asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the precise date on which the preferred route of the Stoke-Derby link road will be published.

I appreciate the urgent need for a decision but regret that I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on 16th November.

Is the Minister aware of the rising anger and frustration of my constituents in Draycott, Tean, and Checkley about the delay in announcing the route? What are the reasons for this delay?

There are problems with this fairly lengthy piece of proposed road. As the hon. Member knows, it is 42 miles in all, and there are problems in deciding the route at either end. We will get on with the most important and urgent bits and see whether we can chop it up, particularly the parts relating to the villages that the hon. Member has mentioned.

Will the Minister bear in mind that the public inquiry into the Allestree link road at Derby needs to know the departmental plans for the proposed Derby-Stoke road and for the M42? Will he do his best to expedite this, bearing in mind the Leitch recommendation?

I shall take that point into account. I am not sure that it is essential for the public inquiry to have the firm plans of the eastern end of the proposed new road, but I shall see what can be done.

Does the Minister accept that the excellent proposal put forward by DESTAG—t he Derby-Stoke Action Group—for bypasses around Derbyshire villages that are on the M42 will save about £30 million—particularly the proposals put forward by the Midland Road Construction Unit? Will he bear the cost factor in mind when he comes to a final decision?

I shall bear in mind the well-thought-out and imaginative proposals for solving these problems. I note that they involve much less public expenditure. We are examining the proposals of the action group, but of course we must take account of the very important environmental considerations. We must get the right solutions, and not just go for those solutions that cost least money.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from county councils on traffic licensing laws; and if he will make a statement.

The county councils have argued that road service licensing of buses and coaches by the traffic commissioners should be transferred to them. The Transport Bill will require the traffic commissioners to have regard to counties' plans and policies, and we believe that this is the right modification.

Will the Minister think again about the problems of all rural areas? Does he appreciate that in the context of the services in Hereford and Worcester, three-year projections, let alone three-year agreements, are very difficult, because the input figures are so uncertain? Does he accept the need to encourage local experiments, with traditional services failing fast, and will he consider the time it takes to obtain a licence?

No Government have done more than we have for transport in rural areas. As for local experiments, the hon. Member will be aware of our own Passenger Transport (Experimental Areas) Act, which does precisely what he is asking.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had from commuters following the latest round of increases in rail fares.

As explained to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on 25th January, I have received one petition and about 90 letters since the increase was announced in November 1977.

Does the move by British Rail to raise fares by 16½ per cent. not worry the Secretary of State at all? Has he no regard for the views of the Price Commission, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and even the Prime Minister on this departure from the 10 per cent. rule?

I am very concerned about rising rail fares, as every reasonable man must be. I am sorry that fares in London and the South-East have gone up more than in other parts of the country. We have discussed this matter often in the House. The real problem is that of making sure that fares do not rise at a time when the House does not want the subsidy to rise, either. Also, the hon. Member must consider the case for comfort and convenience in services which the Chairman of British Rail is anxious to improve if he can.

Does my right hon. Friend not find the attitude of some Conservative Back Benchers somewhat opportunist, in view of the speech of the Shadow Chancellor in Chatham on Friday night, when he told commuters that they could expect no hand-outs from a future Conservative Government? Many of us who represent commuter constituencies are far happier with this Government's commitment to the continuation of subsidies than we are with claims of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) that subsidies are not necessary. If the subsidies are abolished, how much can we expect fares to increase?

My hon. Friend is right to note the speech made by the right hon and learned Member, who speaks on these matters more frankly than do many of his Conservative colleagues. The House will also recall that in voting against the Second Reading of the Transport Bill only 10 days ago, the Opposition cast a vote against continuing the rail subsidy for the next year. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may not like it, but there is a great deal of ambivalence in their attitude.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present situation is difficult for commuters, such as those in my constituency, because they are having to pay higher fares for a reduced service, since many of their trains have been reduced in length and this is causing serious overcrowding in peak periods?

I agree that there is a problem, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the difficulty experienced by commuters and the extent to which they are committed in respect of where they live in the travel-to-work areas. I do not minimise that consideration, but I must point out that there are no easy answers. It appears that some Conservative Members are anxious to have it both ways, namely, to keep fares down and to cut the subsidy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that at the heart of the commuter problem is the fact that too many people work too far from where they live? Will he have words with the Secretary of State for the Environment with a view to reversing the new policy of the Location of Offices Bureau and restoring the old policy of dispersing office employment from central London?

I am not sure that I can make the promise that my hon. Friend seeks, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will note that point. It is true that many of our travel problems have arisen because major planning decisions made over the years have not taken account of the cost and time spent in travelling.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what worries corn-minters is not the Opposition's stand on the totally inadequate Transport Bill but the fact that in the last three years commuters have experienced the biggest series of rail fare increases in history? Will he now consider the suggestion made in the Evening Standard and elsewhere that employers should not be prevented by public policy from offering their staffs new travel-to-work schemes? Is that not a constructive way forward?

I can understand the search for an easy way out of this complex problem, but commuter problems do not arise only in the South-East travel-to-work area. They arise in all parts of Britain and it is difficult to find a scheme that meets everybody's requirement. It is certainly unreasonable to expect people in other parts of the country to put their hands in their pockets to help those in the South-East.

Will the Minister now answer the question that I put to him? It does not require taxpayers to put their hands in their pockets; it is a constructive suggestion that may lead to progress. Surely the Secretary of State must realise the difficulties. Will he please take the suggestion seriously?

I am taking it seriously, but the hon. Gentleman must face the fact that the suggestion that he has in mind would be a breach of the pay policy and would affect some people and not others. We must try to arrive at a policy that is fair as between individuals and groups.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he has given to the passenger and freight transport industries on the enforcement of the EEC regulations on distances driven; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent advice he has given to the road haulage industry on the implementation of EEC drivers' hours and distances regulations.

I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) on 11th January, except to say that I am issuing this week a leaflet giving what I hope is helpful guidance.

Is the Minister aware that the advice given to operators is that, if in the first six months they break the distance limit, there will be no prosecutions but that, on the other hand, if they break any other of the provisions, those infringements could be taken into consideration? Does he not regard this situation as unsatisfactory in regard to the distance limit, and will he think again about the matter of prosecution?

Later today we are discussing these matters. Some are so complex and important to the industry that I am hesitant to give a quick reply, which may lead to misunderstanding elsewhere. I believe that there should be a running-in period in respect of the regulations. We understand that people are feeling their way in this matter and are becoming accustomed to the new regulations, which will have to operate fully in due course.

I appreciate the considerations that the right hon. Gentleman outlines, but will he confirm that the concept of education and not enforcement is concurred with in the Home Office and among the police authorities?

It is a well understood principle and it is not being operated for the first time. Previous changes in drivers' hours caused difficulties of this nature. All the authorities recognise the problem and are prepared to safeguard against it.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the EEC regulations have been in operation since 1969 and that when the Conservatives negotiated for the United Kingdom to join the Common Market they did not endeavour to alter those regulations? Therefore, is it not a little odd that they should now come to the House and complain about them?

These regulations were inherited when we joined the Community and everybody recognises that they provide us with a considerable problem. Fortunately, there was a transitional period of five years, and we have now been able to negotiate a phased implementation. However, I do not underestimate the difficulties involved and we must try to sort them out.

rose—

Order. This matter can be debated tonight.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has had from representatives of local authorities about his circular on the provision of concessionary fares to retirement pensioners and disabled people.

The circular was issued on 13th January and it is too early to judge the response of local authorities. I hope that where necessary they will introduce new or improved concessionary fares schemes as suggested in the circular.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the proposition originally given by his Department was that no new or modified scheme should be introduced, and that that advice was welcomed by organisations representing the aged and disabled? Does he accept that there are many mean-minded authorities which have no schemes, or inadequate schemes, for the elderly and disabled? What steps can he take to persuade local authorities to be a little more generous?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. He will be interested to know that there are 56 districts with no scheme at all, and that of that total 23 districts are Conservative-controlled; none is Labour-controlled. Opposition Members would well advised to talk to some of their local authorities and to take our advice in introducing schemes for the elderly, the disabled and the blind.

Does the Minister agree that it is far better for the transport operators themselves to operate generous off-peak schemes for the disabled and pensioners than to use the rates to subsidise some people when there may be others who are in greater need?

No, I do not agree. The operators have difficulties already in meeting their existing obligations without our seeking to put upon them the onus of bringing in concessionary fares. We have a well-established situation in respect of concessionary fares, but there have been difficulties because some local authorities, mainly Conservative, are refusing to operate schemes. I hope that they will reconsider their position in the light of the Government's attitude.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a great deal of ill feeling in certain county areas because some authorities run schemes whereas others do not? Does he consider it appropriate that when county plans are drawn up there should be an effort to ensure, within a county boundary, that schemes of a similar nature are running in each part of that county?

My hon. Friend makes a good suggestion. It causes bitterness when people in one area have a good scheme and others in a contiguous area have no scheme. Therefore, I urge county authorities to consider the matter.

Is the Minister aware that I am astonished at the hypocrisy on the Labour Benches? They are suggesting to Conservative councils that they should cut back on rate support grant—this applies especially to Essex, where the figure is 8p in the pound—rather than suggesting that we should have a national scheme that would be fairer throughout the country.

We have made it plain that public money for bus services is available and that nobody will go short of money for a reasonable service. Equally, we have made it plain that there is more money available for concessionary fare schemes. A total of £4 million is set aside for this purpose in the next financial year, and a sum of £25 million until the end of the decade. It is clear that the onus is on local authorities to take advantage of this situation. There is no hypocrisy on the Government side. I am worried about the hypocrisy on the Conservative side.

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

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.

On Friday.

Will the Minister tell the Chairman of British Rail when he sees him on Friday that in Scotland the state of rolling stock—locomotives and coaches—is an asbolute, total and utter disgrace? Will he tell the chairman to do something about it?

The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating. We are all aware—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too narrow-minded about this—that it is not only in Scotland that problems arise for British Rail about renewing rolling stock. British Rail has made it clear that it would like a higher level of investment. It can have a higher level of investment only with a higher level of public expenditure. I shall certainly draw the chairman's attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

In connection with the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford), will the Minister bear in mind that representations have also been made by the various unions involved with the railways about the rolling stock in Scotland? Will he also discuss with the Chairman of British Rail the fact that the Strathclyde Regional Council has estimated that it needs £325 million to implement a decent bus service for the West of Scotland? Will he bear in mind that his Government have enforced public expenditure cuts that were endorsed by the official Opposition? Will he now increase the level of central Government funding for public transport?

The hon. Lady is getting rather shrill. Those of us who discuss these problems in transport debates—I do not think that the hon. Lady always attends them—are familiar with the problems of British Rail, such as the tolerable levels of investment and the need to renew locomotives and rolling stock. We shall do the best we can.

When he is next discussing with the Chairman of British Rail the whole question of pricing policy on fares, will the Minister try to encourage a more flexible approach? That is something that could help the whole commuter situation, especially with more local decision about fares.

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by "flexibility". My instinct is to agree with him. I ought to say that it is one of those matters on which there are two arguments. There are those who would argue that at the moment there is too great a variety of fares on British Rail. This causes confusion in the minds of passengers. A balance must be struck. Certainly local views should be taken into account.

When my right hon. Friend meets the Chairman of British Rail on Friday, as a good European will he draw Mr. Parker's attention to the recommendation of the European Parliament last year and the resolution of the Council of Europe only last week calling for the creation of a Channel Tunnel? Will he encourage British Rail to continue its study of a modest project within an attainable financial target?

This is one of the matters that go far beyond the responsibility of the Chairman of British Rail. It is something that has been discussed in the House from time to time and no doubt will be discussed again. The chairman is aware that a rail connection with the Continent would have advantages for British Railways as well as for others.

When the Minister meets the Chairman of British Rail, will he review with him the progress on the projects—I think that there are at least three of them—for speeding up and widening the rail links between Great Britain and Ulster, something which, incidentally, would have the effect of increasing the utilisation of British Rail capacity?

I am sure that the chairman will note the right hon. Gentleman's remarks—as he does all things said in the House about British Rail—and will take them into account.

Will the Minister congratulate the Chairman of British Rail on using the word "cascade" for the process of dumping old rolling stock on commuter lines in the London area? Will he tell the chairman that many of my commuters are rather fed up with that process?

It is a rather beautiful euphemism for the process that my hon. Friend describes, but he puts his finger on the problem that, with limited scope for investment and a long life for wagons and rolling stock, a use must be found for them. I know that the chairman is anxious to improve the quality of service on commuter lines, and he will continue to do all that he can.

Does the Minister intend to discuss with the chairman the panic that may well descend on the railway network should the petrol deliveries strike come to fruition? Will he tell the House what other measures he is taking to deal with the situation?

The hon. Gentleman's question goes very wide, but I think that the Chairman of British Rail and all of us will take note of the present situation and do our best to manage with it, conserving fuel wherever we can.

As the Secretary of State has publicly denied the existence of any letter from himself to the Chairman of British Rail about the manning of type 56 locos, will he confirm that neither he nor his Department has given any advice to the Chairman of British Rail on this subject?

I shall rest on what I said previously in public, that there is no question of my giving directions of this kind to the Chairman of British Rail. The question of productivity generally arises later on in the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to ensure fair competition in the market for freight.

My right hon. Friend's policy is that there should be no subsidy to the movement of freight whether it goes by rail or by road.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if it is Government policy and very much in line with Labour Party policy to encourage freight to go by the best means available, the situation at Didcot distribution centre is one that brings alarm and concern within the brackets of that consideration? Will he use his influence to draw the interested parties together to try to find a reasonable and amicable settlement of the difficulty?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the situation that he mentions. I do not believe that it is the job of the Department of Transport to become involved in every situation of this kind. In our White Paper we mentioned the possibility of a little "Neddy", in which the rail unions and road haulage unions would be involved to settle issues of this kind, but my hon. Friend will also know that there is a further Question on the Order Paper which specifically mentions this case.

Will the Minister and the Secretary of State try to persuade British Rail to be less secretive about trade figures and to publish them openly for each area and region so that we can make a better assessment of the financial position of the lines involved?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. As he knows, in our answer to the report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries we made figures available for the first time showing a breakdown of the various parts of British Rail's business. We wish to be as informative as we can and to encourage good practice in all nationalised industries.

Bearing in mind that fair competition in freight is one thing, will the Minister take into consideration the fact that the Severn Bridge is vital to the economic life of Wales? Therefore, will he give an undertaking to think twice before once again raising tolls on the Severn Bridge?

The question of tolls on the Severn Bridge is slightly tangential to my hon. Friend's main point. None the less, I accept the point that we must be careful about the tolls on these major bridges and also on tunnels.

Is the Minister aware that ever since the formation of British Rail in 1948 the private owners of wagons of British Rail have not been able to try to obtain extra business for themselves and, therefore, for British Rail, other than the carriage of their own goods? Is he aware that there is a potentially large market for the owners of private wagons and for British Rail, and that this is done on most of the other nationalised railway systems in the world? Will he invite the Chairman of British Rail to discuss this matter with him to see whether something can be done?

I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention in this respect to the Transport Bill, which improves the situation for private wagons of this kind in terms of receiving Section 8 grants. We are aware of the point and, to a degree, we are taking account of it.

Does my hon. Friend think that it assists British Rail to get freight business when it closes one of the biggest depots in the country, at Clegg Street, Oldham, with the resultant loss of 250 jobs there, putting in jeopardy the whole future of the Oldham-Manchester railway?

My hon. Friend will be aware that there is an obligation on British Rail to run its parcels service commercially. I am sure that it took that decision in the light of that obligation.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will institute a public inquiry into the adequacy of bus services in London and its surrounding areas.

The level of bus services is primarily a matter for the local authorities and operators concerned, but my right hon. Friend is carefully monitoring the bus situation in London and its surrounding areas.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the bus services in Harlow and West Essex continue to be subject to continual cancellations, despite the efforts of management, with the result that the travelling public find it necessary to make other arrangements and there are increasing difficulties in making the buses pay? Is it not clear that the structure based upon the London Country Bus Service, controlled from Reigate, to the south of London, is totally wrong, and that a public inquiry should be instituted in order to detect what is wrong and to put it right so that the public have a much better service?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern about this. Indeed, he is right. There have been real problems with the London Country Bus Service. It inherited an old fleet and inadequate maintenance facilities. This is only very slowly being put right. Whether the struc ture of the organisation is wrong is a different question. We must give it a little more time to see whether it can put things right within the existing structure.

It is obviously difficult for the Government to intervene directly in these matters, but, if they did, the most powerful searchlight could be focused upon this problem. Does the Minister accept that there is a special problem in the outer London boroughs, including Harrow, with awkward bus routes, cancellations without warning for journeys beyond London—as the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) said—very awkward route configurations, which need to be brought up to date and rationalised, and a host of other problems, such as long delays between buses, and so on? It the Government give the right push to this kind of inquiry, we could begin the long job of reforming London bus services, which is long overdue.

I do not think that a special inquiry of this kind at this point would serve much purpose. The GLC has very recently accepted some proposals from London Transport concerning the bunching of buses, so progress is being made in that area. Equally, as I have said, we are aware of the problems in outer London areas arising from the delays in the London Country Bus Service. That is why we are specially monitoring the situation.

Will the Minister also investigate the high rates of interest on loans to London Country Buses, charged by the National Bus Company, and the inadequate supply of spare parts for those buses, which make the bus service in Thurrock both totally inadequate and extremely expensive?

With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that the central problem is not the level of interest rate charged in the case of the National Bus Company. The loan charge has been exceptionally low—roughly 4 per cent.—so the London Country Bus Service started with that unique advantage. I think that the problem is more to do with the nature of the system and the inheritance of the buses and maintenance workshops.

May we take it from the Minister's last reply but one that he will consider sympathetically the difficulties in peripheral areas, such as Epping Forest, where elderly people without cars have no alternative form of transport?

Indeed, that is precisely my point. We have a special relationship with the National Bus Company that ensures that we get accurate and up-to-date information on its services operating through the London Country Bus Service. We shall continue to monitor the situation carefuly.

Does my hon. Friend agree that adequacy in respect of bus services cannot be measured by the number of buses on the road or, I am told, even by lost miles, as London Transport persists in doing? Does he agree that it must be seen from the point of view of the adequacy of the interval of service as seen by the passenger? The London boroughs of Newham and Hammersmith have pioneered measurement in that regard, and London Transport has not yet done that. Is it not about time that London Transport implemented this realistic method of quality measurement?

I know that my hon. Friend studies these matters very carefully. I am sure that he will be aware that London Transport has recently brought forward a scheme to reduce the irregularity and infrequency of bus services. I believe that it is spending as much as £4·7 million on this. I mentioned in an earlier reply that London Transport is well aware of the situation about which my hon. Friend is talking.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport, in view of the fact that Greater London's major road system is of national concern, if he will take steps to fund it on a national basis.

No, Sir. London's trunk roads are already financed entirely by central Government. I would like to see a greater rather than a smaller involvement of local opinion in London's roads.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that London is unique among major Western cities in having no satisfactory inner orbital system, and that the absence of a strategic road network in London is greatly damaging to the national road network? Cannot the Government do more to help the GLC, which is no position to give sufficient funds?

Generally, in my experience, local government likes to make decisions that are essentially local. The GLC is elected by the citizens of London for that precise purpose. I recognise that very few local authorities can do all that they want to at present in road building. It is a question of priorities. However, combined with effective traffic management, a great deal can be done.

Why has the Minister not yet made the A2, which runs through my constituency, part of the trunk route? The A2, or the E2 in the European context, leads to the Blackwall Tunnel, which is motorway, and in between there is a three-mile gap which blocks up all the traffic going up the road.

There is always considerable dialogue between central Government and local government both when we propose to detrunk routes and when we propose to trunk them. But this is not the only factor upon which depends the condition of a road. Certainly, however, I am concerned, as is the GLC, to ensure that London's roads are adequate within the budget available.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made in furthering the Government's policy of encouraging the maximum transportation of freight by rail, in the light of the dispute at Didcot.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made in furthering the Government's policy of encouraging the maximum transportation of freight by rail, in the light of the dispute at Didcot.

Reasonable progress, all things considered. As for Didcot, it is unlikely that the dispute will have a significant effect on the volume of rail freight traffic.

Does the Secretary of State realise that that reply is insufficient for hon. Members on both sides of the House? Does he appreciate that the Didcot centre has been set up now for three years and that during that time it has had only two ill-fated train cargoes of cars from Cowley, which was one of the prime reasons for its being set up in the first place? Does the Minister appreciate that Sid Weighell has described the situation as madness, and that the loss of jobs by British Rail workers in recent years is very unsatisfactory indeed? What does he have to tell the House?

I agree that the Didcot depot is under-used. [Interruption.] If hon. Members choose to look into this matter, they will find that it is not wholly or even mainly because of this dispute. As for the dispute itself, I totally accept the fact that there is concern on both sides of the House, and I hope very much that the dispute will be resolved. However, it is not basically a reflection on any dispute about road or rail; rather, it is a reflection of the concern felt by many people about the movement away from our ports and to inland depots of one kind or another.

In view of that reply, will the Minister give instructions to the Transport and General Workers' Union to allow cars to be moved from Cowley to Didcot by train?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, my powers do not extend to giving instructions to the Transport and General Workers' Union. [Interruption.]

Do not do as I do; do as I say.

My powers do not extend to giving instructions to anyone else, and I am not proposing to extend them, even if the House would agree to that. But this is a complex and difficult problem. I think that the solution will be found not by my direct intervention but by the good sense of all those involved. I hope that good sense will prevail.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Didcot is not an isolated case? There are many other cases where this has happened. Is he also aware that it is a question not of encouraging rail freight but of attacking the central principle of the Government's policy, which is freedom of choice? Is not freedom of choice being prevented in this case? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to invest in the latest techniques for British Rail, they need to be used?

My hon. Friend has expressed his views forcibly before and I am glad to hear them, because he reflects a strong body of opinion and concern on both sides of the House. It is only fair to repeat that the Question is concerned with the transportation of freight by rail, and, much as we may find the dispute vexatious or even unpleasant, it does not have a significant effect on the overall question of the amount of freight carried by rail.

Could the right hon. Gentleman not take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and at least talk to Jack Jones? I understand that the Government have a close liaison with the trade unions. Why do they not take advantage of it?

I will talk to anyone, anywhere, at any time, but my concern is to see a solution of the dispute as soon as possible in the most effective way. Although we sometimes assume that our decisions and the acts of Ministers are the best way of solving problems, the longer I remain in office the more I doubt whether that is always the case.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that while it is helpful to have knowledgeable and learned advice from hon. Members on both sides of the House, the correct way to deal with this matter is to leave it to the parties concerned? I understand that the dispute is subject to discussions between the union leaders concerned and the industry. Should we not leave it at that?

I know that my hon. Friend wishes to be helpful, and he has made an important point. We should look at this from both sides. Of course the House is right to be concerned. If it were not concerned, it would be neglecting its duty, but, as I have tried to explain, there are means outside the House of solving such disputes, and my hon. Friend has made an important point.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply? Is it not common ground between both sides of the House that we want to see conditions of fair competition in the freight transport industry, and does not action of this kind clearly make such competition impossible? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear undertaking that he will seek to use his influence to reconcile the dispute, and will he do so as a matter of urgency, because that is the wish of both sides of the House?

It is certainly not the case that a dispute of this sort, however displeasing, makes fair competition between rail and road impossible. Let us get the problem in perspective and see it as a problem of industrial relations. I am available in any way at any time to help find a solution, but I do not believe that my positive intervention now would be the most likely way of getting the outcome that the House wants

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when there are changes in the pattern of working, in whatever area, the people involved, who may believe their livelihoods to be in danger, are likely to react and that exchanges in which hon. Members have been seeking to make an emotive issue of this matter do no good? Is it not better for those directly concerned, as well as for the overall national interest, for the unions to get together to sort things out? Emotive exchanges do not help.

My hon. Friend puts the matter in a sober perspective. As I have said, it is a symptom of industrial change, which produces dislocation in the lives of many workers, though not primarily in the lives of the rail workers. The dispute has its origins in the problems in our ports.

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

It depends when either of us has matters that we wish to discuss together.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman, will he discuss the representations that the chairman may make to the traffic commissioners, who deal with applications by local authorities and private operators to run bus services in rural areas, in order to make sure that his representations are as helpful as they can be?

I know that there is a problem, particularly in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and I am sure that the chairman's concern is that we should have effective public transport services throughout the country, particularly in some of our rural areas and small towns.

If my right hon. Friend wants a subject to discuss with the chairman, will he look at the crazy way in which the London Country Bus Service Ltd has to go to nine or 10 shire counties and the GLC to work out the money which they should pay for sensible bus services in their areas? Has not London Country got a hopeless job when it does not know from one year to the next what level of support it will get from the authorities?

My hon. Friend is right. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said earlier, London Country has some special problems, partly because of the nature of the route network, but many bus operators have found themselves in difficulties because councils have not made available to them sums of money in subsidies, some of which had already been promised.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about future plans for the Louth bypass.

The next stage will be to consult the public on alternative routes, probably towards the end of this year.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable differences of opinion in Louth about the proposed routes and on the question whether there is any necessity for the bypass? Can he assure us that a decision will be made swiftly in the interests of all concerned?

I am not sure that it will be possible to satisfy everyone, since the hon. Gentleman has brought to my attention clear differences of opinion over the different routes and, indeed, over the question whether we should have a by-pass. I must take account of such a lack of enthusiasm, but we shall try to make the decision as soon as we can.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for nationalising the docks.

None in this Session.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite his disappointing replies today, we rely primarily on him to resist the introduction of a measure that would so clearly be damaging to the national interest and primarily in the interests of one trade union?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were made in kindness, but I must warn him and his hon. Friends that they cannot rely on me for anything.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is still a need for real public ownership of the docks rather than that they should be administered, as some are at present, by private employers? Does he agree that this action and properly negoiated pay and conditions of work are the best ways of ensuring the future efficient functioning of the docks?

Fortunately, about 80 per cent. of our ports are publicly owned or run by statutory undertakings of one kind or another. I agree that our objective must be to have an efficient ports industry, serving the nation. We have to find the best means of achieving that.

I represent a port with a remarkable record in terms of the expansion of trade in the past decade, thanks largely to the dockers and the management in that area. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sword of Damocles of nationalisation which hangs over the port mars its future? Will he therefore make a fundamental commitment that there will be no threat of nationalisation in future?

If the sword of Damocles mars the future of the hon. Gentleman's port, it is surprising that it has had such a prosperous recent past—because the thought that the ports might be nationalised is not new. I hope that his port, under whatever ownership, will continue to prosper.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a strong case for the nationalisation of the docks on the ground that the British Transport Docks Board has a remarkable record of productivity in recent years, during a time of great difficulty?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The record of the Board is without equal. I am glad to pay tribute to it and, in this way, to public ownership in the ports industry.

Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean and admit that Labour's 1976 programme, which contains many proposals for nationalisation and increased State interference, has never been reversed? Can he give any sound reasons for the docks being nationalised?

I could give the House many sound reasons, but not this afternoon.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport with whom he intends to consult regarding his planned changeover from miles to kilometres.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport with whom he intends to consult regarding his planned changeover from miles to kilometres.

A wide range of representative organisations, but not yet.

Will the Secretary of State ensure that in any consultations that he undertakes on this subject he gives the greatest emphasis to the general public, and not only to the technical interests involved? Does he appreciate that most people would regard an avoidable change from miles to kilometres as senseless, extremely wasteful, and unlikely to improve the popular appeal of the Common Market?

The hon. Gentleman probably broadly reflects the views of the majority. However, I should say that there are two points of view, and many people are reasonably relaxed about the idea of going metric one day.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is no obligation under the Treaty of Rome and recent directives to change from miles to kilometres? Will he stop equivocating and giving ambivalent answers? Surely the country is entitled to a clear and straightforward statement about the long-term intention—about whether we are to change or whether we are not. May I suggest that we do not change, because the people do not want it?

I have made clear to the House that in the first place there is no likelihood of change before the second half of the 1980s. Secondly, I have no intention of starting the process of consultation in the near future. I think that is an adequate reply. These are matters that the House may wish to discuss from time to time. There is no obligation upon the Government. We must see how we go after the consultation process has been completed.

Is it not the height of hypocrisy for Tories to table Questions about the transformation from miles to kilometres when that is being advocated by those who took part in the shameful campaign to drag Britain into the Common Market? Is it not hypocrisy for them to put Questions to a Minister who at the time of the campaign was as bad as they were? If they really mean business, why did they march through the Lobby with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the rest of the Treasury Bench, or almost all of it, last Thursday to guillotine the European Assembly Elections Bill and to put £30,000 into the pockets of the prospective Members of the European Parliament? That is where the action should be taken.

I am not surprised that my hon. Friend is getting excited, because this is a matter upon which he feels deeply. However, I am in no great haste to move in this direction. It is not my first priority, and I suggest to the House that it need not worry too much.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no EEC obligation on us to scrap the mile? As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said, as no one wants to scrap the mile, cannot we simply resolve the issue by saying that we will not scrap it? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say that?

There are matters that we all carry out without obligation because we think that they make the best sense. It is true that we have no obligation beyond our obligation to adopt the metric system. I think that the House should be relaxed on this issue. Of course, I should welcome a debate in the House on the whole matter whenever the House itself might choose.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the present standards of road maintenance.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the present standards of road maintenance.

I believe that the present standards of maintenance on motorways and trunk roads are reasonable, given limited resources. As regards other roads, we have since 1976 been surveying their condition annually in collaboration with local authorities and will watch the situation with care.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that badly maintained and dangerous roads are one of the worst aspects of the environment, especially in industrial areas? To its credit, the West Midlands has been trying to do something about that, but what is the Minister's attitude towards it and what can he do to help?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's point, especially in terms of the problems that have arisen both on country roads and on motorways in the Midlands generally. As I said, we are trying to maintain the level of spending on road maintenance as a whole. Spending has declined in recent years, but it has now, I think, bottomed out. We are also trying to ensure that we properly monitor what is going on. The annual surveys of the condition of roads are a most important innovation.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory's finding that 28 per cent. of accidents are caused by road defects? Will he give us an assurance that the monitoring will apply to local authority roads as well? If an increase in the number of accidents is shown as a result of cut-backs in maintenance spending, will he make representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about the formula for the rate support grant?

The surveys will cover local authority roads as well as motorways and trunk roads. About £377 million is being spent annually on road maintenance on local authority roads alone, at November 1976 prices. There is a considerable effort being made in this direction, but we need to watch the situation and I shall ensure that it is watched.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the roads in Merseyside are still not as good as they used to be, and will he point out to Conservative Members that one of the reasons for that is the cuts in public expenditure, which they fully supported? Indeed, it was argued that the Government were not going far enough.

My hon. Friend is right. Opposition Members clamoured for public expenditure cuts while at the same time clamouring for good road maintenance. My right hon. Friend and I are concerned to ensure that there is reasonable maintenance of roads and that public transport is not neglected.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will implement recommendation 59 of the Leitch Report as it relates to the proposed M40 scheme.

I did not overlook recommendation 59 in reaching the decision that I announced last week.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are already two existing excellent rail links between London and Birmingham, whose facilities the new road will merely duplicate? Further, is he aware that British Rail has stated that there is ample capacity on both routes for the carriage of passengers and freight? Is it not a fact that no effort has been made to consider the real alternatives, in spite of the Government's policy and in spite of the Leitch Committee's recommendations?

No, my hon. Friend is wrong, although I totally understand his concern, which I share, about making the best use of our railway system. We took full account of the consequences of a new road for existing railways, but there is a real environmental problem for many villages and communities in the area. Without building a new road we would not be able to help them in solving the problems that they currently face.

As the M40 runs through and benefits my constituency, will the Secretary of State invite the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) to his next Press conference to explain to him the facts of life?

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) is fully aware of the need for roads in many circumstances, but he is right to draw my attention to the need to scrutinise the alternative of rail. However, in the circumstances I am satisfied that the proposals that we make will help not only those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) but many others.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in future he will follow the recommendations of the Leitch Report in all his decisions about new road schemes?

I cannot confirm that at this stage, in precisely the words that my right hon. Friend has used. I welcome the Leitch Report. The decisions that we are currently making are made in the light of the report. I have accepted the recommendation to set up a standing advisory committee, and all the other recommendations will colour my decisions even while we are considering what we ought to do about them.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied that trunk road construction contributes to economic growth in the light of the findings of the Leitch Committee; and if he will make a statement.

Good communications are relevant to industrial investment, even if they are not decisive, and investment is relevant to growth.

Does that mean that my right hon. Friend is rejecting the specific and precise conclusion of the Leitch Committee, and that the argument that new trunk roads may have a significant benefit to the economy of the country, or to the regions, is weak, or at best not proven? Does he accept that that conclusion, together with the revised traffic forecasts provided by the Leitch Committee, makes a compelling case for a comprehensive review of the future road commitments of his Department?

I am not rejecting what my hon. Friend refers to as the specific and precise conclusions of the committee. However, with respect, my hon. Friend is jumping from the specific and precise conclusions to something rather more. The House has generally accepted that the evidence is strong that good communications are relevant to industrial investment, which means jobs and growth. We have to ensure that our decisions take account of the extent to which that should not be the decisive factor in the decisions that we are taking.

Will the Secretary of State give me an assurance that, in the light of the sensible and widely welcomed recommendations in the Leitch Report, there will be no danger of a repeat of the kind of muddle and delay that has been caused to many of my constituents over the decision on the M23 north of Hooley? Will he now announce a firm decision on that matter?

I certainly cannot make any announcement in the House today. The Leitch Report, which I greatly welcome, will contribute towards wiser decisions than have been made in the past. I should make it clear that the more complicated the decisions, the longer the process may be. That is one of the consequences of the kind of public consultation that is widely welcomed today.