asked the Secretary of State for Transport what study he is making of motorway accidents in fog; and what steps he is taking to reduce the number and magnitude of such accidents.

We are examining the problem of motorway accidents in fog to see whether any changes are needed in the regulations, advice and technical assistance to help drivers to cope with the difficult conditions and to reduce the risk of accidents.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that, since the introduction of lighting on the Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire section of the M1, there has been a dramatic reduction in motorway accidents in that area? What plans does he have to light sections of other motorways which are particularly vulnerable to accidents in fog?

There is a national plan to light particularly difficult sections of motorways, and this is operated with the co-operation of local authorities. There is also a national plan to provide more warning signs of difficult conditions indicating the need for slower speeds and so on. Taken together, I hope that these measures will help to improve the situation.

Would it not reduce the risk of accidents if lorries used only the slow lane on motorways in foggy condi- tions? Will the Minister institute a study of the operation of the hazard warning lights which are often flashing on motorways for no good reason?

Confining lorries to the slow lane in fog would present other drivers with difficulties, because if they were forced into the outer lanes they might have to cross one or two lanes of heavy lorries to leave the motorway. We have looked at this suggestion in the past and we shall look at it again if we feel that it can make a serious contribution to the problem. I shall certainly look into what the hon. Gentleman has said about warning lights flashing unnecessarily.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are fewer accidents per vehicle mile on motorways than on any other roads?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The risk of death or serious injury on motorways is one-third of what it is on all other roads. Motorways are our safest roads.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received for improving rural bus services.

We have received many such representations.

The hon. Gentleman may have received many such representations, but what proposals do the Government have to relax the licensing of buses in selected rural areas or at least to permit the licensing of private operators to give additional services? Do the Government recognise that it is now most urgent to have no further experiments but to prevent further decline in rural bus services? Why have they done precisely nothing about this problem in the past three years?

On the contrary, we have done a great deal and I hope that we shall begin to see the signs of our action from Easter, when the first areas of experiments in unconventional rural transport begin. That is the sensible way forward. Trying to make a general relaxation in road traffic licensing laws can result in the baby being thrown out with the bathwater, as has happened in many other countries, and the damage to existing services can be more than the gains made with unconventional means of transport.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the formidable cost of getting children to school in rural areas? Is he aware that the cost of getting two or more children two or three miles to school can have a severe impact on households with average or low incomes?

I recognise my hon. Friend's important point, but this is a matter for the Secretary of State for Education and Science and local authorities in the first instance and not for my Department.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the proposed cuts in rural transport in the North Riding are likely to be very severe in the next few months? Could he encourage local authorities to stay these cuts until the study group to cover the North Riding area and North Devon is set up at Easter?

There are a number of experiments taking place in the hon. Gentleman's area. He will know that the Richmond District Council is conducting many interesting experiments, and it will be interesting to see what happens when our experiments are under way, some of which will be partly in conjunction with experiments being run by the Richmond Council. I look forward to them with considerable interest.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that since the Beeching Report 3,539 railway stations have been closed and that this is having a disastrous effect on the mobility of people in rural areas and making the provision of adequate rural bus services even more important?

I take my hon. Friend's point, but since the Question relates specifically to bus services I shall leave my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to deal with rail services.

Does the Minister agree that the main hindrance to experiments in the running of new bus services in rural areas is the activities of the traffic commissioners, whose duties were designed to meet the needs of the 1920s and 1930s? Will he consider some of the Conservative transport proposals of 1973? Will he consider whether they can be introduced to remove some of the artificial restrictions on transport experiments, especially in respect of rural bus services?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is on to a fair point. The traffic commissioners have lasted for quite a long time without any change. We should consider whether they are suitable for today's conditions, bearing in mind that there has been a decline in rural transport. I should prefer not to look at the Conservative document of 1973 but to consider the consultative document of 1976, which sets out the situation very clearly. Obviously, we shall be reaching conclusions based on that document during the year.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the National Freight Corporation's deficit and what his current estimates of that deficit are.

Yes, Sir, when my review of its financial position is complete. Meanwhile I understand that the 1976 results are likely to be much better than those of 1975.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many sectors of the road haulage industry and, indeed, the country as a whole will be pleased to know that the deficit for this year will be less than the £31 million of last year? Does he accept that the remainder of the road haulage industry has to operate in a free market and has to sink or swim according to a profit or loss record? Will he take steps to remove what is, in effect, a hidden subsidy, and ensure that the National Freight Corporation eliminates its deficit?

The whole industry has problems, taking one year with another, including good years and bad years. That is the case whether we consider the private sector or the public sector. Both sectors must operate efficiently over a period. I do not think that we should condemn any industry, and certainly not the National Freight Corporation, because it has had a bad year or two. The important thing is that real progress is being made in getting rid of the deficit. Surely we should all be pleased about that.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent figures from the West German railways which indicate a loss of £1¼ billion despite the German Government's subsidy of £2½ billion a year? I ask my right hon. Friend not to listen to the moans from the Conservative Opposition about losses made by a public transport industry that has the finest financial return in the world.

I have no intention of listening to moans. As I have said before in this House, I think we should give support to our publicly-owned industries. We should congratulate them when they do well and try to understand the problems that they face from time to time. I take my hon. Friend's point and I am grateful to him for making it. At the same time, I believe it is in the national interest, and totally commensurate with our wish to see economic growth and an effective industrial strategy, to ensure that freight should pay its way over a period.

Why has the National Freight Corporation to pay for the free rail travel of ex-railway employees whereas British Rail does not have to show in its accounts the cost of the free travel that is given to its employees and ex-employees?

I cannot give an answer to that supplementary question. I do not think that that item affects the general size of the Corporation's deficit.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his answer about transport paying its way? Is it not a fact that throughout the world subsidies have to be paid to rail undertakings? Is he aware that our communities nationwide are flung into chaos if rail closes down for half a day or a day? Is not that proof that rail is paying its way? No matter what is said by Conservative Members, is it not a fact that subsidies are paid to rail throughout the world, and that at present subsidies are the only way of keeping transport going, especially the railways in our country?

With respect to my hon. Friend, I did not say that transport must pay its way. I said I took the view that over a period freight should pay its way. My hon. Friend is right in pointing out that public transport systems throughout the world are facing problems. We have a great deal to be proud of in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his proposals to change the road speed limit regulations.

My right hon. Friend has asked representative bodies for their views on the future of the fuel-saving limits by the end of January. The Government will reach a decision in the light of the views expressed.

As the Government have admitted that the 50 and 60 mph speed limits that were introduced during the fuel shortage are contributing only marginally to energy savings, would it not be better to scrap those two limits? Is the Minister satisfied that five different speed limits are necessary? Is he satisfied that they are in any way contributing to the sensible use of the roads by motorists, who are thoroughly confused by the present system?

No, we are not satisfied. That is why we are engaging in consultations. That is why we renewed the fuel-saving limits for only a short period. In any lower speed limits, there is a clear road safety element, which should not be neglected, as well as a fuel-saving element.

Does my hon. Friend agree that almost everywhere the regulations are honoured only in the breach, which brings the law generally into disrepute? Does he agree that the figures from his own Department, which were quoted in the recent debate, indicate that the energy saving element is insignificant?

I recognise that the saving is small, but compliance is still surprisingly high.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the longer these temporary arrangements exist the more important it is that the various speed limits should be clearly signed, bearing in mind that many motorists do not know at any time whether they are in breach of the law? The present situation is all right as a temporary arrangement, but if it is to become permanent surely we should have clear signing of the various speed limits.

I should hate to sign them if they were just about to go out. As we are discussing whether they are about to go out, I think we should leave the matter of signing until a decision has been reached.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what replies he has had on his consultation letter on the 50 and 60 mph speed limits.

Replies to the letter were requested by 31st January, and only a few organisations have submitted views so far.

Do those replies indicate that there is no widespread public support for these restrictions? Will the Minister confirm that they were introduced only as a crude form of fuel rationing and that they have no justification on safety grounds? Will he note the view expressed from all sides of the House that the restrictions are economic nonsense and are bringing the law into contempt?

So far, we have received only a few replies. To comment on them at this stage might be tendentious as we do not know whether further replies will reflect the same view. The saving achieved by fuel rationing has not been great, but there has been a clear road safety element to which we must pay attention.

Will the Minister kindly take note that the National Association of Driving Instructors has amalgamated with the Society of Approved Driving Instructors to form the National Association of Approved Driving Instructors, and that it would like to be consulted on these matters?

Yes.

Will my hon. Friend tell me where there is a road in London on which I can drive my car at 50 miles per hour?

My right hon. Friend has put a good supplementary question. He is well versed in these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had concerning new rules for cherished vehicle number transfers.

Various representations have been received from motor traders, dealers in registrations marks and individuals with cherished marks about the effects of the new rules. While the changes should eliminate abuses, the great majority of applicants will be unaffected by them. The operation of the new rules will be kept under close review.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that all applicants will be affected by the charges? Will he confirm that the cost to the Department of transferring these number plates is in the region of £10? Allowing for a small profit of 20 per cent., does he agree that a charge of £12 would be appropriate to those who want to transfer number plates under the new rules?

No. We are intending, with the leave of the House, to charge £50 for a cherished mark transfer. That charge would give the State a comfortable profit, taking into account the costs. I think that that charge is possibly justified in this case, but I should not like to go above £50. This is not a matter exclusively for the owners of Bentleys.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the cost to the Department is in the region of £10 and that the profit margin that the Government are now talking about will be 400 per cent.?

I am interested to have two supplementary questions on the same issue. I confirm that the costs are of the order of £15 for these transfers and that we are proposing to charge £50 from 1st March.

As the cost to the Department is only £15, is this not a case of the Government grossly abusing their monopoly position to make a monstrous charge?

Just say "Yes".

No. In my view, the charge will discourage frivolous claims while not penalising the bona fide possessor of a personalised number plate. If the hon. and learned Gentleman reads the back pages of the Sunday Times, he will see that the cost of these number plates is very often up to —1,500. Indeed, they have been known to retail for as much as —10,000. What is —50 in relation to that?

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that vehicles written off by insurance companies are not put back on the road without a full test.

We have examined the situation carefully but the evidence we have at present does not support the view that vehicles which have been written off and reconstructed are a significant road hazard.

That really will not do. Does the Minister agree that the irresponsible practice of putting back on to the road vehicles which have been totally written off and which may have been cannibalised, which may be dangerous to life and limb, without any form of test is totally unacceptable? Is he further aware that the motoring organisations and the general public expect the Government to stir themselves on this subject at least to consider the possibility of introducing new rules and regulations that will stop this gross abuse?

My right hon. Friend and I take this matter very seriously. The question is, is it a significant factor in road safety problems? We accept that it happens from time to time. Is it a big factor? The only evidence that we have is a survey carried out by West Yorkshire police which showed that, out of 9,600 accidents, not one was caused by faulty repair of a damaged vehicle. Therefore, we have yet to obtain sufficient significant evidence on this matter. I remind the hon. Gentleman that on 1st January we strengthened the MoT test.

What is to stop the Minister asking the insurance com- panies—legislation is required—to notify his Department about these vehicles so that examinations may be made? We spent hours on the problem of seat belts. If one life can be saved, surely some action should be taken. Will my hon. Friend tell his civil servants to get off their big fat backsides and do something about it? I must declare a vested interest.

I think that my hon. Friend has two vested interests in the way he phrased that question. Two points concern us about limiting this matter to written-off vehicles. First, a high proportion of vehicles are not comprehensively insured. Secondly, many vehicles are not insured at all. It may be that the most serious cases occur with vehicles which are not insured.

I ask the Ministed not to underestimate the seriousness of public feeling on this issue. During the last week I have received many examples from all over the country of potentially dangerous cars being put back on the road. As a constructive suggestion, will the hon. Gentleman agree to meet a delegation made up not only of hon. Members but of representatives of consumer and motoring organisations, which will put directly to him the evidence which he suggested does not exist?

As I have tried to explain, we do not underestimate the problem. I should be delighed to receive a delegation. If there is serious evidence which we have not yet found and if the hon. Gentleman will give me the examples to which he referred, I will look into the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the level of competition between ports in the United Kingdom.

Yes, Sir.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the main spur to competitive efficiency is the spur of competition and that the best way of ensuring competition is to have the varied ownership of the ports which we have with British Rail and private owners such as Felixstowe, trusts, local authorities and so on? Therefore, will he firmly renounce the Socialist theory of nationalisation of the ports?

I certainly cannot give the undertaking for which the hon. Gentleman asked in the second part of his question. As he will recognise, ownership is not necessarily the major factor in industrial success. I welcome the extent to which we have competition between our ports. We have a substantial and successful public sector—the British Transport Docks Board—which has a very good record. We should approach this matter in a commonsense way.

Regarding competition between ports, has my right hon. Friend seriously considered the question of the shipping conferences which impose an unfair competitive situation on the port of Liverpool, particularly in regard to the Far East trade? Is he aware that there is apparently no power that this House can use to restrict this unfair competition?

I certainly take note of what my hon. Friend said. I shall consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, who is responsible for shipping.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the Chairman of British Railways; and if he will make a statement on this meeting.

I last met the chairman on 20th December. I expect to meet him again soon.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that an informed debate on the problems of British Railways should take place and that it can take place only if accurate costs line by line and service by service are available to the public? Is he aware that many stations, which could be much more profitable to British Railways, are at present being sacrificed because they are subsidising other areas? Will he bear in mind that this matter is very worrying to the excellent long-serving personnel of British Railways?

I am wholly in favour of an informed debate about the problems of the railways, provided always, as I have said before, that we support the chairman and his board in trying to solve the problems facing them in the national interest and that we do not try to manage the railways ourselves. It is not the responsibility of the House of Commons to assume day-to-day interest in details which are properly left to the board appointed by the Government. I am sure that the Chairman of British Railways will note what the hon. Gentleman said. If there is more information which he can usefully publish, I am sure he will seek to do so.

Will my right hon. Friend indicate to the Chairman of British Railways yet again that continual fare increases are counter-productive? Will he give the chairman an assurance about the future of British Railways by indicating that when the economic situation changes, as it must, the Government will again look seriously at the need to extend subsidies to public transport?

I am reluctant to make promises on my own behalf or on behalf of successor Ministers to the Chairman of British Railways, because I could possibly mislead him. My hon. Friend will recognise that a substantial subsidy is still made to British Railways, and that will continue. It is provided for in our public expenditure programme.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the Chairman of British Railways, will he once more draw his attention to the possibility of productivity increases as one way of restraining the costs of British Railways, as about 70 per cent. of their total costs are now accounted for by wages and salaries?

I do not imagine that I should necessarily want to say that to Mr. Parker. I think Mr. Parker would want to say to me that he has been having considerable success in reducing costs within the railway system and that he intends to pursue the course which he has begun of close co-operation with the trade unions to make sure that we have as efficient a railway system as we can manage.

Will my right hon. Friend ask Mr. Parker, when he next meets him, whether he believes that there could be an alteration in the cost structure applied to British Railways regarding the tremendously high cost of track in comparison with its main competitor, whose roadways are mainly provided free?

Yes. This is a familiar issue which has been debated in the House on occasions in the past and will, no doubt, be debated again. The cost of maintaining the railways is very high and it is necessary to have a substantial investment programme. These are the kind of matters which I discuss with the Chairman of British Railways from time to time. They are also matters which we shall discuss in the House when at last, God willing, we have our transport debate.

Is the Secretary of State in a position to allay the fears of NUR and ASLEF members in Scotland about the railway lines north of the Edinburgh-Glasgow axis being axed? When he meets the Chairman of British Railways, will he discuss with him the deplorable—in many cases dangerous—state of the rolling stock presently being used in Scotland?

I am sure that the Chairman of British Railways will note what the hon. Gentleman has said. Equally, I would expect him to deny that there is any question of danger. I understand the anxieties of railwaymen because of contractions in the past. Here again, the Chairman of British Railways is pursuing a policy of consultation with the unions on a wider scale than previously, and that is appreciated.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for reforming the road traffic licensing system.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for reforming the road traffic licensing system.

As the consultation document on transport policy made clear, the case for general changes in bus licensing will have to be examined when we have results from our experiments with various kinds of unconventional services.

Does not the Minister agree that there is a strong case for transferring the responsibilities for determining bus routes and coach operations from area traffic commissioners to first-tier local authorities? Would not that allow for greater flexibility and understanding of local needs, particularly in rural areas?

Yes. There is a case for that change to be made, and we have had representations to that effect from local authorities during our consultations with interested parties on the consultation document. But we have also had representations the other way from operators and trade unions who believe that the present system has worked well and would like it to continue. This is something that we shall have to decide when we finally make up our mind on transport policy.

Has any progress been made in the discussions with the Department of Health on the issuing of licences at the same time as information about kidney donor cards? I am grateful for my hon. Friend's correspondence, but is he aware that since we started it hundreds of people have died merely because no transplant kidneys are available? Will he now, therefore, seek to expedite the arrangements that he is making?

As my hon. Friend knows, I am sympathetic about this matter, and we are trying to do all we can to expedite it. But we have to ensure that the arrangements will work satisfactorily. That is the only thing that is holding up implementation of the scheme.

I should like to return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks). Why should new transport services he prevented from developing to serve the public in rural areas? Why should not commuters have freedom to choose lower-cost coach services? Does not the Under-Secretary agree that the present system is out of date and in urgent need of reform?

The hon. Member neglects the fact that new services are not being prevented from developing. For example, the Norfolk village bus service successfully operates within the existing licensing laws. We are taking measures in this direction. Opposition Members should not rely only on Government initiative for an improvement in the system. Much could be done within the existing licensing laws to improve the system. For instance, the local authorities could make a greater contribution than they do at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated total expenditure on road construction and improvements by central and local government and the estimated combined net investment of the nationalised surface transport industries for the current year.

On road construction and improvements in Great Britain £821 million, and on nationalised surface transport industries £325 million.

Do not those figures show a continuing bias in my right hon. Friend's Department in favour of road construction rather than public transport? Is not Britain one of the few industrial nations which is cutting investment in its rail network? Does my right hon. Friend really believe that the network can get by on the same amount of investment as is available to the Belgian rail system, which has one-fifth of our track mileage?

My answer to those questions is "No". I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Those figures of themselves do not represent a valid comparison. One could argue that the roads carry about four times as much freight and nine times as many passengers than the railways, but which is the chicken and which is the egg, which is the horse and which is the cart? Such comparisons are invidious. However, if my hon. Friends says that we must maintain a high level of investment on the railways, of course I agree, but the higher investment must be without prejudice to other decisions that we might make for other forms of transportation.

Has my right hon. Friend read the recent article in The Sunday Times which clearly showed that the heaviest lorries are subject to the lowest tax of all road users? Does that not represent a direct public subsidy for heavy lorries? Before we accept any blandishments from the Common Market to accept heavier and heavier lorries, will my right hon. Friend review the situation?

Possible steps were set out in the consultation document and they had a bearing on the Finance Act 1976.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the Chairman of the National Bus Company.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the National Bus Company.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when next he expects to meet the Chairman of the National Bus Company.

I last saw the Chairman of the National Bus Company at the end of November 1976, and I am to meet him again later this week.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Chairman of the National Bus Company, will he discuss the matter of the deficit due to be faced by London Country Bus Services in Essex and surrounding areas next year? Will he discuss what action must be taken to prevent the closure of Grays garage, for example, and the possible disappearance of bus services from Essex? Will he discuss with the chairman ways of preventing this disaster from hitting Essex?

I am aware of the particular problems of Essex, where the county council has provided reduced support. The county council does not have a good record in this respect. The services operated by the National Bus Company represent a special problem which my hon. Friend is right to raise.

Will the Secretary of State discuss with the Chairman of the National Bus Company the possibility of devising a national scheme of cheap fares for pensioners to replace local schemes? Does he realise that in many rural areas, where distances are greater and fares consequently higher, no help is available to pensioners? Does he agree that the Government are discouraging local authorities from introducing cheap fare schemes? Is it not better to spread resources widely so that pensioners throughout the country get the same help?

This is not so much a matter to discuss with the Chairman of the National Bus Company, although I shall draw his attention to it. These are difficult questions of national policy and involve how much we have available for fare subsidies and the degree of local option. We have discussed the matter in the House before, and I would welcome further discussion.

Would it not be in the interests of sensible, rationalised transport operations if the undertakings of the National Bus Company in the metropolitan areas were handed over to the passenger transport authorities? Is my right hon. Friend willing to initiate talks about this with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Chairman of the National Bus Company?

No, I do not think I would agree, though this is very much a legitimate area for discussion. I think it would be found that the different metropolitan areas take different views. Certainly some of them would prefer their writ to run over the NBC; others believe that the present arrangements are the best. I think that it is half a dozen of one and six of the other. The NBC operates national trunk routes, and if these were broken up in order that the metropolitan counties were to run them there would be certain diseconomies and they could become more expensive. However, these are matters that will no doubt be discussed during further con- sultations on the basis of the document published last year.

Is the Secretary of State aware that I came to see his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary some weeks ago, together with Mr. Deputy Speaker, to discuss precisely the sort of way in which the National Bus Company could be persuaded to introduce some form of reduced rate card for old-age pensioners, perhaps along the lines of the British Rail scheme which is available in off-peak hours? Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that the NBC must have some obligation to offset its virtual monopoly over large tracts of the country? Will he now please take this matter to the Chairman of the NBC on his own initiative?

I entirely agree. I want to make it absolutely clear that it is very legitimate to raise the problem of concessionary fares for old people. Many of us think that something ought to be done about it. However, at the same time, we recognise that there is here a large area for local option. If the NBC is to operate successfully within the limits of revenue support, I am afraid that it must be allowed to make many of these decisions on its own account. I shall, however, mention this matter to the chairman, as I have already made clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement as regards his policy on restrictions on parking in cities.

I am continuing to consider this in the course of the preparation of my White Paper.

Is the Minister aware that a high proportion of the parking in city centres, in Birmingham and other major cities, is done by people engaged in industry, commerce, the professions and the public services, whose jobs require them to be mobile during the working day? Will he bear that very important factor very much in mind during his considerations, because restrictions would hamper these people in the services they provide as well as, more generally, damage the economy of the cities?

I shall bear it in mind. I take no dogmatic view. I do not think we can have indiscriminate parking in towns and cities, but I am not in favour of indiscriminate parking restraints. There is a need to find a balance, and here again local views are very important indeed.

Will my right hon. Friend take account of the motorists and lorry drivers who park part of their vehicles so as to block footpaths? In many instances people who have to use prams and other footpath vehicles cannot use the footpath and have to go into the roadway to get round a vehicle. What will my right hon. Friend do about that?

Like my hon. Friend, I am bothered about the extent to which existing regulations are quite often not effectively enforced. There are difficulties. We know that the police have problems about recruitment at present because of financial restraints. We have to recognise that the level of enforcement falls below the level that both my hon. Friend and I would like to believe could be achieved.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further consideration has been given to reestablishing an integrated transport system.

My extensive series of meetings with many of those who have submitted major comments on the consultation document has frequently covered this ground.

Before my right hon. Friend introduces the White Paper, will he take a good look at the 1947 Act, introduced by the Labour Government just after the war, and introduce an integrated transport system which is efficient, effective and profitable? Will he look again at the question of an integrated system to take the heavy congested traffic off the roads and on to the under-used railways?

Yes, of course I shall look at the 1947 Act and at the whole history of post-war legislation. We have achieved a good deal in that period, but there are still problems. Circumstances change and problems require different solutions. However, I give my hon. Friend the undertaking that he seeks.

What consideration has the Secretary of State given to the possibility of denationalising the National Bus Company? What consultations has he had about the extent to which the present licensing system prevents people being able to travel to work in the way in which they would like, which would often be in buses in competition with British Rail and with the National Bus Company?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is that I have had no consultations and do not propose to have any. The answer to the second question is that, of course, the question of the licensing system, which was mentioned earlier this afternoon, is one of the matters that I have discussed with a number of interests. I shall be reviewing it in the course of completing the preparation before issuing my White Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken since October 1974 to co-ordinate and integrate transport services.

The co-ordination of particular services and of transport operations remains primarily the responsibility of the transport industries and local authorities.

Does the Secretary of State know that the Labour manifesto of 1974 actually promised to co-ordinate and integrate transport services? Two and a half years later, however, we have worse train services, worse bus services, much higher fares and massive subsidies. Is all this due to ministerial incompetence, or was the election promise nonsense?

I am delighted to know of the hon. Gentleman's commitment to our 1974 manifesto and I look forward to his urging me on future occasions that it should be fully carried out. We issued a consultation document about a year ago. All those involved in the transport industries have appreciated the opportunity of expressing their views. This is a unique exercise in consultation on transport policies. As I said in reply to an earlier question, circumstances change; and if we can settle on a policy that will carry a large measure of agreement and last to the end of the century the country will be infinitely better off.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of Britain's tragedies is that on that wonderful waterway the River Thames there is hardly any traffic throughout the day? We are the only country that would allow a highway of that kind to be so unused. Is he doing anything about it?

I have deep sympathy with my right hon. Friend's views in this respect. Comparisons between, for example, the Thames and the Rhine are certainly striking. On the other hand, the circumstances are different. The Rhine, unlike the Thames, is a main artery of Europe. I should stop at that point, because I must tell the House that waterways are not one of my responsibilities.

Does the Secretary of State accept that, if he is to have an integrated transport system, he will have to take some unpopular steps about restricting access to inner city areas by private car owners? A typical example of the chaos that results was what happened over the Christmas period when the public services were in very short supply and people brought their cars into London and parked them haphazardly everywhere. Some decision must be made about this.

I have already said that there must inevitably be restrictions in towns on the flow of traffic. I suggested earlier, however, that this is an area where there must be a large degree of local decision and local option in an attempt to find a balance. In transport we should not always be going for polarised views. It would be a good idea if we could agree on more things rather than that we should seek opportunities to disagree.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now make a statement on the carriage of pigeons on British Rail.

The Railways Board, in consultation with my Department, is still reviewing the carriage of pigeons and animals in the light of the recommendations made by the Central Transport Consultation Committee. In the meantime it is continuing to carry this traffic.

Does the Minister recall that on 1st December his right hon. Friend said that he would complete the review early in the new year? It is now early in the new year. What is causing the delay in this relatively simple little problem? Could he not get a bit of a move on about this matter? If he arrives at a decision between now and 9th February, when Questions to the Secretary of State for Transport next arise, will he let me know?

I shall certainly try to reply before the next Question Time on transport matters. The review will be completed. However, this is a matter for the British Railways Board in the first instance, and the board is looking at the matter vigorously.

Is the Minister aware that if British Rail stopped carrying racing pigeons that would destroy the sport of pigeon racing? Is he also aware that the only people to come out of the review so far with credit are the pigeons? Will he get a move on?

I am not a pigeon fancier but I know that this sport has great support—almost as much as fishing in my constituency, as far as I am aware. None the less, I take the hon. Gentleman's point and I shall certainly try to get a move on.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has had on the installation of tachographs.

I have received a variety of sometimes conflicting views.

What steps do the Government propose taking to harmonise the situation between the circumstances for lorry drivers on the Continent and in Britain with regard to the installation of tachographs?

I have never regarded harmonisation as an essential virtue. There are very different circumstances in the different countries within the Community, and I think that we must proceed in a sensible way. I have said that I would prefer not to see the tachograph in domestic use, and I am not planning to move in that direction. That is where I rest. However, I think that we shall have to feel our way along.

Taking into consideration the fact that vehicles travelling to other Common Market countries already have to have these instruments installed, are the Government nevertheless convinced of the technical advantages of the tachograph? Will my right hon. Friend further bear in mind that, in countries in which vehicles have these instruments installed, very often they are installed to protect the drivers' interests, but that in this country we have trade union organisations to do that very thing?

My hon. Friend makes some very important points. It is very widely understood that if British vehicles travel abroad they must obey the law of the land, and, therefore, use of the tachograph internationally has not been resisted. There is no question about that whatsoever. However, given the circumstances of this country, I do not believe that the institution of the tachograph in domestic use would substantially add in any way to road safety or provide a method of regulation better, as my hon. Friend says, than the methods that have grown up historically here.

As part of our membership of the EEC, to what extent are we committed to work towards the introduction of this system?

We inherited certain obligations. In that respect, I suppose that it could be said that we are committed to working towards a certain uniformity here. However, I think we should adopt, as I have said, a commonsense and relaxed attitude. There are conflicting views and there are problems to be reconciled. We must accept our obligations as a member of the Community, but we must also recognise our own problems at home.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for the improvement and integration of means of heavy freight transport between the industrial areas of Yorkshire and Lancashire, and in particular between Manchester and Sheffield.

There are already fairly good road and rail links for heavy traffic between Yorkshire and Lancashire. We are considering the case for improving the road links between Manchester and Sheffield.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are strong rumours in the Greater Manchester area to the effect that British Railways intend to close the line between Sheffield and Manchester via Woodhead? Will he deny these rumours and once again stress that the Labour Government are committed to an integrated transport policy and that it would be disastrous in that area to close a railway line and thus put further traffic on to already congested roads?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be a mistake to put further traffic on to already congested roads. We are about to consider the question whether there should be additional road links between Manchester and Sheffield. The question of the rail link is essentially a matter for the board of British Railways, but it should certainly bear in mind the considerations my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Will my hon. Friend accept from me as a Sheffield Member that there is very strong feeling in Sheffield as well as in Manchester about the projected closure of this railway link and that only this morning the Sheffield Press reported that there was a distinct likelihood of strike action, so deep is the feeling about the possible severance of this link?

I note what my hon. Friend says, but this is in the first instance a matter for the board of British Railways. The board is under an obligation, laid down by the House, to make a profit, or at least not to lose money, on its freight traffic, and it must make this its first consideration, although it must also bear in mind the other considerations my hon. Friend has raised.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has now received the report of the British Railways Board's review of its rail freight operations; and if he will make a statement.

Not yet.

I hope that the report, when received, will contain proposals that the major movers of freight in Britain should be urged to utilise the rail system more fully than at present. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it makes sense, accepting that we own these highways, fully to use the capacity they provide?

I entirely agree about making the best use of the available capacity of the railways. I am very happy to draw attention again to the extent to which the railways can provide a very effective, efficient and worthwhile freight system. Perhaps I should simply say that as the studies have worked out they should be seen as a continuing process of revising assumptions about the freight business, and it may be that I shall not receive a report in the formal way which was hitherto, perhaps, expected.

When the right hon. Gentleman receives the report from British Railways, will he ensure that a siding is provided to Covent Garden Market, because there is some important business for British Railways to pick up from the South African fruit trade there?

Yes, I can give that undertaking.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the route between Manchester and Sheffield by the electrified ex-Great Central line is now entirely a freight service? In respect of his comments about good freight services, why are British Railways contemplating abandoning a line that was electrified as long ago as 1948 and from which all passenger services have now been withdrawn and putting on a non-electrified line between Sheffield and Manchester? Would it not be better to revert to the original plan?

I would not want to make any assumptions about British Railways' intentions for that line or any other line. If we want to have effective rail freight services, we must allow British Railways a large element of discretion to pursue their studies and make their decision. I should like to believe that rail freight could be a profitable business.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many motor cyclists have been killed or injured in 1976.

Data for the whole of 1976 are not yet available, but it is estimated from incomplete returns that the total number of such casualties in Great Britain was about 69,000.

Does the Minister agree that those cold statistics reveal a terrible waste of young lives and that it is important to do everything possible to reduce the wastage? As things stand, any youngster aged 17 can buy a motor cycle and take it straight out on to the road with a provisional licence. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that every encouragement should be given to the training schemes which now exist, in particular the RAC-ACU scheme, and that we should work towards the objective of making full training available for every motor cyclist?

Yes, my right hon. Friend and I are very concerned about these dreadful figures. This is one of the most important matters in road safety. We have done something through legislation to limit this problem by the restriction we put on the maximum design speed capacity of mopeds: they are now limited to 30 m.p.h. That restriction comes into force in July. I agree also that we should support to the fullest extent the training schemes which are now expanding.

These are truly appalling figures. As the casualty rate is greatest amongst the 16 to 18-year-olds, is it not essential that there should be much wider training of motor cyclists? Without any disrespect to the existing scheme, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the suggestion which has been made that an inquiry should be set up so that we can have a truly national scheme for training motor cyclists?

I am not at present in favour of an inquiry, which could slow down progress. We have some pretty good progress to be made on the STEP educational scheme in schools. We should push that as far as possible before taking things further.

Is my hon. Friend aware that motor cycle retailers are concerned about the fact that a youngster can buy a high-powered motor cycle and simply drive off with L-plates? Have they not made approaches to my hon. Friend suggesting a form of training, towards which they are prepared to provide funds and expertise? They are deeply concerned and want to help.

My hon. Friend is right. The motor cycle industry is concerned and is already making a contribution towards the STEP training scheme, which, as I said, is going very well.

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and import ant matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,

"the need for the Home Secretary to fulfil today the commitment given to the House in 1971 by his predecessor by authorising his Advisory Panel to reveal to Mr. Philip Agee at once those particulars of the allegations against him which do not entail disclosure of sources of evidence."

"The person concerned is notified of the decision and he will be given by the Home Office such particulars of allegations as will not entail disclosure of sources of evidence."—[Official Report, 15th June 1971; Vol. 819, c. 376.]

"We realise your difficulties and we have difficulties of our own."

"It seems plain to us that Parliament recommended that these were political decisions of an executive character. It would be subject to Parliament. This is in the realm of politics. We do not believe we can do what you have asked us to do."

The right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,

"the need for the Home Secretary to fulfil today the commitment given to the House in 1971 by his predecessor by authorising his Advisory Panel to reveal to Mr. Philip Agee at once those particulars of the allegations against him which do not entail disclosure of sources of evidence".