million miles on the buses, making a total of 6,271 million miles which is an increase of 1·08 per cent.—a very tiny increase, and less than was expected. In that year staff numbers increased by 2·99 per cent. to 56,541.

In 1975 passengers travelled 2,969 million miles on the Underground, and 3,039 million miles on the buses, making a total of 6,008 million miles, which was a decrease of 4·23 per cent. In that year staff numbers increased to 60,230 an increase of 6·52 per cent. A breakdown of the staff figures shows that operational staff-drivers, conductors, and all those who have to bear the brunt of public criticism—totalled 31,467 in 1973, 32,346 in 1974 and 34,431 in 1975. The background to this is that in 1973 London Transport was suffering from a shortage of staff and from wage relativity problems, and staff numbers at the important end of the business went up. Acute shortages which existed on some lines declined in general terms.

Engineering and mechanical staff, who regard themselves as important as operative staff, totalled 15,373 in 1973 and 16,688 in 1975. Therefore, their numbers were commensurate with the increase in operative staff.

Administrative and other staff totalled 8,057 in 1973 and 9,111 in 1975. Therefore, the percentage of administrative and other staff compared with operatives and engineers rose over the period. In a public enterprise, when money becomes scarce and administrative staff increases as a proportion of the total number of staff, other staff feel great resentment because it is they who must bear the brunt of criticism. Yet they know that inflated central staffs have increased without any real improvement in physical services.

Although I acknowledge that London Transport has a very complicated and difficult task, and it is easy to be critical, the reluctant conclusion to which I must come is that the enterprise is relatively badly managed. It is a conclusion shared by fed-up commuters. I am very reluctant to come to this conclusion and I must pay tribute to the way in which London Transport has tried to deal with individual complaints.

However, is London Transport going about things the right way? Is its inefficiency partly due to the fact that it has to rely on GLC and Government subsidies, coupled with the fact that the GLC does not have a proper say in the central strategic management of London Transport? Because the GLC has no say in the management, it cannot produce its own ideas about problems, such as the bunching of buses. Despite the fact that the GLC is landed with providing increasing amounts of money, which have not prevented fares from rocketing, the GLC has no control over the management of the services.

The total revenue subsidy, excluding concesionary fares, was £90·43 million in 1975–76 and in the current period it looks like being about £81·5 million. The Minister may have an up-to-date announcement to make on that issue. What will be the effect on commuters, unless major changes are made, as fares soar to levels which are beyond their ability to pay? That is the central question which faces the Government and the GLC at present.

The Government have said recently that they wish to reduce the GLC's capital and revenue spending. This is what the argument is about. The amount of the reduction is not clear yet. I ask the Secretary of State to go into this in some detail and to declare the Government's policy. There are rumours all over the place suggesting that the Government will soften their previously hard line on the amount of cash to be handed over, and the GLC is waiting with bated breath.

The problems could be greater if the subsidy, for which London Transport is now waiting were drastically and abruptly reduced. However, if the Minister decides to soften his line, what will happen afterwards, as continuing public expenditure restraints impinge themselves on the Government? The Government cannot think only of the short period immediately ahead; they must look to the long-term future.

London Transport therefore is faced with the need to improve its efficiency as quickly as possible to cushion the effects of any cuts. In due course, even if there is a softening in the Government's attitude to the subsidy, has the management the ability to be sufficiently incentive-minded?

Capital investment is the other headache facing all these services. There are the new Tube lines, including the new line to Heathrow, which is to be a year later than expected. There is also the rolling stock and the poor quality of some of the cars, particularly on some of the outer Tube lines. The age of the buses and the continuing headache of getting new equipment and spares is another aspect of the problem. All this needs new money poured into it if services are to be improved without any consideration of fare rises in the future.

How will this problem be tackled? Do the Government have any views, and, if so, what are they? Or are they staring like the rabbit at the headlights of the oncoming vehicle of disaster not knowing what to do? The only unambiguous reaction I have noticed among the Labour majority at County Hall is bewilderment and panic coupled with the vague notion that it is necessary to get a public relations campaign into action as quickly as possible; hence the recent actions of Mr. Jim Daly.

If I had to guess about the future I would say that the problem of the fare increases will come next year and that fares will go up by 15 per cent., which would raise about £10 million. Then London Transport would do what one newspaper has mentioned, and that is spend the London Transport reserve. The actions of the Minister are referred to in one newspaper today. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny those references?

The difference could be made up by increasing the rates by about 1p, which would raise about £15 million to £20 million. The immediate problem with this kind of solution is that it would not actually cut the £40 million policy now been superseded by the Government's new stance? What is the precise position? An awful lot of people would like a definitive answer to that question.

This is not only a financial debate, but a debate about human beings and about their problems of getting to work, usually with an increasing tendency to arrive late through no fault of their own, either on British Rail or on London Transport. It is a human story because of the way in which older commuters particularly feel that they can no longer stand the pressures which afflict them every day on the average bus or Tube journey. Familiar stories of overcrowding, cattle truck conditions, and the bunching of buses—perhaps the worst problems of all afflicting the buses—provide individual examples of hardship and worse.

The Government have the ultimate financial responsibility, but they do not have the operational responsibility. Yet they must have the means in their own internal departmental arrangements to make sure that their officials are constantly in touch with the officials at the operational end of the business in London Transport and British Rail, continually swopping ideas about how to introduce improvements.

If commuters are at the end of their tether, time is certainly running out. There will be social trouble of an inevitably indefinable nature in railway and Tube stations and by bus stops unless these problems are sorted out. Time is needed for them to be sorted out. But letters are now reaching the newspapers, and the independent radio stations are hearing not merely from members of the public but from the operatives who are venting their feelings of resentment and anger as the public try to take it out on them. The notion that a 6 ft. 1 in bus driver is anxious that he may be physically ill-treated by his passengers, yet understands their feelings of anger and frustration, is absurd, but because it is an absurdity that does not mean that it does not exist.

I have interest to declare as a frustrated commuter. I have started using the Great Northern electric line in the mornings. It has replaced the old City Line into Moorgate. Fortunately, I do not have to use the service every day. It is brand new and it has been fully operational for one week. Until then there was a partial pilot service. The service has been a disaster and I felt obliged, not because of my personal suffering but because of the seething resentment on the platforms along this service from Hertfordshire into the City, to telephone the Chairman of British Rail. I did so on Tuesday when the average delay in the early morning services was half an hour.

This service with the new luxurious electric trains is described on the posters—the promotional activity has been gigantic—as the smart way to travel to London. The trains are supposed to run every four minutes, but in some instances the delay was greater than 30 minutes.

I was unable to get through to the Chairman of British Rail, but I spoke to one of his five or six assistants. I understand that Mr. Peter Park travels to work by Rolls-Royce. That is a pleasant way to travel, but most people to not have the chance. I suppose that even Socialist millionaires can be conscientious enough to realise that when they get complaints about a line like that—I understand that British Rail headquarters has been inundated with letters and telephone calls about the service—it is the chairman's job to take immediate action to try to sort it out.

I wish to be fair and balanced about this. I understand that there have been the inevitable teething troubles which afflict new services. I remember when I was taking part in the German General Election travelling by electric train to Hamburg. It arrived five seconds late and the guard was ticked off by the platform supervisor for inefficiency. If only we could have those German standards in our country!

I understand that on this Great Northern service there was some bad luck. A window was broken. There was also a rumour that one of the drivers, about to retire, reached Drayton Park where the train was held up while he was presented with his gold watch there and then. These sorts of stories tend to build up among commuters who begin to impose the fantasies over the realities when they suffer so much.

It is a new service and time will be needed to see how it works out. However, if the so-called seven-minute run from Islington to the City is to be plagued continually with half-hour delays, disillusionment will be enormous. The fares on that service are above average for the length of route. For the commuters who use the service from the beginning of the run the burden is even greater.

I hope that the Minister will not think that I am pursuing any excessive self-interest when I dwell on the new service. However, it is important in psychological terms for British Rail and London Transport to bear in mind with a new service the overall decree of resentment and dissatisfaction among the average commuters. Is it excessively ambitious for the management deliberately to set out to make sure that the service is perfect? Would that be such a shameful objective?

My other stance as Member of Parliament for Harrow, East is perhaps on some occasions not too effective. However, there is the question of my constituents' interests in using the Metropolitan Line from Harrow-on-the-Hill to all parts of London and of using perhaps the Baker-loo Line which ends at Stanmore. That was in a bad way a year or two back, but I acknowledge that it is better now. There have been improvements and the problem of crew shortages has abated.

I pay tribute to the efforts of London Transport and British Rail to improve their services, but I also pay tribute to the newspapers of London, one of which is currently running a campaign for commuters. I have its latest dramatic headlines here. The Secretary of State will see that his name is mentioned on page one, which is an interesting coincidence on the day of this debate.

I acknowledge the enormously energetic and successful work done by the Evening News. I do so with some enthusiasm because the paper was kind enough to refer yesterday to my efforts in this debate. It is crystallising the seething resentment of many of its readers who have sent in examples of unfortunate incidents which are not isolated, but part of a general, multi-faceted, everyday pattern affecting millions of people.

The Secretary of State has the misfortune to be presiding, at one stage removed, over what people regard as a disgustingly inefficient and disgraceful commuter service. When the people of London describe the service in this way, I do not believe that they are being pragmatically unfair.

The Evening News has done a great service in bringing these facts to the attention of the authorities. It is rumoured that even Ministers sometimes read newspapers and might have seen reports of occasionally amusing but usually distressing examples of the catastrophic nature of some commuter services.

It would be wrong not to pay tribute also to the Evening Standard, which, with some justification, has been concentrating recently more on the special problems affecting the bus services. It has done an equally notable and successful job in bringing problems to the attention of those responsible.

A number of cases have been brought to my attention. The Secretary of State rightly is driven around in an official car in the performance of his onerous duties. I do not criticise him for that. But if we are to escape the charge of being remote from these problems, we must pay attention to them and realise just how citizens can be affected.

Let us take, for instance, the case of Mr. Derek Guard, an architectural assistant from Ruislip. He goes to Tottenham Court Road every day and normally arrives later than expected and after the time he is due to start work. On 10th November he missed the 8.17 a.m. train from South Ruislip. The next train, the 8.29 was cancelled and no one bothered to tell more than 200 commuters waiting on the platform. They eventually got on a packed tube train at 8.50 a.m. The cost of this service is £1·20 per day.

London Transport apologised later for not having informed the commuters. It said that the service should be running every 12 minutes and that the 8.29 was cancelled because a guard was sick, did not turn up for duty and did not tell London Transport. A spokesman for London Transport said:

"We do not always announce a cancellation in case we can rustle up a spare crew at the last minute. However, we are trying to improve the information system."

"System" seems too grand a word for this kind of arrangement.

I have with me details of the case of another commuter, Mr. Charles Bryce, whose journey from Stamford Hill to Tufnell Park—two 10p bus rides—takes one and a half hours. He blames the No. 106 bus which he takes from Stamford Hill to Finsbury Park where he changes to a No. 4 bus. He says that the No. 106 buses are supposed to run every eight to ten minutes and adds:

"that is the biggest lie I ever saw. I wait half an hour, then three come at once."

There is also the case of Mr. Martin Woolhouse from Oxhey, a dairy depot manager, who bitterly regrets his transfer to a new job at Eastcote because of the problems with the No. 282 bus route. He writes:

"Today, I started queuing at 8.20 a.m. and was still there at 9 a.m. when four 282s came down the road in the opposite direction. It is the same most days—a terrible start to anybody's day."

London Transport confirmed the daily delays and said that they were due to a combination of buses cancelled, because of spare part shortages and extensive road works causing serious traffic congestion in Western Avenue.

A bus conductor from Cricklewood claimed in the Press that at least 10 drivers a day were working rest-day overtime when there were no buses for them to drive. He said that this was known in advance and that the total cost worked out at about £5,000 a week. Including other garages it must cost London Transport about £1 million a year. Perhaps the Secretary of State has never heard of this arrangement. I was shocked to hear of it and I would appreciate his comments.

I know that you are always patient, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I do not wish to tax your patience, but these are matters which must be aired if improvements are to be made in future.

I have here details of another service —the S2 six minute journey from Bromley by Bow to Clapton Pond—which has gone from bad to worse. A regular commuter who works in a maternity wear shop at Clapton waits at Cadogan Terrace. On one rainy morning she waited from 8.25 until 9.5 a.m. and was understandably angry. She was late for work again, but luckily her employer is an understanding person.

London Transport told the Press:

"It is some old stock that is not very reliable and keeps breaking down. We are doing our best, but these off-the-peg buses do not stand up to working so long in London. With better tools, we could do a better job. We apologise, but it is a problem with the entire fleet."

That last sentence sounds rather ominous.

Mrs. Pat Tiley lives in Chingford and usually has dinner ready for her 18-yearold son when he returns from his job with a clearing bank in the City. However, the meal is often ruined and Mrs. Tiley blames the No. 102 bus that brings her son the 10 stops from Chingford station. On the day to which she refers, the bus was 45 minutes late and that was not an isolated incident. She says that it happens most evenings for scores of people exhausted and anxious to get home after a long day's work.

The night before, said Mrs. Tiley, her son and other passengers got on a No. 102 at 6 p.m. and in the next 45 minutes two more No. 102s arrived and formed a three-bust queue. At 6.45 p.m., the first bus pulled out. Mrs. Tiley rightly asks:

"What are we supposed to do with a bus service like this?"

As a result of the publicity, I have been inundated with examples of problems. One can understand the depth of public feeling about this matter.

Much to the Secretary of State's relief, no doubt, I shall not go on quoting incidents, but he should know that this is happening every day. The examples that I have quoted are not isolated incidents when there has been an aberration or bad weather affecting a service which is normally smooth, streamlined and efficient.

Apart from the experiences of individual commuters, there is the general picture. I have enunciated some aspects of the overall financial picture, hoping for some clarification and explanation from the Government. But inevitably there are certain questions, with which I conclude my speech in the hope that there may be some encouragement for the public in the Greater London area.

I have inevitably dwelt mainly on London Transport and its financial problems, but there is a huge problem affecting British Rail commuter services in financial terms now facing the management, particularly in the Greater London and Southern Region areas. I hope that the Secretary of State will explain his specific policy in the light of the threatened fare rise coming in January on top of eight increases in fares in the last few years for commuters who now find season tickets more elaborate and luxurious than foreign holidays and other matters which families naturally want.

Inevitably, because of pressure on public finances, we are approaching some kind of intellectual watershed about these matters. Undoubtedly we shall have to think of those things against which successive authorities have perhaps set their faces because they felt that they would open up new areas of means and methods of financing the hard-pressed commuter who is finding it increasingly difficult to pay the present level of fares.

Another aspect of this problem concerns tourism in London. There is no magic and easy way in which to get the wealthy tourist to pay more for some services. However, I hope that the Government will consider that aspect with the management of London Transport. It seems wrong that ratepayers and residents of London boroughs, and indeed on the fringes of London, should have to bear the same kind of direct financial burden, and more, because they are paying for other things as well, as the wealthy overseas visitor who could pay a differential rate.

I make that suggestion tentatively and with some hesitation because I know of the enormous problems surrounding the practical implementation of such a policy. It may be that something along the lines of the consolidation of a single fare in inner areas, just as they have in other foreign cities, might be the right way to go about it if we were confident about the statistics showing that short journeys in inner London were overwhelmingly undertaken in the summer months, above all, by foreign tourists. I know that is a problematical area.

I now make a suggestion which I believe Parliament will have to embrace at some stage. I am conscious that this suggestion is more for the Secretary of State's colleagues than for himself, but I have to make it in the context of the debate. I have shared objections to this idea in the past and I am therefore more of a passionate convert. We are now at the point where we shall have to consider giving tax relief for regular travel so that people can file with the Inland Revenue the amounts they spend on regular tickets or season tickets and claim relief in their annual tax returns.

The Secretary of State, by definition, may say that is a matter for his right hon. Friend the Chancellor and that there is nothing for him to say. However, I should like him to succumb to the natural temptation, which I am sure he feels, to express even a tentative opinion about that matter.

I appreciate that this suggestion has been made on other occasions. The cost of season tickets, particularly for British Rail commuters, is now a large part of their regular weekly expenditure in the domestic budget. These amounts are now so large that they represent major items of expenditure incurred wholly, essentially and unavoidably in the pursuance of jobs, professions, careers, or whatever.

Tax relief would be another way of giving a subsidy, but it would take pressure off the direct amount of subsidy increases which will be necessary to contain future fares increases, whatever may happen to GLC rate increases, and so on. If it comes out of another drawer of the Exchequer as a whole, it does not detract from its potential respectability as one way of creating a new threshold of easement of the increasing financial burden which commuters have to bear.

I have referred to the fact that managements have become increasingly top heavy as services have deteriorated in quality and efficiency. Surely there is a powerful attraction in saying that it would be better to expend any additional subsidy directly not to managements in the way that we have done automatically in the past for them to spend on things under their control and at their discretion, but to the commuter, leaving it to him to make the necessary decisions about the costs of travel, how to travel, and so on, and to use that tax relief to the best benefit of the community as a whole.

Part and parcel of that idea, of which I am in favour and formally propose for the Government's consideration, would be that firms should be allowed to hand out travel vouchers to their employees on which the firms would receive some kind of appropriate tax offset. Luncheon vouchers are often considered, but they are regarded as too low in these inflationary times.

However, when we consider the burden and hard work involved in travelling and the importance of trying to reduce the extent to which employees arrive at their work exhausted and washed out as a result of difficult journeys, I should think that the idea of travel vouchers would have a great attraction to commercial enterprises and other bodies in London which draw their staff from the outer areas.

Coming back to the management of London Transport and the commuter services of British Rail, I suggest that it is time that the worst examples of overmanning were tackled. We are all conscious of high levels of unemployment prevailing, even in the South-East and London. But I suggest that at the operational end of commuter services as a whole there are visible examples of overmanning. That usually means the non-mobile staff. However, I should like to pay tribute to a category of staff which I have not mentioned which comes in for a certain amount of criticism, often unfairly—namely, the supervisors. They, too, are fed up with what has been happening in recent years.

It may be necessary to consider many aspects, but perhaps the most important is the Government subsidy to London Transport and British Rail. Of course, these other matters come into the general context. They are important, undeniable, and increasingly necessary for the success of an overall rational commuter policy in London.

It may be necessary further to restrict private cars in some of the streets in inner London. I make that suggestion with obvious hesitation. However, where it has been tackled with courage in other big cities in the world, the results have been pleasing. Even the ardent motorists have said that they do not wish to see the return of the private car to particular streets. It is negative to reflect that all we have so far is a restriction in Oxford Street, but even that is not properly observed. That is all part and parcel of the whole picture.

I am grateful to the House for being so patient in listening to me. I am conscious that I have taken a long time, but I feel that it is worth while, bearing in mind the feelings of the average citizen about this matter.

Again, I express my gratitude to the Secretary of State for coming here today. I hope that it will not vanish if he does not live up to his well-earned reputation for being a politician who is prepared to face things squarely. I hope that he will give an assurance that the Government are taking the whole issue to heart, are prepared to do the right things, are as worried and anxious about the situation as everybody else, are prepared to tackle these problems, and have a message of encouragement for Londoners.

I think that all those who have heard the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) will congratulate him on being able to quadruple the length of his speech at relatively short notice. I shall comment on some of the things he mentioned, but my speech has the consequent disadvantage of having been prepared virtually within the ambit of the hon. Gentleman's remarks because, as hon. Members will have gathered, we have an unexpected opportunity to debate this important and timely topic because of the unexpected withdrawal by the Government of the previous business about Standing Orders.

The number of hon. Members in the Chamber is no reflection of the concern of London Members over this matter. They were assuming that it would be dealt with in two short speeches in half an hour from 4 o'clock. As that is not the case, although I do not know how long I shall be relative to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, we can all agree that we have an opportunity to do justice to this important debate.

I was surprised at some of the things said by the hon. Gentleman, because if some of his friends at County Hall had had their way some time ago—indeed, if his party had had its way; I do not want to be controversial, but it is only fair to mention it—and won the GLC election, we should at this moment be throwing up massive ringways around London to take still more people by motor car and absorbing still greater amounts of public expenditure on roadways, when clearly the situation since the oil crisis and in the environmental sense has changed. The hon. Gentleman ought to remember this when he and his hon. Friends complain about public transport.

Secondly, any further increases that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my friends at the GLC intend to divert by way of subsidy mean further public expenditures which the hon. Gentleman and his party vociferiously and continuously require to be reduced. I hope that from now on party controversy can largely be stilled, but it would have been wrong not to have made those specific comments before looking at the main problems.

I go along with the hon. Gentleman in some of the things he said about London Transport, although he skilfully paid tribute to all and sundry and then criticised them in particular. I am unhappy with London Transport, and it knows it. I was glad to introduce a Bill to enable it to manufacture and sell certain items of bus equipment in relation to bus suppliers, but the "No bus available "—the NBA—scandal has been going on for far too long. It started before the three-day working week. Therefore, that alibi of London Transport can be dispensed with.

One has to say things fairly firmly in this place for them to get out. One of the basic problems of the NBA scandal is to be found in the assumptions of the Government. I shall not go into this in detail, but the bus design subsidy that the Government decided to reduce had side effects that were unexpected and have been extremely bad, coupled with certain technical inefficiencies in the organisation of British Leyland.

I shall not go further into that, but it is right that somebody, somewhere—perhaps a Select Committee—should follow up what has been a most unhappy train of events. If this sort of thing goes wrong in one of the sectors of British technology which heretofore has been in the forefront—namely, vehicle design—it is an example to the whole country. I hope that a Select Committee will root out this problem, because it is an example of what is wrong with British industry and to some extent with relations between the Government and top management.

The London Transport organisation is in many ways admirable, but I find some of its local management decisions and lack of concern for the individual passenger intolerable. As a Member of Parliament for six years, I have consistently pointed out some of its administrative failings, with no response—or, at least, no response to my satisfaction. But that is a matter for the elected members of the GLC in detail and not for me, although I hope that the London Transport Passengers Committee of 26 Old Queen Street, SW1, will get some publicity out of the current controversy, because that is the consumer body for London, and if the hon. Member for Harrow, East would send some of the letters that he has received to that body they might get more attention than they will from my right hon. Friend, who has no direct responsibility for London Transport.

I turn now to the underlying theme of this debate, because the transport and commuter problem and its finances in London are a reflection of the public transport problems over the country as a whole.

Order. I remind the hon. Member that this is not a debate on transport policy as such.

I realise that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the fact that rail journeys in London and the South-East account for 43 per cent. of total British Railways passenger mileage tells its own story. That is equivalent to passenger miles by Inter-city. Therefore, while thoroughly understanding the point you have made, it is my contention that although, technically, this is a debate on the Adjournment, one cannot separate the problems of London Transport from those of the railways as a whole. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport would not be here but for that.

My right hon. Friend's consultative paper overlooks one major point that is exemplified in London, and that is that public transport is vital for those areas that grew up before the private car became widely available. That is a fundamental political and financial problem that many Governments and, indeed, my friends at the GLC have consistently failed to understand. Any urban area that was built and whose facilities and transport modes were established prior to the middle 1960s or late 1950s—the year is immaterial—have to be based on public transport, and this public transport association must be maintained. London is the prime example of that in the nation.

Our problem is that private car economics—I am not anti-car, although I do not happen to be a car owner so I can understand the problems of public transport—consistently undermine the finances of public transport, and will continue to do so, however much the Government pay in subsidy and however much they require commuter fares to go up. Quite apart from those who get a direct subsidy from their jobs for the maintenance of motor cars, those who have motor cars and travel to work instead of using public transport are continually internally subsidising themselves, because the higher the level of fares, the greater the amount of money spent on basic car costs that would otherwise be spent elsewhere.

As everybody knows, particularly with the reduction in congestion, travel by car on the whole reduces uncertainty and is of much greater convenience. If two or three friends get together for social or work purposes, in certain circumstances they can travel very much more cheaply by private car if parking is available at their place of work—terminal facilities are fundamental to using a private car—than they can by public transport, yet in terms of social cost and in terms of absolute cost to the economy the chances are that the cost of travel by public transport is much less. That is one dilemma that my right hon. Friend has to solve for London, and London's problem is pre-eminently the one that faces the nation.

The situation is well explained in my constituency. I receive many letters of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Harrow, East. One gentleman who has a wife and two children wrote to me. He says that if he wishes to travel from Plaistow to East Ham the journey costs 30p per mile. We know that the cost of running a car is about 11p to 15p a mile according to the official statistics, certainly for Members of Parliament. Most of my constituents do not own motor cars. Therefore, if they wish to travel on the London Underground they have to pay nearly three times as much per mile as it costs to travel by private car. That is the inverted situation which we have already reached.

People who pay for season tickets to come into London, as many of my constituents do, are paying vastly increased costs because of the diminishing revenue base. It is no wonder that greater inconvenience and increasing costs tighten the spiral. It is a dilemma that the Minister cannot easily get out of, particularly in respect of British Rail when there are reductions in freight revenue.

This difficulty, which is now facing the country as a whole, was faced in London in the late 1950s. The response of County Hall in the late 1960s was the same as that of my right hon. Friend—to put up the fares. In the early 1970s the GLC put up the fares on the Inner Circle line and when things got more difficult it put up the fares on the Underground as a whole. One of the anomalies we now face in London is that Underground fares are substantially higher than bus fares, whereas in 1912 they were the same and have been until relatively recently.

Before the war in London all fares from the private companies—the Southern Railway, the railway groups, the buses and the Underground—were pooled. But that came to a end when London Transport became officially nationalised in 1947. In many ways we are being forced backwards in terms of convenience by the inexorable advance in techniques which we cannot control, namely, the private car. At the same time, the public mechanism, despite public ownership—I say this advisedly—has also gone backwards even when compared to private competition before the war.

The London Rail Study Report was published two years ago but it has taken Whitehall two years to set up the London Rail Committee. That committee was called for by the GLC and was agreed to by the Government, yet it has taken two years to set it up in order to look at the recommendations in the London Rail Study Report.

I asked Questions about this of my right hon. Friend and his predecessor in the Department of the Environment. I know that there are problems. There are always problems when setting up committees. One has to find a good chairman. I wish Mr. Herring, the new chairman, all the best. He has great experience of air transport and aeroplanes. I hope that he can fully grasp the subtle and different field of urban transport in London. But I wonder where we are going if it takes Whitehall two years to set up a committee to have a look at the recommendations of the Barran Report.

My right hon. Friend told us only two days ago where he is going. He is going by electric train to Luton and St. Albans from St. Pancras. That is an improvement in its own right, just as the Great Northern electrification scheme is an improvement, although I understand the complaints of the hon. Member for Harrow, East regarding its teething troubles. I believe that the St. Albans scheme will cost many millions of pounds.

We have been waiting two years for some of the modest schemes that the Barran Report advocated. It advocated Cross-Rail and suggested that trains could go from the Holborn Viaduct station through existing tunnels. It was a modest scheme. The track was there and was used by 20 goods trains a day until three years ago, when British Rail took the tracks up. But the route is there at very little cost. My right hon. Friend can announce vast sums for the electrification of St. Pancras at the drop of a hat. I would suggest that somewhere in his Department there is a good assessment with regard to how public moneys should be used for London railways. I asked his earlier predecessor, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), Questions relating to the Great Northern electrification but I did not receive satisfactory answers.

My constituency has waited for an interchange station at West Ham. That would cost perhaps £10,000. The official estimate was one of £250,000 which is ridiculous for an interchange station on existing tracks. There is no means of knowing whether by investing marginally small sums we should gain great benefits.

Another anomaly is in respect of the North Woolwich and Stratford line—an important line for the redevelopment of Dockland—which the Barran Report said should be upgraded and for which the GLC is paying a subsidy. But British Railways are cancelling trains because they say that they do not have the equipment. Here we are paying a rail subsidy to keep open a line which would otherwise be closed because British Rail cannot even supply the stock for that particular line.

The NUR members who operate that line say that they are overstaffed and that they have no confidence in the local management, I cannot judge whether they are correct, because the facts are not known. But certainly their morale is low because they do not like having to tell people sitting in the diesel multiple unit train at Stratford, "Sorry, this train is wanted elsewhere. You will have to get out". That is what is happening. I suggest that perhaps the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries might have a look at this problem.

I do not want to be entirely negative in my remarks. The massive increase in revenue support to transport in London has not been sufficiently realised. We have got to give credit to the Government for this. In 1970 there was virtually no support but from 1970 to 1975 GLC support has increased, so that now it is of the order of £106 million a year. The speed of the cycle has come very fast indeed. Because of pressures that we all understand, the Government cannot now say for how much longer they can support that amount of revenue. That has been the result of discussions which the Minister has been having with the GLC and which have been reported in the Press today.

Whatever happens, the situation cannot be solved by reducing subsidies and increasing fares. I am not even convinced, assuming that the country had plenty of money, that the situation would be properly solved by increasing subsidies and keeping the fares as they are. I do not think that that would be using the basic London Transport network in the right way.

The House may not realise that inside the GLC area there are 500 stations of one kind or another. The running cost of a train is about one-third of the total cost. Two-thirds of the cost of the railway network, possibly more, is in the considerable capital overheads. Those who wish to use the network at weekends and in off-peak hours are deterred from doing so because of penal fares. Therefore, for a considerable part of the time trains run half empty. I am not talking about the commuter services. Those who travel on commuter services in full trains must remember that for each full train there is an empty train going in the opposite direction, so that commuter trains are used only to 50 per cent, capacity in the rush hours.

My right hon. Friend and the transport intellectuals of the country should be considering means of funding public transport other than by season tickets and journey fares proportional to the distance. That system suppresses traffic and in the long run we cannot sustain the system by it. My right hon. Friend should investigate some of the commercial and financial mechanisms which can stem the vicious circle and, if not convert it into a benign circle, hold the position steady.

There are various ways by which that could be done, certainly locally. It could be done, for instance, between North Woolwich and Stratford, between Harrow and Wembley or between other places which are a short distance apart where there is a shopping movement, particularly urban centres. Urban centres can live only if they are given proper public transport. A ticket could be issued either for off-peak periods or for all time for. say, a month, which could be used for un limited travel. That is the origin of "commute". A single fare is commuted by a lump sum.

If that were to be done, the people would know that every additional journey they took would, in effect, be free. No one—except for some public transport authorities elsewhere in the country—has considered that method. Three or four years ago I asked London Transport to consider using it in the outer areas, but no action was taken. It is a sensible proposal which might increase revenue without increasing expenditure.

The second proposal, which I know will please the hon. Member for Faver sham (Mr. Moate), is that those who al. ready contribute considerable sums by way of season tickets should, for an additional lump sum—perhaps on a sliding scale related to what they are already paying—get an additional ticket which would allow them free additional travel over the whole network.

A season ticket only entitles a person to travel between two points. That is fair enough for peak-hour travel. But by this method during weekends and off-peak periods a person would be able to travel over a defined network for as many journeys as he liked at no extra cost.

A relatively small proportion of the London public sustain railways in London. They are already paying considerable sums to help to keep the basic services going. Why not, on the payment of a relatively small additional amount, allow them to travel widely at no increased cost to the railways, because the trains are running anyway? There is the additional possibility of Sunday travel by this means to enable families with a relatively low income to see relatives. It is very expensive for people without cars to travel about London to visit their relatives or even to visit hospitals, even if a journey of only two or three miles is involved.

I do not put forward my final suggestion in a definitive sense, but we may have to adopt it in time if not now. The car is a convenient form of transport. A driver who bought a gallon of petrol might get a token of lop which could be exchanged anywhere for the equivalent fare on public transport. I do not say that that suggestion would work, but it would bring into balance the financial difference between private and public transport. It has not engaged the attention of transport economists. The idea is not to prevent people travelling by car but to put into their pocket a token representing part of the money they pay for their petrol which they can exchange for public transport.

I do not say that there would be no snags, but I think that the suggestion should be investigated. In that way the amount of revenue accruing to public transport would increase and people could hardly complain that the motorist was being robbed, because the tokens would be encashable—they would almost become a coinage—and would add to public transport income.

I hope that the media in mentioning this debate will not say that that is a firm suggestion, but unless something of that nature is brought into the economic working of public transport I see no end to the dilemmas that will arise in terms of revenue support or increasing fares.

The chances are that we shall intensify the present unsatisfactory position by massive inputs of Government support. I pay tribute to the Government for giving a massive subsidy of £100 million a year to London Transport. But we have high fares as well, so we get the worst of both worlds.

The consultative document does not go far enough into the fundamental problems of maintaining coherent centres of business and industry, which can only live, thrive and develop if they have a public transport system alongside and in competition with a private transport system which does not undermine the economics of public transport and the coherence of the society on which it depends in the older urban centres.

There Is a political version of Parkinson's law that speeches extend to fill the time available for their completion. It is clearly true of Adjournment debates on some occasions. The House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to follow that doctrine. I shall be brief.

We should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) for providing this opportunity for us to discuss the plight of commuters in the greater London area, and we are grateful to circumstance that several hon. Members have been able to contribute to the debate. That is particularly so because the transport debates which would have allowed us to make these comments have been postponed—not cancelled, I hope. I hope that their postponement or deferment does not mean that the Government are not giving the question of transport the attention that it deserves.

There is a crisis of public transport. When my hon. Friend referred to the plight of commuters, he used the right word. It is a sad and sorry plight. Many of the commuters living in my area face the future with grim foreboding, not only because of the announced increase in rail fares but because of the increases which they foresee being made thereafter. The situation is gloomy. I emphasise to the Minister how bad it is for many of the thousands of people who travel fairly considerable distances to London each day. They have no choice but to do so.

Many of them are captive commuters. They live too far away to travel by car or bus and there is no local employment for them, so they have to come to London.

Many people moved out to the areas in which they live because they saw the prospect of cheaper housing. They were encouraged to do so by advertisements and so on. They are suffering most in the present economic circumstances. They work in town for large employers. They have no opportunity to earn overtime. They are very much subject to the Pay Code. They see nearly all of an extra £4 a week, less tax, being swallowed by higher rail fares. They are paying higher mortgage interest rates and local government rates. They are faced with increased electricity and gas bills. Therefore, when British Railways announced that there would be a 16 per cent. increase in fares in January, their hearts sank, because they do not know where the money will come from.

For commuters from Faversham, that 16 per cent. increase means that a monthly season ticket will cost more than £45. For those coming from Sitting-bourne, the cost will be about £43. That represents about a 100 per cent. increase in two and a half years. It is an enormous increase, far greater than increases made in incomes in that period and far greater even than the increase in the Retail Price Index. Is it any wonder that they say "What is all this business about a social contract and a Price Code? It does not seem to apply to any of the things which most affect our standard of living."

In many cases the £45 season ticket will apply to young married couples buying homes for the first time. I calculate that such couples must earn about £1,700 a year extra in gross income to have sufficient net income to pay their joint rail fares. Therefore, with a forthcoming increase of 16 per cent. one can well understand their dismay about what is happening. They are further angered—I emphasise this point to the Minister—by the feeling that they are being discriminated against when fares on other lines—for example, Inter-city lines—are increased by only 10 per cent. They have long felt that they have been selected against to pay higher increases than other rail travellers. They could never prove it but they felt it.

I ask the House to understand the feelings of those people when the late Chairman—I should say former Chairman—of British Railways, Sir Richard Marsh. makes statements as soon as he has ceased to be chairman which confirm everything they have always believed. Only then does he say that commuters are travelling in cattle truck conditions. I have not his precise words, but I do not think I have misquoted them. He went on to say that, as an act of policy, commuters were being squeezed to the utmost because they were captive and could pay the most. Disregarding the question of profit and loss, they were being selected against. British Railways hotly deny what the former chairman has said, but as soon as he leaves office he confirms people's suspicions.

I imagine that my hon Friend will agree that it is not so much the chairman who is late as most of the trains. My hon. Friend has said that for a young married couple an increase of £1,700 in domestic earnings is necessary to pay for the increased cost of a season ticket. Does he agree that it would be tremendously welcome and helpful if those people were able to claim tax relief on a substantial proportion of the cost, as happens with mortgage interest?

Obviously it would be a welcome relief to those individuals, but I have never been totally convinced of the case for tax relief. There is a strong argument against it on national grounds. We cannot give tax relief to commuters, no matter how hard-pressed they are, without doing the same for others. We might just as well reduce the rate of income tax, which would apply to almost everyone.

I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the suggestion that employers should provide travel vouchers. We should never try to disguise the fact that the ultimate cost of travelling within London has to be borne by employers, whether by way of higher wages or in another form, such as travel vouchers. In any capital city the income levels have to be that much higher to compensate for the extra cost of travelling to and from work. I hope that the Secretary of State will look at that suggestion and encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look favourably on it. That would be a proper way of ensuring that travel costs are reflected in earnings and not necessarily regarded as a fully taxable benefit in kind. Any suggestion like this should be considered, because something must be done to relieve the financial burden and the worry of hundreds of thousands of families who are subject to the wretched £4 a week pay limit. They have no way of financing massive rail fares.

The Secretary of State comes to office with a high reputation, and I hope that he will leave it with an equally high one. He has something of a bed of nails to to lie on. His first Question Time demonstrated the understanding for which he is renowned. He answered Questions with great understanding, sympathy and awareness of the problems. I asked him about public inquiries. I pointed out that if an increase in bus fares was proposed there had to be something akin to a public inquiry before traffic commissioners. The bus company has to prove its case. When there are rail increases, British Rail does not have to prove the case publicly. It may have to do so to the Secretary of State, but that is not satisfactory to the commuter who feels—and he has had his worst suspicions confimed—that he is being discriminated against.

There is no statutory obligation to have a public inquiry when there are rail increases. The Secretary of State would win acclaim throughout the country if he were to tell British Rail that it must not introduce the proposed fare increases in January but must instead defer them until such time as a public inquiry is mounted. This would give an opportunity to commuter associations and others to cross-examine British Rail about the rail increases, to find out which lines were making a loss and which were making a profit and how overheads were apportioned and to question levels of productivity and efficiency. British Rail may feel that such a suggestion is hostile, but the more that British Rail demonstrates to the public the nature of its problems the greater is the likelihood of the public accepting inevitable increases—if they are inevitable. There would be a greater opportunity for people to make suggestions to British Rail about how it could improve efficiency.

I ask the Secretary of State to consider introducing a system of public inquiries. That would generate good will towards British Rail and would persuade commuters more readily to accept inevitable rail increases.

At present, I do not believe that we are getting fair treatment on our railways. There is discrimination. We ought to know the facts and figures so that we can decide whether the charges are right and proper. Certain lines are subsidising other lines, which is not as the situation should be.

Those are the main points I wish to make, and I hope that the Minister will fulfil the high expectations we have of him. I was hoping he would say that the fare increases will be deferred until he has had a better chance to get to grips with the transport system. He has not done so but perhaps that was asking too much.

The hon. Gentleman has not yet given the Minister a chance to reply. In those circumstances, how does he expect that he can make that kind of statement?

Hope springs eternal in the human breast. If the Minister were to anounce that fare increases were to be deferred, I would rejoice, as would everybody else. However, I bow to your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I live in hope that the Minister will please us all.

I wish to intervene briefly and, at the outset, I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on raising this important subject. This is clearly a matter which we shall seek to raise in a debate on general transport policy, but certainly the situation of commuters merits a separate debate. The last occasion when this matter was raised in the House was in March this year when half of a Supply Day was devoted to discussing the subject.

Let me make clear that there is no doubt that commuters, particularly those in London and the South-East, have been cruelly affected by the worst series of fare rises we have ever seen. This is particularly true in the London area, where in the past two years fares have doubled.

British Rail fares in two years have risen by 88 per cent., with more to come in January next year. London Underground fares have risen in the last two years by 114 per cent., and London bus fares have increased by a total of 94 per cent. These are vast increases and we should be in no doubt about the catastrophic effect of such increases on family budgets.

The major reason behind these increases is the inflation which affected us with particular force in the past two years. This has hit the labour-intensive industries such as transport, in which 73 per cent. of costs are represented by labour. Anybody who needs proof of this situation needs only to look at how the working expenses of organisations such as London Transport have increased in this period. Clearly, the Government must take the responsibility for failing to tackle inflation early enough.

I do not pretend that there are easy answers to these problems, and the Minister will not find me seeking to say that the solutions are easy. Clearly, the first priority of policy of any Government must be to tackle inflation. That is crucial in seeking to contain fare increases.

I wish first to refer to the situation on British Rail. Although fares have increased on British Rail, there is a serious shortage of financial information setting out on what criteria fares are based. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) mentioned the situation of commuters, and what he said was substantially correct. The new fare increases average out at 12 per cent. Those using commuter services in London and the South-East will pay appreciably more than will Inter-city services. This is somewhat curious because hitherto British Rail has maintained that it does not apportion the costs of services. A few years ago it was its practice to do so. The 1973 annual report showed the costs apportioned for all the various services but today those costs are not published.

This leads to two possible interpretations. The first is that apportionment does take place but the results are not published, and the second is that apportionment does not take place, in which case the question arises as to what basis the fare increases are made upon. The point was made by a commuter in a letter to The Times a week or two ago. He said that he paid one-twelfth of his take-home pay on fares to go to and from work and that at the very least he had the right to know where that money went. I agree with him. It is the public's right to know.

But the matter goes further than that. Unless we have a reliable system of apportionment of costs, it is also difficult to see how the managers within British Rail can judge the effectiveness of their policy—what services and what initiatives are making profits and what are making losses. Productivity within the transport organisations must be a crucial question. In an industry where over two-thirds of the costs are labour costs, it needs no emphasis that productivity is vital.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East talked of improvements in the administrative staff employed by London Transport, and I am sure that that is true. It is equally true within British Rail. But, as we have said for some time, improvements in productivity within British Rail are possible and necessary.

Such statements have hitherto been scoffed at and rejected by the Government but are confirmed now in the Board's response to the Government's transport consultation document. The Board says that it is possible to have improvements in productivity, and that it is possible to think of reductions in staff by about 40,000 by 1981. That will be achieved not by massive sackings but by wastage and control of recruitment.

I pay tribute to the improvements in productivity which have taken place during the last 15 to 20 years within British Rail. Staff has been reduced very substantially over that period, and it is right to recognise the fact and pay tribute to it. Nevertheless, it is clear that further improvements are not only possible but necessary, and we expect the opportunity to be taken.

The Secretary of State, in talking about the fare increases which will come into operation in January, has said that basically he has a choice—fares can go up or public expenditure will have to be increased. That is substantially true, and I do not challenge it. But the element he missed out was that productivity improvements in British Rail are also possible, and I hope that he will confirm that that is his understanding of the position and his aim of policy.

Clearly, we accept—the Conservative Party above all—the limitations upon public expenditure. I must emphasise that point. But the situation has one clear implication—we must see where we are using our money at present. The position at the moment is that subsidy is going not only to passenger services but to freight services.

A subsidy of £66 million a year is going to British rail freight operations. A subsidy of £31 million a year is going to the National Freight Corporation, although I understand that there is a prospect that that figure may reduce in the current financial year. Nevertheless, it is a formidable sum for subsidising the carriage of freight from one part of the country to another.

Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is extremely difficult to put an accurate figure to the apparent cross-subsidy between passenger and freight services? Is he not aware that under the accounting procedures imposed on this country by the EEC in respect of transport, the amount of money attributable to freight is very often an arbitrary figure and therefore not a true reflection of the actual ascertainable costs?

It is an interesting point. It does not happen to be a relevant point to make about the figures I am using. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to go into the question of apportioning of costs, I suggest that he reads his own Govern ment's consultation document. In his consultation document his right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for the Environment, now Foreign Secretary—not my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham or my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East or myself, but his own right hon. Friend—said quite clearly that the apportionment of costs used in British Rail freight operations was not unfair to British Rail freight operations but was favourable to them. That is the point. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to go further down that road he will only be emphasising the point that I am making.

My substantial point here is not one of detail but one of principle. It is whether there is any social, environmental or public need to subsidise freight operations. In my view there is not, and I hope that the Secretary of State will confirm that it is now the intention and aim of the Government to eliminate the freight subsidy in this country.

Lastly, let me add this to what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham both said so eloquently on the problems involved. There are very important and serious human problems involved in this question, and I do not think that anyone should seek to under estimate its importance.

Commuters resent being regarded as a captive affluent middle-class travelling group. Many commuters moved out of the centre of London for one reason and one reason alone—so that they could buy a house or home which they could afford to buy and in which they could afford to live. That is the problem we have to face. It is a real problem and we must pay serious attention to it and give proper priority to it.

The debate has been a great deal longer than any of us anticipated, but I think it has been worth while. I ask hon. Gentlemen on both sides—and particularly the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler)—not to expect me to follow them in all the important matters raised.

This is not to diminish their importance in any way or to suggest that they are irrelevant to our main transport problems. But, although there is still time available to me to make a long speech this afternoon, I am not sure that that would entirely accord with the wishes of those Members present. I have made already my views on freight clear, and I shall no doubt find an opportunity to do so again.

As for passenger subsidy questions, I have expressed the view on a number of occasions that we should as far as possible seek to identify needs and then to meet them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said in his intervention, this is not as easy as it sounds. But certainly as long as there is a very substantial Exchequer sub sidy to public transport, we should do out best to make sure that the public get value for money—in other words, that those most in need are getting their proper share of the resources which are made available.

I am glad that we are having this debate this afternoon. I have lived in London for 25 years and for some months I travelled on the then notorious Dartford loop line. It was then served by the most extraordinary double decker train which could barely get under the bridges on its way to Waterloo and Charing Cross. Whether we were packed in like cattle, as the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) suggested, or like sardines, it was a pretty uncomfortable journey. I grumbled about it then, as I expect many commuters do today. I still live in London and I have a family who travel into town, so I am aware of the problems of commuters.

It is a good thing that the Secretary of State should be always aware of the purposes of the system for which he is responsible. However, there have been times when it has been suggested that I am personally responsible for every train that is late, every bus that breaks down, and every guard who does not turn up. But the fact is that I do not have managerial responsibility for the day-to-day working of our transport system.

It would be improper for any Minister from this Dispatch Box or from an office in Marsham Street to try to run the railways or the bus system. What I must do is try to lay down the framework within which others can make the proper managerial decisions. This fact was recognised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South. If my responsibilities are to be a bed of nails, which is how the hon. Member for Faversham described them, the bed should be reasonably limited in size, and I should not be held guilty for crimes which it is not within my capacity to commit.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) for raising this question. I am aware of the anxieties of many commuters. They have a very strong sense of resentment. especially when faced by rising fares and deteriorating services. However, I think that we have a great deal to be proud of.

As Londoners keep telling us, London is unique in the world, and therefore its problems are unique as well. Despite the present sense of grievance and the difficult travelling conditions, there is a great deal in London in which we can take pride. Let us not diminish the successes which have been achieved or the problems which have been handled. Let us give credit where this is due.

Traditionally, the role of the House of Commons is to redress grievances. I do not cast doubt upon the campaign which is being conducted outside this House by saying that it is, nevertheless, what we decide here, by proper discussion, which determines the future shape of transport policy, and which solves the problems of commuters.

We had hoped to have a wider debate on transport policy on the basis of the consultation document, but the Opposition were playing games, and as a result we lost the time available. I hope that time will be found for that debate which will be an occasion to pursue the matters which lie behind the speech today of the hon. Member for Harrow, East.

We cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to get away with that. The games that were being played were played by his own side who shipped half their Members to the two by-elections, and we on this side regard that as a substantial contribution to the famous victories that we won.

All I remember is that a full day was allocated for a debate and that, on the initiative of an Opposition Member, a substantial part of that time was pre-empted and circumstances created in which it was not practical to go ahead with the discussion as planned. I do not want to argue the toss on this. I hope that I may be permitted an occasional divisive remark, since the hon. Member allowed himself to make one such remark.

It was rumoured that there might have been a full day for such a debate next Tuesday, but the Government showed a preference for authors over commuters by giving the time to the miserable Public Lending Right Bill.

I think that the hon. Gentleman's ear must be closer to the usual channels than mine is. I had not been alerted to that possibility. I think we have it in common on both sides of the House this afternoon that we should have a wider discussion of some of these problems as soon as time can be found.

Perhaps I may say something which is not seriously in dispute, although a gloss may be put on it on both sides of the House. It has to be accepted that there is an inescapable equation. In any business revenue must cover costs, or other resources must be available to make up the difference. In the case of railways or public transport generally, and particularly the commuter services, if revenue from fares does not meet the costs of operation, there must be a subsidy. This must fall on taxes or rates or on both. There is no other way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South made a number of interesting suggestions upon which I shall be reflecting. He suggested that there are other ways of funding based upon an imaginative commercial approach to the problem of fares. However, either the money comes in in fares or it comes from rates and taxes. If it comes from rates and taxes, it is a charge on public expenditure, with the full implication that that carries.

Of course there is room for increased efficiency in the provision of public transport. I would not argue in any other way for London, but that is true of every business. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield referred to productivity, and I am sure that there is room for improvement there.

But let us assume that any present impediments to efficiency were removed. It would mean that costs, especially at a time of inflation, would have to be met by increased fares or increased subsidy. I put it therefore to the London commuter, because he is capable of facing this problem, that the choice can be his. If he does not want increased fares, is he prepared to pay more in rates and taxes to meet the deficit?

In an aside my hon. Friend used the phrase "assuming that the country had plenty of money". But I am sure that he used that phrase guardedly, because, like the rest of us, he is aware of the level of public expenditure and that the prospect is bleak. The question of priorities means that there must at any one time be limited resources for public transport, and within those resources hard decisions must be made.

Certainly I would not lead the House to believe that more funds were likely to become available for public transport, particularly when we are preoccupied with the complicated question of the public sector borrowing requirement. My question therefore is totally fair. How does the commuter prefer to meet costs incurred in providing the services he uses? Should it be by fares or by rates and taxes? Should those who travel pay the true cost, or should the cost be met at least in part by those who do not use the service from which commuters benefit? When, if at all, is subsidy justified and to what extent? We may all answer these questions in different ways, but there is no means of escaping their reality.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that his carefully worded questions are too narrow? In urban areas many of those who do not use commuter services depend upon them to keep the urban social fabric alive. This was the major omission of his predecessor's consultative document which approached the matter from a financial motivation rather than a functional one—which would be there even if the country had plenty of money.

I accept that we could add another question in relation to those who do not use the services and whether they would be willing to pay rates and taxes because of the benefits the services bring to them. The point I am making is that we cannot have it both ways. We must make a choice about how resources are to be found.

We hear from time to time the argument that raising fares loses passengers and is destructive to London Transport. In logic it follows that if fares are reduced it might be possible to transform the position, bring back passengers and increase revenue. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South made some interesting suggestions about revenue-raising devices.

This is an important issue and I should like my position to be clear. I have my responsibilities and the Chairman of British Rail has his. We have a mutual understanding of this and it would be wrong for me to give him instructions on managerial matters. In so far as he believes that a reduction in fares might at any time increase revenue in relation to costs, I should greatly welcome such a reduction.

The chairman has said before that experiments with fares are commonplace within the British Rail network as a whole. Indeed, some would argue that they produce curious anomalies and additional difficulties, but British Rail may wish to go further still—and risk taking is a function of any business, though in this case it would be within the ceiling of Government support set out in the White Paper.

If the Board, after discussion with trade unions, decides to proceed with such an experiment, there would be no impediment on my part. But it is for the Board to decide within available resources what it can do best. I should welcome experiments in reducing fares to enable wider decisions to be made in the light of the evidence produced by such an experiment.

British Rail has a great deal of expertise in the relationships between fares and traffic and revenue and costs. I am sure that the House will recognise that the Board is as concerned as any of us to provide the best possible service for the greatest number of passengers. It is for the Board to exercise its judgment and decide on this matter. It has my blessing if it feels able to proceed with an experiment.

The hon. Member for Harrow, East referred to the transport supplementary grant and I have here a copy of today's Evening News with the headlines:

"First victory for the commuter"

and:

"Minister climbs down over cuts in services".

I wish to make clear that I have not climbed down over anything, nor, by implication, have I ever required any cuts in services in London or anywhere else. I have been concerned in my statutory capacity with the allocation of the transport supplementary grant. The position which adopted some weeks ago is the position which I have maintained and will continue to maintain.

During that time, I have been seeking to persuade the GLC and the metropolitan counties of the need, in the national interest, to reduce the expenditure programmes which they had put forward. All had planned to spend more on transport in 1977–78 than was consistent with their share of available resources. I am glad to be able to say that six out of the seven authorities, including the GLC, have now said that they will do what I have asked.

These decisions have, I know, involved painful choices over priorities, but the authorities understand that, if we are to achieve the Government's strategy for the economy as a whole, they must keep within the severe constraints affecting all sectors of public expenditure which were set out in the public expenditure White Paper, Cmnd. 6393, revised by the Chancellor's statement in July.

I welcome the help which I have received from the authorities. As a result, I am reasonably confident that the limits on transport expenditure will be held to. This is good news. I recognise the difficulties which the authorities have faced and their commitments to providing adequate public transport systems and dealing with other problems.

London's problems are immense. I pay tribute to the professions and all those involved in the politics of London who have played their part in past years in seeking to solve these problems. I am very pleased that, as seems to be the case, they are now able to go ahead with their task within the public expenditure limits which I am obliged to impose—though with no difficulty on my part, because I think that they are necessary in the national interest—to govern the total of the transport supplementary grant in the coming year.

I shall not seek to cover all the points which have been made today. I am sorry that the establishment of the new London Rail Advisory Committee took Whitehall two years. It took me less than two months. To be absolutely fair, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South that when this proposal arrived on my desk I said "What? Another advisory body?" Therefore, while I am grateful for his applause for making my decision within two months, I think that it could have been one month earlier, had I not thought it right to satisfy myself that such a new body was justified. I satisfied myself and I am glad that Mr. Cyril Herring has taken on these responsibilities. I believe that the first meeting of the London Rail Advisory Committee was held on Wednesday. I am sure that it will play a part in trying to solve these problems.

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield fairly said that there were no easy answers to the problems and plight of the London commuter any more than of our public transport system as a whole. The hon. Gentleman said that it was crucial at this time and a first priority to curtail and to control inflation.

I though that the hon. Member for Harrow, East had his tongue in his cheek when talking of tax relief and travel vouchers. I say that because I think that he has been honest in recognising that we cannot, on the one hand, seek to curtail public expenditure and, on the other hand, seek to find ways, in effect, of raising it.

The hon. Gentleman said that the easiest answer would be for me to say that this was a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not believe that in Britain's present financial circumstances it would be right to give tax relief or, for that matter, to allow travel vouchers against tax, because that would be contrary to the Government's policies, for which I think there is widespread support, for dealing with inflation.

These are matters to be reflected upon and to be discussed in this House and elsewhere. I promise no joy today or tomorrow. I ask all those who might seek to endorse these suggestions, with less hesitation than the hon. Member for Harrow East has done, to reflect on the consequences.

I ask for responsible public debate in London and elsewhere, not in terms of headlines, not in terms of battles won or lost, and not in terms of anger with no acceptance of the problems as a whole. We are in this together, and we shall find solutions together by facing realities and recognising in full the part that we have to play.