asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will reform the Traffic Commissioners' licensing system.

The general question of the need for changes in the licensing system is among the matters on which we have been consulting prior to the issue of the forthcoming transport White Paper. The Government's rural transport experiments, with the Experimental Areas Bill that has now been introduced in another place, will test the case for general amendment of some aspects of bus licensing law.

Does the Minister accept that this system was introduced nearly 47 years ago, and has become both bureaucratic and cumbersome, and inhibiting to innovation? In the light of this, will the Government undertake an urgent and major review of the system with a view to facilitating the provision of mini-bus transport for rural areas by voluntary bodies?

On the contrary, I think that the system is a good deal more subtle than the thinking of many of its critics. But obviously there is a case for looking at the system, which was introduced a very long time ago. We are doing precisely that, and doing so urgently in our consultations prior to the issue of the White Paper.

Will the Minister give particular attention to licensing that affects school transportation? Where controversy arises, will he see that the dates of appeals are brought forward at the earliest possible opportunity?

I think that the dates of appeal should be given priority. If the hon. Lady has any particular instances in mind I shall look into them. The Traffic Commissioners do their best in this respect. School transport should be looked at in consultation with the Department of Education. I am very conscious of the problems that exist in that area.

Many of my constituents—both local authorities and private citizens—regard the Traffic Commissioners as something like Marie Antoinette; they seem to think that the answer to higher fares is "Let them drive cars". Will the Minister undertake, in his directives to the Traffic Commissioners, to insist that they take account of social problems in the rural areas?

I understand my hon. Friend's feeling about the system, but I must point out that there is a great deal of flexibility within it, which is not always fully brought out by local authorities. Local authorities now have responsibility for devising good transport systems that take account of social needs in rural areas, but many authorities do not take full advantage of the existing licensing system. I wish that they would do so to a greater extent.

Does the Minister recognise that private operators could do a great deal to supplement the services of public operators? Will he give an assurance that his proposed legislation will allow experiments in all parts of the country—bearing in mind that conditions vary—to ensure that there is an improvement in services, rather than the decline that has been going on in country areas for far too long?

I accept that there is a need for unconventional experiments, including the use of private as well as public operators. We have always accepted that. We have tried, given the limits of resources, to concentrate on experiments in four particular areas. These experiments will be very thorough and we shall draw general lessons from them. Circumstances vary from area to area, and the Bill is an enabling measure which will allow other areas to follow on if this is necessary. We are concentrating on the rural areas in the first instance because these are the worst hit.

Is the Minister aware of the impact of the opening of the Severn Bridge—[Interruption]—I am sorry, the Humber Bridge, on transport in my constituency? The county council has been doing an immense planning exercise on this and it has not been helped by British Rail pre-empting the situation and announcing, without studying the proposals, that when the bridge opens British Rail's ferry will close. This has not been at all helpful.

I am glad that my hon. Friend has found the right estuary. I understand his concern about the British Rail ferry, but to my knowledge there are no proposals at the moment to close the ferry. Any such proposal would have to go through a long series of consultations beforehand, as laid down in the law.

Returning to licensing, is not the essential argument against the system the fact that the delay and bureaucracy within it prevent new services for the public from being developed? An example of this is the proposal for commuter coach services. Will the Minister tell the House whether he supports such an experiment to help commuters, and, if not, why not?

On the first point, about the existing system, I agree that in some circumstances it may inhibit unconventional services, but it also protects the existing conventional services. Unconventional services are not entirely necessary to transport needs, whether we are talking about commuters or about rural areas. But we shall always need conventional services, and my Department is determined to protect these.

asked the Sercetary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve transport in rural areas; and whether he will make a statement.

The Government continuously assist rural transport through transport supplementary grant; our programme of rural transport experiments will be operating on the ground this summer; and the issues affecting rural transport are included in the review of transport policy on which my right hon. Friend and I are now engaged.

Whatever the Minister says, many people in the rural areas think that the Government are dragging their feet on these matters. We need action. Does the hon. Gentleman realise the problems that rural people face? There is continual depopulation. It does not pay a man to go to work, because of the costs of travel. Will the Minister start to take action by reforming the licensing system and allow the growth of unconventional means of transport in rural areas?

We realise that problems in rural areas are severe. I do not think there is any doubt about the feeling of the House on this matter. We are looking into it urgently as part of our general consultations. The hon. Member will have a ringside seat in these matters, because some of these experiments are taking place in Devon. They will take account of the conditions in his area The Government have accepted all of Devon's bid for bus support in 1977–78, so by that means the Government are once more showing their concern for the continuation of rural bus services.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one method of improving transport in rural areas would be to persuade bus operators that the school leaving age is now 16? Is he aware that the operators continually charge full fares for children of 14, 15 and 16 years who are travelling to and from school? Is this not scandalous?

Concessions, or lack of them, by the National Bus Company are unfortunately a matter entirely for the company. It is not a matter in which the Government have any statutory rôle. It is, therefore, specifically outside my competence. However, it is something about which we must be concerned, and we are very anxious to reach sensible conclusions about it.

Does the Minister acknowledge that co-ordination of the various forms of rural transport is vital? Can he assure us that consideration is being given to this point in the various experiments that are taking place? In addition, will he say what consultations he has had with, for example, the Post Office union, which has had difficulties in getting postmen to run post-buses? That is one of the most obvious forms of such co-ordination.

The hon. Gentleman is right; co-ordination is important. We are conducting about a dozen different forms of experiment, and part of the point of them is that some will feed into others. There will be a low-key service in some areas, with a low demand, which feeds into a denser traffic pattern nearer a town. We also have consultations with the unions that are on the committee that is steering these experiments, and we take full account of what they say.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has now abandoned the integrated transport policy; and whether he will make a statement.

No, but the hon. Member must await my White Paper for the full development of my views.

Is the Minister aware that for many hon. Members the Government's integrated transport policy has consisted of stumblings and shifts from one policy to another? Many will appreciate the calls upon the Minister's time of some of his extra-ministerial activities, but will he reassure the House that his White Paper will take notice of the more than local but less than national needs of rail and road transport in the South-East?

I cannot go along with the hon. Members preliminary comments, but I agree that when the White Paper comes it will deal in local, national and regional problems. All these matters must be considered, and I hope that they will be discussed in the House between now and when the White Paper is published.

When the Minister formulates his White Paper, will he take into account the fact that many of us consider that the railways are taking a considerable blow, and that although this is happening people who are not taking note of it scream like mad when there is a half-day strike on the railways? Only then do they realise how necessary the railways are. Many of us believe that there is a hidden cash subvention to road transport, on a grand scale, through the under-taxation of heavy lorries, for instance, which militates against the railways, and that in time, if we are not careful, this will run the railways down beyond repair.

Some more specific Questions related to my hon. Friend's supplementary question appear later on the Order Paper today. However, in general he is right in emphasising that the railways must have a central role in our transport system. I hope that in due course the discussions that I am having, together with the White Paper, will return some confidence, in so far as it is now lacking.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what meetings he has had with the Chairman of the London Rail Advisory Committee.

I met the chairman on 27th January.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that it has taken over two years to set up this committee? Does he realise that that is seen by some as confirmation that neither the Department of the Environment nor the present Department of Transport sees the need for co-ordinating services in the London area? When he next meets the chairman, will he ask him to answer with his own signature letters sent to him by MPs and not leave it to one of his officials to reply in his stead?

I am sure that the chairman will take note of my hon. Friend's final comment. As for setting up the committee, I agree that it took some time, but I do not think that responsibility for that can lie at my door or that of my Department. I am glad to see that since it was set up it has had a number of meetings. The fourth will take place today. I agree about the importance of the work of this committee.

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend might just bump into the chairman on his way to the meeting at Central Hall on 19th February, when he, with part of the Labour movement—those who have been secretly invited—will be discussing the distress and disquiet in the movement over wages being kept down and prices going up, the transfer from road to rail, and all the other things that he, as a Cabinet Minister, has been involved with as closely as anyone else.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend has so many complaints about his Government, but I think most of them would be unsuitable for discussion with the chairman.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now take action to have more extensive use of continuous edge of carriageway road markings in non-built-up areas in order to reduce the number of road accidents.

Not at present. We shall, however, look at the two-year results of the trial in East Sussex when they become available and will study these together with reports from highway authorities to see whether there is any need to revise present design policies.

Will my hon. Friend have a more serious look at this matter? It is estimated that a national programme of putting edge lines on our roads in non-built-up areas would save about 500 lives and 9,000 injuries. Will he therefore have consultations with local authorities and press that these edge lines should be provided throughout the country?

We take this matter seriously. The results of the first 12 months of the East Sussex experiment are very striking, but we have often found, in looking at these experiments, that after an initial period the savings decline, and therefore we want to let this experiment proceed for two years to judge the total effect. Experiments in other countries have provided contradictory evidence about the effect on road safety. However, my Department is asking local authorities to explain their policies of edge marking and the extent to which it has been used. We are therefore gathering all the evidence to us, to see what has been happening.

In his approaches to highway authorities will the Minister also ask them to consider the effects of edge lining in terms of savings on road maintenance costs by keeping vehicles away from the kerb?

Edge lining reduces haunch distress—[Interruption.] That is an extraordinary term, and I could not possibly explain it. Perhaps the House has some idea of what it means. Edge lining leads to a reduction in maintenance costs. That is another advantage of examining this system seriously.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport over how many years the tax paid by road users has exceeded current and capital expenditure on roads as stated in Volume 25.27 of the transport consultation document.

The tax paid by road users overall has exceeded current and capital expenditure on roads for at least the last 25 years.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the interest charges on the capital costs of the inherited road network of the pre-motor age were estimated in 1962 by Professor Hondelink to be £800 million a year? That figure has been brought up to date by the Library, and taking into account higher interest charges and lower money values approximates to £5,900 million a year—

Order. That is very useful information, but we must have a question.

Should that figure not modify the glib assumption of the unfortunate writer of paragraph 27?

The answer could be "Yes" and the answer could be "No" —if my hon. Friend does not regard that as being unreasonably indecisive. I should like to read very carefully what my hon. Friend has said before hazarding a final answer.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us do not want to live in the past like the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) and are more concerned about the present and the future? Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer not clearly show that the road programme has, in effect, been effectively cut back so that subsidies may be granted to rail? Further, does he agree that all the statistics show that road is by far the major mode of transport and that by all tests of efficiency greater amounts should be directed towards that programme than to other methods of transport?

With respect, I do not think that any such conclusion could be drawn from my reply, which was very simple in its nature. Road users overall have paid more in tax than has been spent, but if I were to supply a supplementary answer to the hon. Gentleman I should be prepared to say that within that total there have been some differences that many Members would regard as anomalies.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport, to what extent his Department will take account of the energy efficiency of different modes of transport when formulating its forthcoming White Paper.

I shall be taking full account of energy considerations, on which my Department has been working with the Department of Energy. But the comparative energy efficiency of different transport modes is not easy to establish or quantify, and it will also have to be weighed with other considerations.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in the longer term—perhaps over 15 to 20 years—it is vital for any Government to pay great attention to the energy efficiency of different modes of transport, especially as on present calculations the commuter train is about six times more energy-efficient than the commuter car with one person in it and a fully laden double-decker bus is about 12 times more efficient than the commuter car? Will the hon. Gentleman take these matters fully into account?

Yes. We are very conscious of the extremely important questions that are posed for transport policy not only in the light of the general prospects for the supply of oil but the price of oil over the next 15 to 20 years. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Department, through the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, has undertaken a continuous programme of research to examine the energy efficiency of different modes of transport, both conventional and unconventional.

Will my hon. Friend pay special attention to the energy efficiency of waterborne transport? Will he bear in mind that in terms of fuel costs the price per ton mile of transporting goods by water is approximately one quarter that of transporting goods by road? In view of that, will my hon. Friend try to persuade the Prime Minister that the commercial use of waterways should be his responsibility rather than that of the Minister with responsibility for sport?

I am reluctant to take initial responsibilities from my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport. I should prefer to have sport rather than waterways. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. With regard to freight, water transport is more energy-efficient than trains, and trains are more energy-efficient than road vehicles. There is a clear case for including water transport within the Department of Transport.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the direct effect on commuter rail fares in London and the South-East of the suggestion in the transport policy consultative document about phasing out subsidies.

There is no suggestion in the transport consultation document of phasing out subsidies to London and South-East commuter services entirely. In any event, the level of fares depends on other factors besides the level of subsidy.

Will the Secretary of State give a straight answer to the question whether he accepts British Rail's estimate that the objectives set mean a 7½ per cent. increase each year from now until 1981 in real terms in these fares? If so, does he not accept that he must reconsider this matter, or at least persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do something about tax relief on travel-to-work costs?

I do not think that there is any very great prospect of the Chancellor acting on the hon. Gentleman's last comment, but that is a matter for the Chancellor and not for me. The matter is more complicated that the hon. Gentleman suggests. There is no question of my having taken a final view yet. The consultation document is still being discussed in the House and elsewhere. Many factors are involved in the number of passengers carried and the level of revenue. That is what I was trying to say.

Does my right hon. Friend remember that in the debate on London commuter fares on 12th November, various suggestions were put forward whereby those paying substantial commuter fares could get offsetting arrangements for off-peak periods and the citizens of London could make better use of their own rail network? What steps has he taken in that respect?

As I think my hon. Friend knows, it is not for me to take direct executive steps. I do not possess those powers, becaue they have not been given to the Secretary of State by Parliament. I know that my hon. Friend' suggestions, many of which were ingenious, have been noted by those concerned. I think that we shall see the results, such a they are, in due coure.

In this context, will the right hon. Gentleman deny once and for all the rumour that is being put about by some of those on the Labour Benches that commuter services are used only by the better-off? Will he bear that in mind when he formulates his policy?

I do not think that anything has been said as explicitly as that. I have said that if we have limited sums available for revenue support and for subsidies we must ensure that such support goes where it is most needed. If those sums are not raised in fares, they are raised eventually from the taxpayer and ratepayer. If there is to be cross-subsidisation, we must ensure that the money is not wasted.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority of commuters come into London to work not by choice but because of the economic structure of the South-East Region? Is he aware that unless his Department is prepared to give proper financial support to the London commuter rail system it will have to shell out more money in tackling the road congestion caused in London and on the outskirts?

I respect my hon. Friend's views. He has been persistent in advocating them in the House. I entirely agree that if we are to save money on the railways we shall have to consider the alternative costs involved. At the same time, those who choose or have chosen over a period of years to live outside London have done so for a variety of good and sufficient reasons. We must ensure that there is a balance between those who have chosen to live in the centre of cities and those who have chosen to live outside. We must ensure that everyone pays fairly—neither more nor less than fairly—towards the total cost.

I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot brush this question aside in that manner with such a great macro-economic answer. There are several thousand commuters in my constituency, paying over £500 a year for the pleasure of travelling for five hours each day to and from their work. I do not know how school leavers, who probably earn up to £1,500 a year, do it. The Minister cannot stand and sit there—

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in his gymnastics, he has not yet asked a question.

When the Minister stands to reply, I hope that he will tell my commuters how the hell they are to manage in future.

Order. I remind the House that I very much deprecate that sort of language here, whatever language is used elsewhere.

I do not think that anyone would accept that I have tried to brush this complicated question aside lightly. Many factors come into this. Whereas it is right for hon. Members to assert vigorously the positions of their constituents, I have an obligation to consider all factors, which includes those living in London and those living a long way from London. I have said that we must not have indiscriminate cross-sub-sidisation. We must have a fair sharing of the burden.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has had on the working of the Road Traffic Acts.

We are continually receiving views on road traffic law.

May I remind my hon. Friend of the correspondence that I have had with his Department about the anxiety of some ambulance drivers in my area over the application of the Road Traffic Acts to the ambulance service? Are any other authorities expressing this anxiety, particularly in relation to shortage of staff and emergency services?

No. We have no evidence that other authorities are expressing anxiety on this point. We have had no specific correspondence from other authorities, so I cannot substantiate my hon. Friend's point. We are aware of the problem. Essentially, the Department of Health and Social Security is responsible, and it believes that the system of applying the drivers' hours legislation to ambulance drivers is broadly correct. It is, in the main, a regular service, which is rostered in the normal way. It is felt to be satisfactory at the moment. I ask my hon. Friend to take up the matter with the DHSS if she feels that the situation is still unsatisfactory.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to meet the Chairman of the National Freight Corporation.

Shortly.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that comprehensive reply. When he next meets the Chairman of the National Freight Corporation will he tell him that the grounds put forward currently by the NFC for requiring a further £50 million are far from clear? Will the right hon. Gentleman, without further delay, publish the report on the NFC by Coopers and Lybrand, which has been in his hands since last summer, so that we can all see what the country is getting for its money?

I do not think that it would be any more proper for me to publish a confidential commercial report of that kind than that I should expect such reports to be published in different circumstances affecting the private sector. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We discussed this matter on the Second Reading of the Transport (Financial Provisions) Bill recently. The Bill will shortly be going into Committee, and the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be free to pursue the matter in detail there.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Chairman of the National Freight Corporation will he discuss with him the unfair competition between rail and heavy commercial lorries, which are being cross-subsidised by non-commercial users of roads? Is he aware that, for example, the wear and tear on roads made by a 12-ton lorry is 160,000 times the wear and tear made by a car? Will he bring in a differential system of taxation?

My hon. Friend has made some important points, which are familiar not only to the House but to the Chairman of the National Freight Corporation. There are later Questions on this matter on the Order Paper.

Does the Secretary of State realise that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) was grossly unsatisfactory? How can he ask the House for £50 million as an interim grant without giving any information about the restructuring proposals for the National Freight Corporation? If he will not publish the Coopers and Lybrand report, will he tell us what his proposals are?

I should not wish to deny the House any relevant information about restructuring. I am sure that that will be one of the matters that will be discussed when the Bill goes into Committee. If there is any further information that I can give the House, I shall do so. I made clear on Second Reading that a number of changes were being made. I shall keep the House fully informed.

As the Government are so much in need of revenue, how soon will they introduce the heavier taxes on large lorries, which were recommended months ago by the Government in thir own consultative document?

I cannot speak for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As my right hon. Friend knows, certain progress was made in the course of last year's Finance Bill. This matter was made clear in the consultative document, as my right hon. Friend said. I entirely accept that heavy lorries are paying less than their fair share for wear and tear on the roads.

Many thousands of pounds less.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether, in advance of his meeting with the Chairman of the NFC, he sent him a copy of the revised first draft directive, dated 2nd June 1976, for the assimilation of national taxation systems on heavy lorries? If so, why is it not yet available to hon. Members?

The answer is that I did not send it.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about written-off motor vehicles being put back on to the roads.

Views have been received from various sources, including certain bodies representing the motor trade, road users and consumers. It has been urged that vehicles that have been repaired after write-off should be tested before being allowed on the road again.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is an extraordinarily complacent answer to this important matter? Will he undertake now to act with urgency in an effective way, so that the public may be assured and reassured that the Minister is on top of the job with regard to road safety and the public interest?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Department of Transport is absolutely on top of the job with regard to road safety. I take this problem as seriously as it should be taken. The hon. Gentleman will know, as the matter has been discussed at length, that we have always sought clear evidence on the extent of the problem. That is what we are looking for now. On Monday I received a deputation from the hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) and Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), and they gave me further evidence. As I undertook then, I shall certainly look into it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that both the motoring and consumer organisations support action to prevent these patched-up insurance write-off cars going back on to the roads? Is he also aware that the overwhelming feeling of those organisations is that the Government are dragging their feet on the issue? Cannot the Government, even now, say that they will institute a survey to find out how serious this problem is throughout the country?

The hon. Gentlemam must know, unless he has an extremely short memory, that that was the undertaking that I gave on Monday. I said then that we would look at any evidence that was brought forward. So far, after many years of intensive research, including a working party lasting three years, with which my Department and all the interested bodies co-operated, we have not come across any evidence to suggest that this is a major problem. None the less, in view of the real concern, which I understand, we shall continue to study the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has had on the question of the 50 and 60 mph speed limits; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received on the question of the 50 and 60 mph speed limits; and whether he will make a statement.

Of the 54 representative organisations consulted, 39 have sent their views. Hon. Members have forwarded 29 letters from their constituents for comment and there have been 73 letters from members of the public. My right hon. Friend is considering the views expressed and expects to announce the Government's decision on the future level of limits before Easter.

Will the Under-Secretary of State indicate the results of the widespread consultation that his Department has had with interested bodies? Does he agree that if legislation is introduced because of a crisis, that legislation should disappear when the crisis goes? Does he agree that this law, which is being widely flouted—the police will verify that they cannot act—weakens the whole fabric of traffic law?

The replies are not yet complete. It would therefore be premature for me to give any general observations about the nature of the replies. However, most bodies that have replied so far think that speed limits should be justified on road safety grounds. We particularly asked people to comment on the level of observance of the law. In general, I accept that if laws are not observed the fabric of the law is undermined.

Does the Minister agree that the overwhelming majority of representations argue that the case on road safety grounds has not been made out for these limits, and that they should be scrapped?

The limits were introduced not for road safety reasons but because of the energy crisis. We are reconsidering them with both those matters in mind.

Will my hon. Friend concentrate less on speed and bend his mind more to the question of road safety? Will he bear in mind that my constituents did not agree with his Department's finding that raising the speed limit from 30 mph to 40 mph in rural areas, with narrow bending roads, was conducive to road safety?

From our regular correspondence I know that my hon. Friend and I occasionally have differences of opinion about the right level for speed limits, particularly in his constituency. The general policy of my Department is to try to achieve those speed limits that will stick and make sense. If particular laws are not observed we shall have trouble later. I take my hon. Friend's point that we should also pay attention to the feelings of local people who are involved in changes in speed limits. Often the only thing that local people can do to protect their locality is to restrict the traffic that travels through it.

Is the Minister aware that we have had these temporary limits—which have been extended time and time again—for three years? Does he accept that the time has come for the dithering to end? Will he give an assurance that he will not ask for yet another extension of the limits and that he will put legislation before the House in ample time for it to be considered?

I can assure the hon. Member that we are not asking for another extension, and that we shall not ask for one. The six-months' extension was designed to allow time for consultation with a view to working out a permanent system.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will now announce the abandonment of all further plans for nationalisation of the transport industries; and whether he will make a statement.

No, Sir.

In the light of that reply, will the Secretary of State accept that his failure to give a clear undertaking about his party's and his Government's future plans for the road haulage industry is gravely damaging the efficiency of, and the prospects for, that vital industry?

I do not accept that. The road haulage industry is getting on nicely, thank you. My White Paper is coming out in May. We must be reasonably relaxed about the situation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the nationalisation of the docks industry has been on the Labour Party's agenda for 25 years? Is he aware that workers are becoming cynical about the lack of policy of the Government, or their desire to implement that nationalisation? Does he agree that the growing concern among workers in the industry, such as those at the port of Preston, indicates the need for a sensible, planned transport policy?

I agree that the subject of the condition of the ports and their ownership has been on our agenda for a number of years. The Preston situation is a matter for the Preston council, and I have no statutory powers in that direction. The pressing business of this Session has ruled out the possibility of a Bill involving the wider nationalisation that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Is the Secretary of State aware that he has a first-class record of achievement on ports nationalisation? If he maintains his present record he will have support from Opposition Benches.

The hon. Member tempts me to abandon my record.

Does my right hon. Friend recollect that the Leader of the Opposition voted for the denationalisation of the National Freight Corporation, which has only 10 per cent. of the predominantly private market? Does he agree that doctrinaire and dogmatic attacks on the competition between private and public enterprises are gravely damaging to the morale of the management of the corporation, which is trying to make a success of the mixed economy?

My hon. Friend is correct. There has been some shocking irresponsibility on the Opposition side of the House. Opposition Members voted in favour not only of the denationalisation of the National Freight Corporation but of the denationalisation of the British Steel Corporation. I am not surprised that morale in some of the nationalised industries is low. Some unthoughtful and unfair attacks have been made.

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

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

Later this week.

Will the Minister take the opportunity of telling the Chairman of British Railways that the principle of public accountability means little unless more information is given about the cost of the railways? Will he tell him that it is unsatisfactory for an enormous amount of public money to be spent without further information being given to the House?

I know that the Chairman of British Railways studies Hansard with care. I am sure that he will note the hon. Member's question. If the hon. Member has specific suggestions to make he should write to me.

Will the Secretary of State make a special statement to the House after he has seen the chairman of the board? Is he aware of the substantial disquiet in the House and in the country about the accountability of the board?

I do not think that that is a matter that lends itself to a statement to the House. We have debated the accountability of nationalised industries many times over the last 30 years. No one has found quite the right answer. The National Economic Development Office has recently published a report, with which the House is familiar. We must go ahead and try to find a better way of dealing with these matters. If the hon. Member has any specific suggestions he should make them in writing. I shall read them and pass them on.

When my hon. Friend meets the Chairman of British Railways will he draw his attention to the increasing number of breakdowns on the railways? Will he urge upon the chairman the need for reinvestment and the purchase of rolling stock in Scotland?

I am sure that the chairman will note that point, because he is anxious to ensure that his period as chairman results in an improvement in the standards of the railways and a rise in the confidence of those who work for British Rail.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy with regard to the licensing of off-street car parks.

I am continuing to consider parking policy during the preparation of my White Paper.

Is the Minister aware of the latest spiteful idea of the Labour-controlled "lame duck" Greater London Council to penalise private motorists? Is he aware that most motorists who bring their cars into London do so—despite the difficulties of parking and congestion—for business reasons? Surely they should be given encouragement and not discouragement.

I do not believe that I should condemn the action of a properly elected authority in the exercise of its powers. There are different opinions about parking in London. One must find a balance. The unrestricted use of the private car is impossible without major road improvements, which we cannot afford. There should be a high degree of local option. Those who are in control should decide, and if they are wrong the ballot box will show them.

Will my hon. Friend explain how he can help local councils that want to ban heavy lorry parking in their areas but are deterred because of the expense of signposting?

That is a new point, and I shall be very glad to consider it.

Surely the trouble with the kind of restrictions being proposed for cities such as London is that they ignore the legitimate needs of motorists. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that many motorists, such as business motorists, for example, actually need their cars to enable them to work? Therefore, does he really believe that in-sports clubs and other organisations. All these bodies have missed many millions of pounds because of the dilatory action

Indiscriminate restrictions are as bad as indiscriminate parking. That is why I say that a balance must be struck. Certainly it is a great convenience for many to be able to use their private cars, and I would be prepared to accept that for some it is a necessity; but it is not a necessity for all. Serious problems are caused for the majority of people working in our great cities if those who want to bring in a private car restrict in some way the free flow of public transport or, alternatively, there have to be massive new roadworks and developments of one kind or another. The use of a degree of common sense is the best way of solving the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport why, in the interests of road safety, he will not provide lighting for the M1 motorway from the Newport Pagnell service station to the lighted section of the motorway south of the Watford Gap area.

The lighting of this length of the M1 is not at present justified.

Surely the Minister knows that lighting of motorways at night is perhaps the biggest safety factor. As the M1 is our busiest motorway, although this is a question of priorities in expenditure, is this not perhaps the biggest priority of all?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is an extremely highly rated safety factor. We have done a great deal on the M1, as he will be aware. The problem with this section, which we looked at very thoroughly, along with the rest of the M1, was that it did not rate as highly as the other sections. That was confirmed by the chief constables, who also looked at the matter carefully. None the less, we shall continue to consider this matter to see whether we can include it.

I am, of course, always anxious to support the Opposition in their calls for additional public expenditure. Will my hon. Friend the Minister look not only at this section of the M1 but at other accident black spots, particularly those due to fog, in other parts of the country, and give some idea of what plans he now has for lighting up such sections?

Yes. We have a national programme for the lighting of motorways, which we operate in conjunction with local authorities, and 235 miles of motorway have already been lit, 14 more miles are having lighting installed, and for 55 more miles lighting is in the design stage, so we are making progress.

Will my hon. Friend note that Opposition Members are consistent in their demands for savage public expenditure cuts in general but prolific in their suggestions for expenditure of a wholesale variety for particular items? Will he bear in mind, when and if it is possible to extend motorway lighting, that the criterion should not be that the area is within the Home Counties, and that there are areas in Yorkshire and Humberside, and certainly in my constituency, that require attention?

Yes, I totally agree with my hon. Friend. He will have noted the regional bias in the Department of Transport that is rather in his direction. I know that there are a lot of lit miles on the M62, for example, and on other roads in Yorkshire.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of bus replacement services for rail passenger line closures since 1963 have remained in operation to date.

Full information is not readily available, but I understand that some two-thirds of the bus services introduced for this purpose in the period 1969 to 1973 were still in operation in 1976, some of them in modified form.

As those figure show that, conversely, one-third were not still in existence, will my right hon. Friend explain how the assured bus replacement services referred to in the Green Paper will differ from the previous bus replacements, which clearly were not assured? Will he, in particular, insist that British Rail takes full account of the views of the Transport Users Consultative Committee before it persists in its own bizarre idea of turning some railways into busways?

I certainly agree that British Rail should consult widely about any proposals that it makes for changes, as it must also take account of the information, such as it is, about what has happened in the past. However, again, this is an area for thoughtful and informed discussion and an attempt to find out what makes the best success in the interests of the man or woman who wants a convenient form of public transport. I would not wish to forecast the outcome, but I hope that discussions will continue in that spirit.

Without wishing to detract from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), may I ask my right hon. Friend to address himself more to the question of the closure of roads for economic purposes? He will be aware that he informed the House some time ago that, as far as he was aware, there had been no closures of roads for economic reasons, while we have had thousands of miles of railways closed during the last 25 years.

I hope that I have grasped the burden of what my hon. Friend asked. I think that the answer is that I shall give it my consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on his policy as regards the National Freight Corporation's purchase of overseas companies.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on his policy as regards the National Freight Corporation's purchase of overseas companies.

I have nothing to add to what I told the House during the course of the debate on 20th January.

Does the Minister agree that it is no part of the National Freight Corporation's remit to reform the road haulage organisation in France?

I certainly agree with that, but I do not think that the NFC should be restricted, as a public corporation, in exercising commercial judgments of a kind that the private sector is free to exercise. This was a matter that we discussed fully on 20th January.

When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman shortly, will he discuss with him the recent closure of the freightliner terminal in Hull and explain to him that Hull is an area with very high unemployment and very depressed conditions, which cannot be served from Leeds, and that it would be a good idea if, occasionally, the corporation stopped taking these premature decisions without looking at the implications for regional policy generally and for the hopes of an upturn in industry and transport facilties in those areas?

I do not think that the chairman would regard Hull as being overseas, which is the burden of the question.

That is the way things look.

As my hon. Friend knows, the chairman is fully aware of the feelings aroused by the decision that has lately been taken. My hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends have been assiduous in making their views known, and very properly.

Although it may be right for managers of nationalised industries to be free to take commercial decisions, how are they to be held accountable for commercial failures? What was the total loss incurred in the French operation?

It is believed that the cost—this was published in the NFC's annual report and accounts for 1975—was about £11·4 million. The accountability of the NFC, and all nationalised industries, is to this House, through the Secretary of State. It is right that we should discuss it. We have the ultimate power of decision about the major strategic decisions that are represented by the policies of this corporation and others.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the London Transport Executive.

Not in the immediate future.

When my right hon. Friend does meet the chairman, will he impress upon him the tremendous importance of the Epping-Ongar section of the Central Line for people of North Weald and the surrounding area? Will my right hon. Friend tell him of the tremendous sense of outrage that would be aroused among people of all sections of the community if, having established the case for keeping the line open only a year or two ago, the issue of closure were again to be raised?

I understand the strength of feeling about this matter. My hon. Friend has made a number of representations about it, and very properly, too. I think that the chairman is aware of the issues involved. As my hon. Friend says, some years ago a decision was made to keep the line open. There has been no recent change in that position.

As the closure of the Epping-Ongar line would adversely affect many villages in my constituency, as well as the town of Ongar, will the Secretary of State, the next time he meets the Chairman of the London Transport Executive, tell him that some of us are not persuaded by the arithmetic used by London Transport, as a result of which it alleges a loss that some of us suspect is far in excess of the actual loss?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. No doubt he has made direct representations to the chairman. He will also appreciate that the chairman is directly responsible to the Greater London Council and not to me—though the hon. Gentleman's constituency is outside that area.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the high esteem in which the present Chairman of the London Transport Executive is held by the whole House, particularly by all those on the Government side of the House who know him well. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, of the concern that has been caused by the fact that the chairman of a body with such grave responsibilities and difficulties to face has taken on another very onerous job as Chairman of the Arts Council? When my right hon. Friend meets the Chairman of the London Transport Executive, will he discuss that matter with him, so as to be able to reassure hon. Members and people outside the House that this does not mean any diversion of interest and time to duties in an almost equally important body?

I am sure that the whole House will endorse the kind remarks made by my right hon. Friend about Kenneth Robinson. The trust that the House has in him is an adequate assurance that he will not neglect his present duties because he has taken on further responsibilities. In so far as there are anxieties, I am sure that Mr. Robinson will be aware of them and for that very reason will do his best to ensure that they do not turn out to be justified.