asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints he has received during 1977 from residents and organisations in the East Sussex County Council area regarding heavy lorries.

About 13, Sir.

Does the Minister accept that as it may be some years before the Channel Tunnel is built, that must lead to an increasing number of heavy lorries on the roads in the South-East and in the East Sussex County Council area? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that effective heavy lorry routes are developed to minimise the inconvenience and trouble caused to residents in the area?

I do indeed accept that it may be some years before the Channel Tunnel is built. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that in the interval, under the Dykes Act and similar local traffic regulations, East Sussex County Council has been extremely good in what it has done. It has already put lorry bans on routes in certain rural areas, as well as in the towns of Eastbourne, Hove, Seaford and Hailsham—though regret tably not in Horam. The county council has also issued an advisory lorry route map to Continental drivers. Therefore, all in all, East Sussex is coping reasonably with the undoubted problem.

In addition to the disadvantages of heavy lorries that have already been mentioned, will the Minister bear in mind that these lorries are the main cause of burst water mains in the London area, and will he try to reduce the dislocation of traffic and the expense involved in repairing the burst mains?

Yes. I accept that perfectly valid point. However, if I were to read out—as I have for East Sussex—all that the Greater London Council is doing about this I should take too much of the time of the House. The GLC is doing a great deal.

While the Minister is considering that, will he take into account the recent report that heavy and juggernaut lorries were, allegedly, responsible for the gas explosions that occurred earlier this year, by fracturing gas pipes under roadways?

I accept that point, but my hon. Friend is leading me on to a difficult and different terrain. However, there are proposals in the White Paper for increasing the taxation on heavy lorries to take account of the wear and tear that they cause on roads. That is in addition to the particular bans on heavy lorries.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on future increases in rail passenger fares.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on future increases in commuter fares levels.

It is set out in the White Paper on transport policy.

What is the attitude of the Government towards the decision of British Rail to withdraw concessionary fares for schoolchildren aged between 14 and 17? Is the Secretary of State aware that this will have a considerable impact upon a large number of my constituents? What is Government policy on this matter?

This is a matter for the discretion of the British Railways Board within the whole framework of its fares policy. I realise that the decision has caused some disturbance, but the Board first put its proposals to the local authorities last October to give everyone a reasonable chance to adjust to special circumstances. This is properly a matter for the Board, which must examine those services where it reasonably believes that it can make a little more money.

Is the Secretary of State aware that this impinges particularly unfairly on parents whose children are attending places of education other than those provided by the State, because there is no other subsidy available to those parents? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore consider whether it is likely that more children will enter State schools as a result?

On the hon. Member's first conclusion, some people might read the situation in a different way. However, people must make adjustments as between the costs of activities in which they are engaged. I am sorry if it turns out that the increased fares mean that some children will not be able to go to their present schools, but this is the sort of weighing up that all parents must do in deciding whether to pay for their children's education.

On passenger fares generally and commuter fares in particular, is it not a fact that during the past three years rail passengers have faced the biggest fare increases in the history of the railways and that this has been due predominantly to inflation? Will not new inflationary pay awards leading to a further pay explosion drive passengers in their thousands off the railways?

I should not draw that conclusion in the first instance. The large increases during the past three years have been due to the policies of the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in Government. There is no point in Opposition Members shaking their heads. It is a plain fact that under the then Chancellor of the Exchequer public sector prices were kept down and that there has had to be a catching-up process. However, I entirely agree that if it turned out that there were wage settlements on the railways that were out of line with the rate of inflation, there would be very serious consequences for fares, the number of passengers, and jobs.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport why he did not include a statement on road safety in the transport White Paper.

Because the main proposals in the White Paper are about issues which do not directly affect road safety. This can best be dealt with separately.

Will the Minister give serious consideration to inclusion in the Queen's Speech of a reference to legislation to implement the recommendations of the Blennerhassett Committee on drinking and driving?

I greatly welcome the hon. Gentleman's support. He is obviously right to raise these matters in the House. Road safety should concern the House more, perhaps, than it has done at times. I cannot anticipate what may be in the Queen's Speech, but we have already declared our intention to legislate on Blennerhassett in due course.

Will my right hon. Friend provide figures, in easy form, comparing railway accidents and road accidents? Is it not a fact that the safety record of the railways is overwhelmingly greater than that of the roads and that this is something that does not get nearly enough emphasis?

I entirely agree. I am sorry if it does not receive enough publicity, because it is certainly true. The conclusion that I draw from that is that we must get a much better performance on the roads than we do now. It is quite outrageous that over 6,000 people are killed every year on the roads.

Why did the White Paper not make specific reference to the accepted fact that the figure of 6,000 deaths every year could be reduced by about 1,000 by the compulsory wearing of seat belts? When will the Government do something about this, in view of the fact that the House gave the relevant Bill a Second Reading by a majority of over 100?

The reason why road safety was not included in the White Paper is a fairly reasonable one. It was a long White Paper. This is a separate subject, although a very important one. It seemed to us best dealt with separately. That was a matter of judgment. We may have been wrong, but there was no motive other than that behind it. I personally regret the fact that legislation on the compulsory wearing of seat belts did not go through the House last year. I am sure that it will do so in due course. However, all Governments are bound in part by the views of hon. Members and their determination. The hon. Gentleman was notable for his support of the Bill, and is greatly to be praised for that, but other hon. Members were very determined in their opposition.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a further statement about negotiations with EEC Ministers on drivers' hours and distances.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a further statement about negotiations with EEC Ministers on drivers' hours and distances.

I have nothing at present to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) on 1st July.

Will the Minister give the Government's current views on the question of distances and rest hours in this proposal from the EEC? At the next Council of Ministers meeting, will he tell the bureaucratic busybodies in Brussels that we are perfectly happy to have a national policy, except, perhaps, where it goes across frontiers?

I do not think that it is only the bureaucratic busybodies in Brussels who are involved here. There are also the views of our eight partners in the EEC, who see advantages in the legislation on drivers' hours that we ourselves have not so clearly seen. The Government's view was clearly stated by myself in Luxembourg and set out in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan. We believe that the so-called safeguard provisions should be implemented in a staged way—in other words, over a period of time from 1st January.

Dissociating myself from the insults of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), may I ask what the proposed timetable is and what the pressures are?

The proposed timetable is precisely something that I hoped to have been able to discuss at Luxembourg. As my hon. Friend knows, there was an objection in principle to the whole idea of staged implementation rather than implementation from 1st January. It was that objection in principle with which I was mainly dealing. I hope that we shall get a reasonable period for the staging of implementation, but that is still open to negotiation.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the new Commission regulation does not come into force this year, the 1969 regulation automatically comes into force on 1st January? Will he further accept that the 1969 regulation lays down a maximum of 280 miles or 450 kilometres, and that the driver can drive for only eight hours within any 24-hour period?

I am sure that my hon. Friend correctly states the position. I should, perhaps, simply add that I think that members of the Community have an interest in a settlement of this matter of amendments to Regulation 543/69. Therefore, I am still hopeful that there will be a negotiated package, which will be to the advantage of everyone.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to make definite proposals for reducing the powers and accelerating the procedures of the traffic commissioners.

The transport policy White Paper proposes legislation to require the traffic commissioners to have regard to counties' and regions' policies and plans for public transport; to release community buses from public service vehicle and driver licensing; to improve the streamlined procedures in Section 30 of the Transport Act 1968; and to remove certain restrictions regarding car sharing.

That is welcome, but when shall we see the precise proposals? Is the Minister aware that our recent experience with the traffic commissioners in Oxfordshire is one of almost incredible delay followed by decisions that seem to show much more concern for the established vested interests in transport than for the actual needs of the towns and villages?

We shall be consulting very shortly on the details of the general proposals that we outlined in the White Paper. In fact, the consultation procedures will start within the next week or so. We shall have detailed proposals after that. The case in Oxfordshire was certainly a big one. That is why it took so long to hear. In no other case in the last three years in the East Midlands have sessions lasted more than two days, so this case was totally exceptional, because it was considering the whole question of transport in the county. The conclusion of the traffic commissioners was that the Oxfordshire County Council had failed in its statutory duty to promote the provision of a co-ordinated and efficient system of public transport.

When the Government now call for general modification of the bus licensing laws and when the Secretary of State is indicting his predecessors and his own Government for their action in 1974 in abandoning Conservative proposals that they had previously supported when in Opposition, what on earth have the present Government been doing over the last three years? Will the hon. Gentleman at least assure us that legislation to this effect will be introduced next Session?

No. My right hon. Friend is carrying on the great record of Labour policy in this area. The previous Labour Government were the last Government to introduce significant changes in the bus licensing system. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) introduced the only serious and important changes for some time. Over the last 15 years no Conservative Government have achieved anything in this area. I am sure that we shall achieve more, and, of course, we shall go to legislation as soon as we can.

Does the Minister agree that there is a very good case for considering the powers of the traffic commissioners in relation to fares? At present, the work of the commissioners is very much a rubber-stamping operation. Should not their rôle in relation to fares be transferred to county councils, which, after all, are responsible for deciding the level of subsidy for local public transport?

As we have said in the White Paper, we shall require the traffic commissioners to have regard to counties' plans, and fares will be a very important part of their plans, so by this means we hope to achieve, without a drastic upheaval, which we think would be disadvantageous, the sort of ideas about which the hon. Gentleman cares.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received from interested parties about the White Paper on transport.

A few, Sir.

Will the Secretary of State say whether any of those representations relate to paragraph 114 of the White Paper, about concessionary school fares? Is he aware of the very strong feeling about the three-mile rule to which it refers, in particular because the rule applies on the crow's-flight distance from the home to the school rather than the bus route? Has he discussed with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science the possibility of schools opening at 9.30 a.m., so that people may take advantage of the cheaper bus fares?

No, I have received no representations on this matter since the publication of the White Paper, but I am fully aware that this matter causes concern. I have discussed it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and, as paragraph 114 makes clear, consultations are continuing to see whether an acceptable solution can be found.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread support in local government for two of the major principles in the White Paper—first, that there must be continuing and increasing revenue support for bus services and, secondly, that more discretion must be allowed to local authorities? Does my right hon. Friend agree that these two principles tend to vindicate the position taken by the South Yorkshire County Council, to which he objected last year?

I much appreciate my hon. Friend's generous remarks, but I am not sure whether the question of vindication arises directly. My hon. Friend states very clearly the principal directions in which the White Paper is moving. I remind the House of the important fact that about 37 per cent. of public spending on transport will go to public transport this year, compared with 19 per cent. in 1973–74.

Returning to the question of transporting children to school, the White Paper refers to efforts being made to introduce a standard charge, which apparently gave rise to a great deal of opposition. Will the Secretary of State enlighten the House more about what proposals were then made and relate them to the consultations that the White Paper tells us—as the Secretary of State said today—are continuing now? May we have more details on this point?

With respect, the question of the provision of transport for schools is normally regarded as a matter for my hon. Friend. There is nothing more that can be said at the moment, since the publication of the White Paper. Consultations will continue with those involved and I hope that a satisfactory solution will be found.

Surely the most significant feature of the White Paper, as the New Statesman said, is that it has abandoned practically all the pledges that the Labour Party gave in the two 1974 manifestos. Does the Secretary of State accept that the integrated transport policy is now dead? If he believes that it still lives, precisely how does he define it?

I define it in terms of the White Paper, which contained 30,000 words and which I hope the hon. Gentleman has read.

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

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

Quite soon.

I am glad to hear that reply. When the Secretary of State meets the chairman, will he tell him that travellers in Scotland no longer want to put up with cast-off rolling stock from south of the border? Will he give a categorical assurance that there will be no cuts in the foreseeable future to the railway lines north and west of Perth, to Inverness and Wick, to Mallaig, Oban and Fort William and to Kyle of Lochalsh.

I sometimes get rather tired of the shrill complaints that come from hon. Members on the Scottish National Bench. Last time, if I remember rightly, it was the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing), complaining about refreshment facilities. I shall certainly make sure that the Chairman of British Rail notes the remarks of the hon. Gentleman.

In order that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) can gain first-hand experience of his party's disastrous separatist policies on transport, will my right hon. Friend ask the Chairman of British Rail to instruct the guard on the London-to-Scotland sleeper to awaken the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire at the Scottish border and ask him to produce his non-existent separate Scottish passport and his separate English pounds, which he is probably too mean to part with, and tell him to walk home to Edinburg—because if it had not been for the fact that a Labour Government nationalised the railways 30 years ago there would not be even a semblance of a public transport system north of the border?

I am sure that I could not have put it better. I was going to suggest that the logic of some of the questions from Scottish National Members was that we should take up the railways between England and Scotland and oblige the friends of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) to walk across the border.

When the Secretary of State next meets the Chairman of British Rail will he discuss the question of disciplinary action against train drivers who are drunk on duty? Will he point out to the chairman that among my constituents are those who survived the Eltham rail crash 10 years ago, and that a very serious view is taken of this kind of offence while on duty?

I am sure that my hon. Friend and others take a very serious view of offences of this kind, but we should keep it in perspective and realise that the great majority of those who work for the railways work extremely well and maintain very high standards of integrity and good sense.

When my right hon. Friend meets the Chairman of the British Railways Board will he explain how it was that, despite many meetings between himself, the unions and the Board in the period leading up to the White Paper, it was not possible to give them advance warning of the cut in the public service obligation, of which they learned only when they read the White Paper?

It seems that my hon. Friend is raising a matter not of transport policy but of parliamentary procedure. The text of the White Paper was not available until its publication on that afternoon. It would have been improper for me to have shown it to the Chairman of British Railways or anyone else. I followed very correctly the procedures laid down. If the House wants to change those procedures—I know that they cause some discontent—it is for the House to decide.

When the Secretary of State meets the Chairman of British Rail, what steps will he take to make credible the Government's policy on cash limits? In partciular, will he tell the chairman that if there are to be very much higher wage settlements for railwaymen without matching productivity increases, it must mean higher fares, fewer passengers and therefore far fewer jobs?

The Chairman of British Rail and many others well understand the nature of cash limits.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on the role of county councils in the formulation of transport policy, in the light of his White Paper.

I intend to hold consultations with the local authority associations on the relevant aspects of the White Paper proposals and I shall have nothing further to say until they have taken place.

I welcome the proposal for devolving certain power to councils to enable them to form county transport plans, but does my right hon. Friend concede that there is a built-in likelihood that this proposal will lead to conflict between county councils and national operators such as bus companies and British Rail? How does my right hon. Friend propose that such conflict should be resolved without resort to his own final decision, thus making nonsense of the whole proposal to devolve powers?

In this area, as in many others, there is always the possibility of conflict. My hon. Friend is asking me to do precisely what I said I cannot do. We must find formulae for ironing out conflict, which is bound to occur from time to time. This should be our objective. I am glad to have my hon. Friend's approval for plans to give responsibilities which do not exist at present to the county councils to prepare county public transport plans.

Is not the answer to leave it to the county councils, except where there is conflict arising from the crossing of boundaries in the various counties, where the Traffic Commissioners—the bureaucratic non-busybodies in this case—should act as a court of appeal between the counties?

I am always grateful to have helpful suggestions from the hon. Gentleman. That was more helpful than some of his suggestions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the county council areas are meaningless areas from the point of view of administration and determination of transport policy and many other policies, particularly since May? Does he accept that until the Government have a proper regional policy for England future transport policy and many other areas of policy will be seriously hindered?

That would be a very pessimistic approach to take to the known case for regional government of one form or another—I have sometimes looked kindly on it myself—but whether or not there is a case for it, and whenever it might occur, there is still a great deal of scope for intelligent public transport planning meanwhile, and that is what I want to see.

How does the Secretary of State expect to formulate policy jointly with county councils when he was quoted recently as describing Conservative-controlled councils as the enemy camp? Why did the right hon. Gentleman authorise his political adviser to send out party-political propaganda on Department of Transport notepaper urging Labour groups to make the maximum political capital at the expense of Conservative councils? Leaving aside the sheer incompetence of sending a copy to the Conservative leader of a Conservative council, will the right hon. Gentleman now admit that his action in authorising this to be done was not only politically inept but a misuse of public funds?

I think that the answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that there was a cock-up. Such things happen from time to time, even in the best ordered societies. On the first point, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. There is often disagreement on political matters. It is often the case that the central Government are in political control which is different from that of local government in one area or another. Although we still maintain our position as party members and we say some rude things about one another, this does not exclude consultation, and, quite honestly, I do not believe that the local authority associations will refuse to consult on these matters simply because I have said a few rude words about certain authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the National Coal Board the desirability of movement of material from opencast sites other than by road wherever alternative means are available.

The Government encourage the movement of bulk goods other than by road whenever it is sensible to do so, and the Department is already discussing with the National Coal Board the possibility of using grants under Section 8 of the Railways Act 1974 to encourage the carriage of material by rail from opencast sites.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, but will he remind those responsible that where there are near or adjoining rail and water transport facilities it is wrong that people should be expected to tolerate muck and a great deal of noise on their doorsteps?

I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point about that, but I remind him that local authorities also have some responsibility and some planning powers in this matter. Perhaps they also will take the point on board.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the National Bus Company to report to him about whether to introduce a national concessionary fares system for retirement pensioners.

The National Bus Company has launched several pilot schemes to study the commercial possibilities of various forms of travel concessions. I understand that it expects to be able to assess the results early next year.

Does the Minister agree that there is a large measure of unfairness and injustice in the present haphazard system, which means that elderly people in rural areas are worse off than those in urban areas? Has not the time come to introduce some uniformity into the system, as British Rail has, or to scrap bus concessionary fares altogether and help the elderly in another way?

I note once again the hon. Gentleman's plea for higher public expenditure. It is possibly true, as we agreed in the White Paper, that there is a need to iron out the anomalies that clearly exis—anomalies caused, I might add, by many Conservative councils not offering schemes of the sort available in Labour-controlled areas. We hope that this will be possible under the suggestions that we have made for various improvements and the extra£25 million.

May I press my hon. Friend on the question of anomalies, since in metropolitan county areas there is a marked difference between the way in which various authorities react to the question of concessionary fares? Does my hon. Friend agree that at least there should be equitable action by authorities vis-à-vis pensioners?

We are anxious to encourage precisely that. That is why we have given more money and why we have removed the stop on local councils putting up new schemes. We hope that more schemes will come forward and will be financed by the Government, so that in this way we shall be able to iron out the anomalies about which my hon. Friend is concerned.

Will the Minister acknowledge——

No.

Perhaps I should explain that it is an old custom in the House that on occasion an hon. Member is allowed two supplementary questions.

Only on the other side.

Order. I do not like that suggestion. Mr. Johnson Smith.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. To be fair, will the Minister understand that I was not asking for an increase in public expenditure? Is he aware that British Rail operates concessionary fares for elderly people without any increase in costs to British Rail, but running at a profit?

Yes, I accept that, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that the proposals of the National Bus Company do not relate solely to elderly people. It is proposing in one or two limited areas particular concessions for all adults to make use of off-peak fares. That is the proposal, and I do not think that it can be a national scheme as yet.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in their desire to save public expenditure many Conservative-controlled authorities—egged on by many right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—have provided far inferior schemes, which have led to many of the anomalies about which hon. Members have been complaining? Ought not my hon. Friend to make clear that it is impossible to have a decent concessionary fares system for the elderly unless we are prepared, as we should be, to make the necessary payments in public expenditure terms?

My hon. Friend is quite right. People are concerned about this. That is why we allocated£25 million more—an increase from £95 million to£120 million—for concessionary fare schemes throughout the country. This must make a difference.

Will the Minister get his facts right? Is it not true that if there were a national scheme there would be a saving in Government expenditure and it would be much fairer to certain areas, where there are many retired people who cannot afford to have such concessionary fares borne on the rates?

If there were a national scheme it would cost more than£200 million, as opposed to the present£95 million, or the£120 million we propose in the White Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the ports that have suffered rail disconnections in the last 10 years.

I understand from the British Railways Board that railway services have been disconnected from docks at 16 ports during the past 10 years. With permission, I shall circulate details in the Official Report.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that too many important ports have lost all their rail connections and that, despite extra carriage of containers by rail—except when they have been blacked at Didcot and other plices—the total result has been a reduction in the proportion of freight carried by rail, in sharp contrast to the position in countries abroad?

I confess that I was surprised at the number of docks from which rail services had been disconnected. I am sure that the British Railways Board draws on its knowledge and experience in these matters. It is the job of the Board to provide rail connections where they are commercially viable, and I think that that is what it will continue to do.

Irrespective of past history does the Secretary of State have continuing talks with his colleagues in Europe regarding the road and rail connections to the ports that serve Europe, including, in particular, the port of Newhaven in my constituency?

Yes, Sir; these discussions continue. I recognise the importance of links between the rail transport systems of this country and continental Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what powers are available to him to vary bus fare increases approved by traffic commissioners.

My right hon. Friend may vary decisions of the traffic commissioners only on appeal under Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1960.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority is seeking approval to increase bus fares by between 20 per cent. and 33 per cent.? Does he agree that such an increase would put a considerable burden on all bus passengers within the area, and is he happy that final approval in these matters should lie with the traffic commissioners, whereas approval in respect of rail fare increases lies with the Secretary of State?

It is a big increase in West Yorkshire—no one is in any doubt about that—but, as my right hon. Friend explained in earlier answers, this is part of the catching-up process, and it will happen, we hope, once and for all. That is precisely why we have now reversed previous policies on public expenditure support for bus fares and are now pumping another£80 million, in total, into bus revenue support. I hope that, as a consequence, fare increases will be only those necessitated by inflation and will be far more rare than they are today.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in South Yorkshire fares have been kept down, even to the point of there being a conflict with the Government? May we expect that from the£80 million the£5 million of Government money which we have lost in South Yorkshire through keeping fares down—and, by the way, thereby winning a big election—will now be given back to South Yorkshire in order that fares may be kept down?

No, Sir; we wish to be fair to everybody, and therefore the policy will be pursued precisely as we indicate in the White Paper, with money being made available by local authorities, to which the Government contribute a part.

Would not these difficulties be overcome by a radical liberalisation of the bus licensing laws and the abolition of those expensive appendages of the bureaucracy, the traffic commissioners?

No. I think that that would simply be destructive.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what he expects to be the cost to the Exchequer of his proposal in the recent White Paper for a new special replacement allowance for the renewal of the assets of British Railways passenger business.

I expect that the new allowance will next year reduce the Board's need to borrow by about£50 million. The net cost to the Exchequer is therefore likely to be the interest on that sum.

This new fund is a most welcome recognition of the need for additional investment in rolling stock. Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the acid test of the fund must be the amount of money with which he backs it? If the only additional fund to be made available to British Rail is the interest on£50 million—which is about£6 million per annum that will not go far towards renewing the 2,000 diesel motor units now approaching their days of senility.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind remark about this proposal in the White Paper. I know that the amount of money that may become available to the Board in interest saved is important, and I agree also that it is a small proportion of the sum of money that many people would like for the railways. But it is not the acid test. The object of the proposal is not only to give the advantage of interest not paid to the Board but to provide a degree of flexibility which it has said is very welcome.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the difficulties that the railways are having with diesel multiple units are critical? I am sure that he is aware even in his own area that the diesel multiple units to which people transfer after travelling in the first-class inter-city trains give a very bad impression of our railways in general. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the opinion of many of those who have to operate these things that they are falling apart, creating a bad image for British Rail? Could he not find something inside this fund which would enable British Rail to move more quickly towards replacing these units?

I wish that I could hold out a prospect beyond that of the White Paper, although it made clear that whether more money might be available for investment in the 1980s would depend on how events rolled forward meanwhile. I do not disagree with much of what my hon. Friend has said, but he will understand that even if a decision were made today the new design of diesel multiple units would not be available until the early 1980s, and, therefore, the refurbishing of present stock is for the time being the only alternative open to the Board.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he will begin consultations on the proposed new arrangements for deciding on the retention or closure of local railway services.

As soon as convenient to all concerned.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his proposals seek to put more financial responsibility on to local authorities while at the same time they are still being pressed to cut expenditure, and that this is likely to lead to more rail closures and suffering for those dependent on the railways?

My hon. Friend will know from the proposals in the White Paper that we recognise that in the event of the local authorities accepting such responsibility some arrangements will have to be made with them to bear at least some proportion of the cost. But these are all matters which, as my hon. Friend rightly implies, will be the subject of discussion before our final proposals are formulated.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is now a deep suspicion, particularly after the letter of his political adviser—which we will want to take further—that, for all his words, the purpose is to pass the buck from the Government to local councils? If that is his intention, I emphasise one point above ail—the need for proper accounts showing the costs of the separate rail services in question. What plans has the right hon. Gentleman to do that?

The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind. The idea of local option is important and worth while, and we should proceed with it. Talk of passing the buck is nonsense. It is a question not of passing the buck but of ensuring that local people can make local decisions about their local needs. The sort of decision envisaged by the White Paper cannot be made until the Board has made its own proposals. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I am in favour of maximum disclosure to the House at that time, as at others.

What safeguards does my richt hon. Friend envisage for preventing the new arrangements from becoming a back-door renewal of the Beeching cuts, bearing in mind that the shire counties are not favourable to public expenditure on public transport?

I have made it clear that there will never be another Beeching. The important thing is to look at lines which serve local needs and which are cost-ineffective. As my hon. Friend knows, there are a number of safeguards in the White Paper, including the powers that I shall retain to decide which lines should be considered for local option. These matters will be discussed further, and I note my hon. Friend's anxiety.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about progress on the construction of the M180.

The Brigg bypass section of the M180 is due to be opened next month. The rest of the motorway from Thorne to Brigg is also under construction and is expected to be completed by early 1979. A preferred route for the extension to Grimsby was announced last summer and preparatory work on this is being undertaken as swiftly as possible.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the port of Immingham is the most important one on the Humber, north or south, and that at the moment there is no guarantee that it will be included even with the spur road on to the M180? Will he give a guarantee that when the M180 is completed, albeit two years after that white elephant, the Humber bridge, Immingham and Clee thorpes will be provided with a better road system?

Consultations are taking place now between the local authority and the Government on the provision of an Immingham spur. That is part of the present plans.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport, following the publishing of his White Paper, which routes to the ports will receive priority and when he anticipates that they will be completed.

All routes to the major ports have high priority. Much has been done already. I expect the remainder to have been substantially improved by the early 1980s.

Surely the Minister is aware of the need for a very early statement on the actual programme, particularly in relation to the important route from the Midlands to the East Coast. We are still awaiting confirmation of the date of the Ml-A1 link. If, as I believe, it is possible that it will be delayed for a number of years, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will consider alternative routes and that Government money will be spent in order to ensure that this essential road, which is needed for our economic survival and recovery, is completed at the earliest possible opportunity?

The priority of routes to ports is guaranteed—I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. There is no higher priority, other than the M25, in the present proposals. As regards a linkup, we published a preferred corridor at the end of 1975, and work is going on on a particular route within that corridor.

Since the Secretary of State is among the Ministers who accord high priority to Europe and ou trade with it, will the Under-Secretary of State confirm that the highest priority should go to those routes which connect our industrial areas with the East Coast ports? Why did he reduce the funds made available for those routes by the Conservative Government? In particular, will he restore the timetable for the completion of the dualling of the A45 to the dates intended by the Conservative Government?

The road programme has suffered some public expenditure restraint over the past few years. That was for reasons of public expenditure policy, not for reasons of transport policy. There is no discrimination between the East and the South Coasts on this matter. Roads to the ports are important, and we shall give them the highest priority we can.

In considering roads to ports, will my hon. Friend take an interest in the construction of the Garston bypass, which runs through part of my constituency and the construction of which will take away heavy traffic from the densely populated areas and will act as a good feeder road to the docks in Liverpool?

I note what my hon. Friend says. I shall look at the Garston bypass and perhaps write to him about its present state in the programme.

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

On Friday.

When my right hon. Friend meets the Chairman of London Transport, will he impress on him the vital importance of the Epping-Ongar section of the Central Line to the residents of West Essex and to the many people who wish to visit the area, and also point out to him that it would be stupid and wrong for that section to be closed off for a time because it lies outside the area in which it could qualify for GLC grant? The Essex County Council is refusing to give a subsidy to it. Is it not vital that some action should be taken to guarantee the future of this section of the Central Line?

I certainly undertake to draw my hon. Friend's Question and supplementary question to the attention of the Chairman of the London Transport Executive. I regret that there have been difficulties about this line, but I hope that this is the sort of matter that will be considered far more seriously and over a longer term as a result of the implementation of the proposals set out in the White Paper for county public transport plans.

Will the right hon. Gentleman invite London Transport and the Greater London Council to consider bringing in a single standard Underground fare, as on the Paris Metro, which would greatly reduce operating costs?

That, again, is something that I shall draw to the attention of the Chairman of the London Transport Executive.

Will the Secretary of State also draw to the attention of the Chairman of the London Transport Executive the indignation felt by an elderly constituent of mine who wished recently to use his Dumfries and Galloway concessionary fare token on the London Underground? Is not this an indication to the Secretary of State that there ought to be a national concessionary fare scheme, to obviate such indignation?

I think that that is an indication of how unreasonable some people must be.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on plans for lorry routes through the Peak District National Park in the light of the recent White Paper on transport policy.

The White Paper on transport policy rules out the idea of a national system of lorry routes as impractical for some time to come. Local authorities may, of course, continue to use their existing powers to regulate lorry traffic in their areas as they think fit.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if this means that there are to be no lorry routes through the Peak District National Park I shall be extremely satisfied? Will he use his influence to ensure that excessive so-called improvements in roads in that area will not be carried out in such a way as to damage the valuable amenities that it provides?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern, which I share, for the Peak District National Park, and, indeed, for any national park. I do not know, at the moment, of any traffic orders affecting the roads running through the Peak District National Park.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy regarding recent EEC proposals for a privately-financed Channel Tunnel.

As I told the hon. Gentleman on 9th March, if the EEC is making proposals about infrastructure it would be discourteous of us not to look at them. I am not aware, however, of any firm proposals of the kind that he mentions.

Is the Minister aware of the disruption that is taking place in the Folkestone area, especially among people who are trying to sell houses, because of the reincarnation of the idea of a Channel Tunnel? Will the Minister give an assurance that it cannot be built without the approval of this House?

Yes, I am certainly prepared to give that assurance, and to go further and make it absolutely clear that from the Government's point of view there has been no change since the statement made in the House two and half years ago by the then right hon. Member for Grimsby, Mr. Crosland.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no such proposal as that indicated on the Order Paper and that it is not envisaged that there will be any privately-financed project, but rather one financed by the Community and the two Governments concerned? Will he confirm also that when he gave oral evidence before the relevant committee in Brussels he expressed approval of the principle of an EEC venture in this respect?

My hon. Friend is perhaps interpreting my words in a way that is not wholly appropriate. He is close to what is happening in the European Parliament and knows the movement of opinion there. What I have said is that if the Community were to move towards infrastructure funding of transport and one of the proposals made was the building of a Channel Tunnel, certainly that would be a matter that it would be very proper for the Government and for this House to consider. But no such pro- posals have been made in that form, and, for the reason that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) mentioned in his supplementary question, it would be quite wrong to hold out any prospect that the decision will be reversed in the foreseeable future.

The right hon. Gentleman surely knows that there is a great moment coming at which European funds will become available. Will he respond a little more favourably, therefore, to his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton)? If these funds are available, would it not be wrong to look at them coldly and to reject this possibility, which may not recur?

I hope that I have not suggested that any proposal would not be looked at with warmth and carefully, but on these matters a lot of confusion can occur in the public mind and a lot of difficulties arise if people assume that the decisions of two and a half years ago will not stand. They will stand. This is not to say that any proposals for funding should not be considered, and it is not to say that one day a Channel Tunnel will not be built. We do not know. We can only speculate. But the Government's position remains unchanged.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the creation of a comprehensive heavy lorry network.

The White Paper on transport policy explains why the Government have concluded that a national system of roads specifically designated as lorry routes will not be a practical proposition for some time to come but suggests that local authorities should make use of their traffic regulation powers to control heavy lorry traffic.

Does the Minister accept that as this country goes back to growth, and with our increasing trade with Europe, stretches of major road such as the A2, through my constituency, and the three-mile link between two motorway-standard roads must receive Government support? Will he also give an assurance that the Rochester relief road will be built as soon as possible?

That is a slightly different question. Road building has been dealt with elsewhere. Nevertheless, I am aware of the particular proposals of the hon. Gentleman, and I think that it is something for the GLC specifically. But we shall naturally consider it.

Is the Minister aware of the deep concern in outer London at the increase in heavy traffic now taking place? Will he press the GLC to take action at a very early date to reduce the number of heavy lorries manœuvring their way through the narrow streets of South London?

The GLC, particularly under the vigorous Labour administration that went out recently, introduced some extremely stiff bans on lorries over a widespread part of London. These have been widely welcomed, and I certainly support them.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the efficiency of the vehicle licensing centre at Swansea.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the efficiency of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea.

There has been a considerable improvement over the past year, and I am satisfied that the staff at the centre are doing all in their power to ensure that this trend continues. Life will be much easier when the task of transferring the particulars of all vehicles to the cornputerised record is completed early in 1978.

Does the Minister agree that this expensive national joke has gone on long enough? Is it not high time that he ensured that the efficiency of the vehicle licensing centre in Swansea at least matches that of its very successful predecessors?

As the Minister who has to answer all the letters from hon. Members, I have every incentive in seeking to ensure that the improvement, which I have discussed, carries on. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the entire House that I leave no stone unturned in my efforts to improve matters at Swansea. I assure the hon. Gentleman seriously that the staff there have made considerable strides. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Automobile Association recently commented very favourably on the improvement in performance at the centre.

Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that there will be speedy action, particularly in putting the earlier registration letters on to the computer? There are problems with local police in establishing ownership of vehicles in a number of cases. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that if earlier registrations could go on to the computer fairly early it might help in all these cases?

I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We are now dealing with the registration numbers from D backwards—that is 1965—and the last 31 million cars in the country, out of a total of 19 million cars, will be on the central computer record by early 1978. That will give us a complete record, and there will be far less possibility of mistakes and errors than has been the case in the past.

Will the Minister consider the problem that arises if a person buys a car and pays for the car and the licence on one cheque, after which the garage goes bust? To get its£50 the vehicle licensing centre at Swansea then chases the person who bought the car, rather than waiting patiently as a creditor of the garage. Why is this so?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the centre has to wait some time until it can prove what is the situation on the ground floor. It is not entirely clear what the situation is immediately. But I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if he is still dissatisfied with the previous explanation that I gave him.

Is the Minister aware that he seems to be about the only person satisfied with the progress being made in efficiency at the Swansea centre? Does he not think that there is now a case for some sort of independent review both of the system and of the operations at Swansea?

The hon. Gentleman must not misquote me. I did not say that I was satisfied. I have said plainly that I think there has been an improvement over the past few months. It is not merely myself who is saying that; it is the AA as well. The hon. Gentleman should not forget that.