asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has received for investment in the advanced passenger train.

None beyond those approved in 1974 for the construction of prototypes.

When my right hon. Friend approves funds, will he ensure that sufficient productive capacity and marketing facilities are available so that Britain will reap through exports the rewards of British inventive genius and not lose this invention, as many others have been lost, to foreign industries?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question and I certainly give him the assurance for which he asks. This is a first-class technological development and I hope that it will have considerable export potential.

May I reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) and ask the Secretary of State to ensure that our posts in foreign countries bring to the attention of railway companies, whether nationalised or private, the tremendous advances that British Rail engineering has made on this project?

It probably needs an even more intensive marketing operation than the hon. Gentleman suggests. British Rail has this very much in mind and I am glad that quite a number of people have been to Derby to see the present prototype.

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 plans next to meet the chairman of British Railways.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next meet the chairman of British Railways.

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

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

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

I saw him this morning, but I expect to see him again soon.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the chairman that we do not all agree with Lord Boyle's recommendation that he is worth £40,000 a year and that it is about time that the Board members were seen to be earning even their present salaries by fighting for more public investment in the railways, including the speeding up of the railway electrification programme in Scotland?

The chairman made a £68 million profit this year.

The chairman is fully aware of the fact that there is a certain amount of controversy surrounding the Boyle report and its acceptance, but hon. Members on both sides of the House have paid tribute to Sir Peter Parker, who is doing a first-class job for British Rail.

rose—

Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose Questions are being answered with Question No. 2.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in the chairman's report this year reference is made to the need for decisions to be taken on financing and replacing the assets of heavy loss-making rural services? What general advice will the Secretary of State be giving the chairman on this matter and, in particular, how does he see the future of the Hereford-Malvern-Worcester link in the light of the development of Worcester Parkway station?

I have not lately discussed with the chairman that passage of his report and I do not have in mind giving him any advice. I know the hon. Gentleman's concern about the Hereford-Worcester line. Improvements are being made and I think that they will make the service better for people travelling to and from Worcester. There is certainly no proposal to reduce the service or, least of all, to close the line.

Is the Secretary of State aware that trains passing at speed through Twickenham at night and carrying heavy loads of stone for the building of the Thames barrier are excessively noisy, wake people, and shake their houses? Will he ask the chairman to take urgent action to deal with this nuisance?

I am aware of the problem. As always, the hon. Gentleman has drawn it to my attention on behalf of his constituents. There is a genuine dilemma here. The whole House wants British Rail to carry more freight that is suitable to it, and there are some penalties involved, particularly on lines that are heavily used by day. I shall draw the chairman's attention to what the hon. Gentleman said.

Will the Secretary of State ask the chairman to give us an assurance that the first Motorail service —between London and Perth—which was threatened with closure last year, will be maintained next year and in succeeding years, because it is vital to the interests of railwaymen in my constituency?

I shall draw that matter to the chairman's attention.

Will my right hon. Friend discuss with Sir Peter Parker the future of the railway network—particularly the commuter network— in the South-East of England and how much-needed capital investment in that system is to be funded, remembering that the benefits will accrue not only to the commuter but to the community as a whole?

I think that Sir Peter Parker is fully aware of the considerable concern that exists because of the deterioration—that is what it has been—of these services in the London commuter area. I am sure that he is anxious to improve the convenience and comfort of such services. It is not easy to do so, but certainly investment must be provided for this.

Will my right hon. Friend raise with the chairman the need for further electrification in the Southern region? Will he point out to the chairman that there has been no major electrification in the South since 1964 and that the Southern region is very much the poor relation in this respect? Many major lines, such as the one between Southampton and Portsmouth, urgently need this improvement.

There is a later Question on electrification. The Board of British Rail has the matter much in mind. I have no proposals before me at present, but within an investment ceiling I am happy to consider them.

Has the right hon. Gentleman yet discussed with British Rail the new plans for a Channel rail link, possibly with the assistance and co-operation of the European Community?

I have not discussed that matter with British Rail because the Government's position remains as I have stated previously. However, I am aware of the studies that British Rail is undertaking. The matter was raised with me during the course of the visit of the German Minister of Transport, Herr Gscheidle, last week.

When my right hon. Friend meets Sir Peter Parker will he ensure that he asks him, in spite of the Boyle report, whether he has had any difficulties arising from the fact that he accepted a £40,000-per-year reduction in his salary when he took on the job? Secondly, will he ensure that in his considerations of the running of the business of British Rail and all its subsidiaries he has no ideas about hiving off the more profitable sections of British Rail to private enterprise?

First, I do not believe that the chairman has any plans to hive off any part of British Rail. I should be strongly against any such plan. Secondly, it is recognised that when we get first-class men running nationalised industries it is good for the industries and good for the country. Quite often they take a considerable reduction in salary.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most welcome trends has been the reduction of the deficit on the freight and parcels business of British Rail? Do the Government still agree with the Opposition that the deficit should be totally eliminated? If the right hon. Gentleman still agrees with that proposition, does he expect that to take place during 1978?

I always hesitate to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I prefer to say that my position has always been that freight must pay its way. There has been no change in the policy and no change in the targets. I believe that British Rail is making good progress towards ensuring that there are no deficits after the end of this year.

I shall call one more hon. Member from either side of the House on this Question.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the chairman of British Rail that while we recognise the efforts made to win back business by special offer fares, those efforts should be matched by bringing forward catering plans, especially the buffet saver, which I know he has in mind, so that that may be made use of during the summer by those making use of the special fare plans, including families and the elderly?

My hon. Friend is right to draw my attention to the fact that when people use the railways they go to them because they provide a complete service. That includes adequate catering facilities. I shall make the point to Sir Peter Parker.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he discuss with him the fate of the 42 former employees of British Rail who were dismissed either because they declined to join a trade union or because they retired from a trade union after the closed shop agreement had been introduced? If he will not do that, are we to interpret his attitude as meaning that he is careless and callous about the fate of the 42 men?

I do not think that the House would generally interpret my attitude to be that on any subject. I discuss matters of urgent business with the chairman and he is fully aware of the discussions that we have had in the House on the matter that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what are the latest figures available for the number of deaths and serious accidents involving coaches; and if he will give in the Official Report any available breakdown on the nature of the damage to the coach and the cause of accident.

In 1977 occupants of public service vehicles suffered 64 deaths and 1,269 serious injuries. Any casualty rate is of course a matter for concern, but these figures represent a fatality rate of only one-sixth of that for car and taxi passengers. I regret that a detailed breakdown is not available of the nature of the damage and the cause of the accidents.

Does my hon. Friend accept that unfortunately there will probably be many casualties during the summer due to the considerable delay in implementing the proposals for roof strengthening and brake improvements? As he put proposals before the House about two years ago, is it not now time that something was done?

I thoroughly understand my hon. Friend's concern for speedy progress. We forwarded to the EEC draft regulations for strengthening roofs in 1977. The EEC has not made very fast progress. Therefore, I am not waiting for the EEC to come to conclusions and we shall proceed independently of the EEC. As I have said, I understand my hon. Friend's concern that we should make rapid progress.

I think that the Minister will agree that we appreciate the problem and that the industry is to be congratulated on the considerable fall in accident rates over the past decade. I think that the figure has fallen from 17,000 to about 12,000. Does he agree that when accidents happen they are horrendous and often involve children and old people? When may we expect action —we are grateful that we are going ahead on our own—especially on brakes and roof strengths?

We are consulting later this year on individual requirements for higher braking standards. We are close to making progress on that score. However, implementation must follow industry action, which inevitably takes some time. In this instance it will inevitably take a couple of years before coaches can be produced to the new braking standards. I have already indicated that we are determined to make progress on roof strengths despite the relatively slow progress that is being made by the EEC.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what research he is undertaking concerning the use of trolley-buses in urban areas; and if he will make a statement.

A study of the design and possible use of a battery-trolleybus system has just been completed by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. I shall send the hon. Gentleman a copy of its report.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he agree that municipal transport undertakings, following the then fashion fad, tended to scrap trolleybuses and trams with indecent haste, and that new technology such as he has mentioned, a greater concern for the environment and a changed attitude to public transport justify a fresh and unprejudiced consideration of both these forms of urban transport?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The last trolleybus went out of service in Britain in 1968. They are still used in Madrid and Mexico City. It may be that in some ways those countries are more progressive than ourselves The report that I mentioned concluded that the battery-operated trolleybus to which the hon. Gentleman refers is technically feasible. We shall give the report full consideration.

Does my hon. Friend agree that so far trolleybuses operated by batteries have not proved themselves and that a much more efficient system is to be found in Europe with trolleybuses operated by overhead wires?

Such trolleybuses have certain economies compared with battery-operated systems, and we must consider carefully the relative costs. The system that my hon. Friend is talking about is cheaper in running costs and on capital costs. It is something that we shall have to consider extremely carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what powers he has to require motor vehicle manufacturers to report to him the occurrence of defects in new vehicles being sold to the public which may place lives at risk; and if he is satisfied that existing procedures provide adequate protection for the public.

We have no powers at present to require such information, but certain powers will be conferred by the Consumer Safety Bill, which is now at an advanced stage. The current voluntary arrangements for notifying us of defects have worked well, but we intend to review them when the Bill becomes law.

I am grateful for that answer. Is my hon. Friend aware that last year, for example, the Volkswagen company of Germany discovered that two of its models had serious defects that resulted in fatalities on the Continent of Europe, and that the two models were at that time being marketed in Britain? As it happens, so far as we know no fatalities occurred in Britain as a result of the weaknesses. Does my hon. Friend agree that the present situation is unsatisfactory and that what is desired is a mandatory obligation for motor car manufacturers to inform his Department, so that at least it has the discretion, where it thinks it appropriate, to advise the motoring public that a certain model has a dangerous defect?

Clause 4 of the Consumer Safety Bill will give the Department power to require information from manufacturers for the purpose of deciding whether to prohibit sales of unsafe vehicles or components. Obviously we shall look at that power most carefully when it comes into operation.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the manufacturers' recall procedures in the case of defects have been much facilitated by the existence of a centralised computer giving the names and addresses of the registered owners of vehicles?

Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend makes a very serious and important point, and I entirely support it.

Has the Minister any idea why his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) mentioned the Volkswagen motor car rather than those particularly lethal motor cars—and they have been described as lethal—which are imported from East Europe?

I think that the hon. Gentleman should address his question to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) and not to me.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Beverley south-west bypass; and what is the earliest date on which it can be completed.

The inspector's report on the public inquiry held in April into the draft compulsory purchase order and side roads variation orders is at present under consideration. Subject to the satisfactory completion of these outstanding statutory procedures and to the availability of funds, the bypass could be completed by the end of 1980.

Is the Minister aware that the Humber bridge—the biggest single, span bridge in the world—is due for completion at the end of next year and that there will be grave congestion throughout the area unless this bypass follows it very quickly? Will he therefore do everything that he can to speed up the work?

Yes, I certainly shall. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been one or two difficult problems over access to farms. That has slowed up the preparatory work. But, now that we are at this advanced stage, I shall see that the further processes are expedited as much as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he accepts paragraph 20.19 of the report of the advisory committee on trunk road assessment.

Yes, but good transport is a necessary condition for regional development.

Since the economic benefits of road building are very dubious indeed, will my right hon. Friend now consider diverting funds to British Rail's development programme, where real value for money can be obtained in the years to come?

I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the economic benefits of road building are very dubious indeed. In fact, that was not the conclusion of the Leitch Committee. The conclusion was that roads were not the only major factor determining industrial location. I agree that we must have a proper balance between road and rail. I think that the current position is about right.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received from railway commuter organisations.

None, Sir.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many hon. Members have received representations from commuter associations to the effect that the recent higher-than-average fare increases that have taken place constitute an unreasonable discrimination against a largely captive commuter market? Perhaps he recognises those words.

I think that we have been over this course before. I appreciate, and British Rail appreciates, that there is bound to be irritation on the part of those who find themselves charged more than the average increases. I hope that we shall get away from the very high increases that we have had in recent years. I am glad to know that we are at least getting on to an annual cycle. That is a start. But British Rail must make both ends meet, and it is not easy. However, I am sure that the chairman is fully aware of the extent to which there is dissatisfaction.

My right hon. Friend said that "British Rail must make both ends met". Is he aware that in 1977 it realised a surplus of £68 million? In the interests of keeping fares down, would it not be better if my right hon. Friend were to allow British Rail to retain a greater proportion of that surplus rather than hand it over to the Treasury, as it has to do today, and then have to go back to the Treasury with a begging bowl when it wants funds? That seems to me to be perfectly cock-eyed.

With respect to my hon. Friend, the finances of British Rail are more rather complicated than he suggested. When the chairman of British Rail refers to a figure of that kind in his annual report, allowance has to be made for the substantial sums of Exchequer money which go to support the railways under what Sir Peter Parker calls a contract. I think that we have got the balance about right. It is not easy for British Rail to do all that it wants to do, but that is true of every one of us.

Would the Secretary of State at some time care to meet some of the commuters from Chingford? Is he aware that they can stoically ensure the inconvenience caused by a landslip on their railway line but are unable to understand why, with 4,000 people registered locally as unemployed, British Rail is unable to recruit signalmen? Is there something wrong somewhere with the Government's policy on incomes and British Rail's pay scales?

I do not think that there is anything wrong in the sense that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I am ready to admit that there are peculiarities, in that British Rail cannot recruit all the men that it wants for particular grades. Signalmen are specialist workers and standards have to be high. The problem is recognised by and has been discussed between the British Railways Board and the trade unions.

If we are to keep back increases in fares to commuters—I know that commuters in Harlow are deeply concerned about this matter—is it not a fact that we have to allocate public funds for the modernisation and development of the railways in order that we may have a decent system? Is it not time that Opposition Members also made clear that public expenditure has to be maintained on the railways if we are to have the conditions for commuters which they are demanding?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the ambivalence of the Opposition in the area of public expenditure. We must have adequate investment today to guarantee the future of the railways. However, the running costs of the railways will still have to be met out of public funds through either Exchequer grants or fares. I hope that, with falling inflation, increases in fares will be significantly less than in the past.

In view of what the Secretary of State said, may I ask him a question and hope that in the answer he will not be ambivalent? Does he accept the Price Commission's report that British rail commuters have been discriminated against in this year's fares increases and that there should not be any further increases which amount to discrimination until the question of rail costs has been resolved?

Both I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection made a statement at the time of the Price Commission's report and made it clear that we accepted the Commission's view although I think that its precise wording is slightly different from what the hon. Gentleman suggested.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends next to meet the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union.

Soon.

When the Secretary of State next meets Mr. Moss Evans, will he seek from him an assurance that the Transport and General Workers' Union will not either employ or threaten to use industrial action against companies which have installed or are contemplating installing rail sidings by using a section 8 grant because they wish to convey some of their goods on the railways?

I should not want to speak to Mr. Moss Evans precisely in those terms. I think that he fully recognises the importance of a co-ordinated transport system in which road and rail carry that part of freight which is best suited to them. I am glad to welcome the development of section 8 grants. I had considerable pleasure in opening a major scheme only three weeks ago.

When my right hon. Friend next meets or, indeed, communicates with the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, will he make it quite clear that the Government have no imminent decision to make on the Port of London Authority's proposals? Indeed, will he confirm that there are no proposals yet before him and that, if any come and whatever they may be, the Government's proposals for inner city regeneration will be fully taken into account when their response is made?

I think that there were three parts to my hon. Friend's supple. mentary question. The answer to all three is "Yes".

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his promised debate on the White Paper "Policy for Roads: England 1978", Command Paper No. 7132.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his promised debate on the White Paper, "Policy for Roads: England 1978" (Command Paper No. 7132).

It is for my right hon. Friend the Lord President to make any such announcement.

Is the Secretary of State pressing the Leader of the House frequently for the opportunity to have this debate so that he can devise his own policy and announce it on that occasion?

The truthful answer is that I am not pressing my right hon. Friend. That is not because I should not like a debate but because there is so much business in July that a debate is unlikely.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need no further debate on the question of the Calder Valley highway? Does he accept that the delay in building this highway is causing serious environmental problems in North-East Lancashire? May we have an assurance that when the present inquiry is completed it will not create a precedent for additional inquiries in the future which will delay the building of the road still further?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to confirm that this road is important, as he has emphasised frequently to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and me. We shall move forward with it as soon as possible. But we must recognise that road building has become a more laborious and time-consuming process as more and more people find that they have objections which they wish to make to road schemes in which other people believe.

Has the Secretary of State considered the possibility that major decisions on new roads which at present are published in orders by the Secretary of State might be subject to decision by the House of Commons?

Yes. That is an interesting suggestion. I have thought a good deal about it. My view is that for the moment we should rest upon the proposals in our second White Paper on public inquiries, but I do not exclude such a development, if the House wishes it. However, given the shortage of parliamentary time it might not be universally popular.

Will the Secretary of State's policy for roads include any proposals to turn some roads into trunk roads? I am referring in particular to the Rochester Way, which runs through my constituency in Eltham.

The hon. Member has raised this question before. Our position on that road remains the same. I am prepared to consider detrunking some roads and bringing others within my responsibilities, depending on the importance of the road and the willingness of the elected local authorities to accept responsibility.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport by what indicators he judges any improvement in performance of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport by what indicators he assesses any improvement in the performance of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport by what indicators he judges any improvement in performance of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea.

The time taken to deal with transactions and the number of inquiries are important factors. Letters from hon. Members are also a helpful guide.

I am glad that the Minister thinks that letters from hon. Members are a guide. Will he take it from me that many of my colleagues and I are receiving an increasing number of complaints from constituents? I appreciate that the centre is an acute embarrassment to the Minister, but does he think that it is time to hold a public inquiry into the running of the centre so that it can be made efficient and so that we do not have to scrap it, as some hon. Members wish?

The hon. Member has made four inquiries at a fairly steady pace—I would not say at an accelerated pace. I am pleased to be able to tell him that letters from hon. Members are no less than 40 per cent. down compared with the same period last year. I do not believe that that considerable improvement justifies an inquiry.

Does the Under-Secretary of State recall that on 1st March his right hon. Friend, as reported in column 347 of Hansard, agreed that there were strong arguments for abolishing the road tax? Does he recall that at the same time the Secretary of State accepted that there might be some problems? Given the degree of dissatisfaction in the country and the House, is it not time that the Secretary of State looked at the problems to see how they might be overcome—as they have been in other countries—and at least produced a discussion document?

That is an interesting suggestion. When the hon. Member strays into the question of abolishing road tax it is interesting, but it is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The Under-Secretary of State said that the number of complaints had declined by 40 per cent. Will he state the number of complaints that occurred in the two periods which he compared? How many complaints would he regard as being compatible with a properly run office at Swansea?

Between January and May 1977 the number of complaints from hon. Members was 494. In the equivalent period this year 297 complaints were received from hon. Members.

Apart from the improvement in turn-round times, would not a useful indicator be a reduction in the number of complaints from informed bodies, such as the Automobile Association, and an increase in the volume of complaints from ill-informed sources, such as Members of the Opposition? Will my hon. Friend seek to improve that lack of information by allowing those Opposition Members who wish to do so to visit the centre?

The Automobile Association, which is never slow to defend the interests of motorists, gave the Swansea centre a clean bill of health no less than a year ago. Since then a further improvement has taken place. I am only too anxious to draw that to the attention of the House. If hon. Members wish to visit the Swansea centre, I shall certainly afford them every facility.

How many letters ha.s the Department received about the repayment of vehicle excise duty and applications that came in after the Secretary of State's deadline? What replies have been sent to such representations?

There is a further Question on the Order Paper about that, and I refer the hon. Member to it.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the issue of tachographs to be considered by the European Court of Justice.

I have no precise information—but soon, I would expect.

Since the Secretary of State is a strong supporter of the EEC and a progressive politician, is he not ashamed of the situation in which he has placed himself over this matter?

No. I am not ashamed. It is a complicated matter, and sometimes it is rather embarrassing. But the case that we have established—which I hope the European Court will consider—is a serious one, relying, among other things, upon the cost of introducing the tachograph. As I have made clear in the House before, I should be happy to see voluntary agreements for its use.

The views of the European Court are important, but does my right hon. Friend agree that in this case the views of the transport workers' unions are even more important? Will my right hon. Friend therefore invite the leaders of those unions to give evidence to the Court. so that their case can be stated?

I do not think that I can agree with my hon. Friend's rendering of the balance in this respect. The European Court has a proper responsibility. I am the last person to complain about that. But I hope that it will recognise that there are real problems, in some cases based upon justified concern. I hope that the court will take that into account, along with the representations that have been made by the Transport and General Workers' Union and others.

If we can forget all the political difficulties and the moment of glorious abandon by the Secretary of State, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he personally thinks about tachographs? Are they a good thing, or are they a bad thing?

If I were allowed I could make a long contribution on that subject. My view is that their advantages, from the safety point of view, for example, have been greatly exaggerated. Had they not been invented we should have no need to introduce them in this country. We have long-standing practices. Perhaps they could be improved, but they have served us well. It is worth bearing in mind that our safety record is much better than that of most other European countries. That is my personal view, but I accept that the matter is a good deal more complicated than that.

The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) asked us to forget political difficulties. He is so lyrical that he should set that to music and call it "Temple-Morris Superstar". The reality is that those difficulties exist, and they are definite.

Excuse me while I hold my sides.

We still have a degree of sovereignty in this country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are many laws—on fisheries for instance—with which we cannot agree, and that we must assert ourselves? Will my right hon. Friend ask the Opposition whether they would, without conditions—

Order. The House knows that the Secretary of State cannot ask the Opposition any questions. He is here to answer questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will encourage local authorities in the West Midlands region to adopt a regional policy on concessionary fares for the disabled which would be based on the best scheme currently being operated.

I welcome local authorities getting together to agree common policies. My recent circular advocated half-fares for disabled people, but I am pleased where local authorities can do better than this.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the whole question of concessionary fares is far too important to be left to largely Tory-controlled local authorities which could not care less? Does he agree that there is a need, if not for a national policy, at least for a regional policy, and to this end will he summon a conference in the West Midlands to make the recalcitrant local authorities adopt a decent scheme?

I agree that this matter is too important to be left to local authorities, and that is precisely why I issued my circular and why I clearly indicated —I know this to be the view of both sides of the House—that schemes are needed where there are no schemes and that better schemes are needed where there are inferior schemes. Certainly, however, the local authorities should get together. There are two forms of elected government in this country—central and local. Both have responsibilities and both should behave responsibly. I recognise that there are special problems in the West Midlands to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention, and I hope that they will be resolved.

I appreciate very much the context of the Minister's reply. What action would he propose by local authorities to meet the needs of disabled people who live in rural areas which have no public transport? How can those people be helped by a concessionary fare scheme when there is no public transport for them to travel on?

Persuade the Cheshire Tories to pay some subsidies.

If I may intervene in this discussion for a moment, I think that it is the case that the neglect of public transport which is clearly more the responsibility of the Conservatives than of Labour is the cause of the problem which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) described. I hope that he will speak loud and clear everywhere in the terms that he has used this afternoon. In the meantime, with the extra sums that we are providing in the Transport Bill, against which the Opposition voted on Second Reading, there is the prospect of improving public transport in rural areas and of introducing new and helpful forms of public transport.

When considering concessionary fares, does my right hon. Friend not agree that there is a most powerful case for giving concessions to schoolchildren who are required to stay on at school but who, on public transport, are treated as adults for fares purposes? Is he aware that the lack of such a scheme, combined with the abolition, in Leicestershire and other areas, of concessionary rights for everyone from old people and the disabled to home helps, causes grave hardship and anger among people who can do nothing whatever about it because the matter is under the control of Tory local authorities?

Those authorities may be controlled by the Tories now, but that will not last for ever. The opportunity will arise to make some improvement then. However, my hon. and learned Friend makes a point which is very much in my mind. I hope that operators will do what they can to ensure a reasonable level of fares, not only for the disabled, the sick and the old, but for young people, because fares can represent a major item in the household budget when young people stay on at school after 16.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the best concessionary fare schemes, whether for the disabled or the elderly, are those which give travellers the maximum amount of choice? Does he agree that such schemes are perfectly consistent with making the maximum use of existing carriers in off-peak periods?

Yes, I agree with that. It is for the operators, in widely differing circumstances in different parts of the country, to try to devise a form of scheme which uses the fare capacity but which enables people to travel when it is important for them to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the proposed timetable for the construction of the bypass around Evesham.

I am pleased to announce that the Evesham bypass has now been added to the trunk road preparation pool, together with three associated schemes to improve existing roads and provide local bypasses. These are Ash-church to Evesham, Evesham to Alcester, and Alcester to Gorcott Hill. First priority will be given to the Evesham bypass.

May I express my sincere gratitude and appreciation for that reply? Since the M5 is now appallingly over-congested, and improvements are needed on the A435, what is the next step now, so that perhaps the Leitch Committee average lead time of 10 years can be substantially reduced and we can get on with building this bypass, for which the citizens of Evesham have been waiting about 40 years?

The next step will be public consultation. However, I take the hon. Member's point. In talking to the county council we are considering how we can minimise the time taken, especially since in this case there may turn out to be only one feasible alternative for the route.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the present estimated cost of the pros posed roadway improvements between Sheffield and Manchester; and what would be the estimated cost of a double three-lane motorway between these two cities.

On the Manchester to Sheffield route through Longdendale a bypass for Mottram-Tintwistle is under investigation, and I am announcing today my right hon. Friend's choice of a preferred route for the Stocksbridge bypass. These bypasses, together with selective and limited improvements to the existing A628, are currently estimated to cost about £40 million. There are no proposals for a dual three-lane motorway from Manchester to Sheffield but, if one were built between Hyde, Greater Manchester and the M1 north of Sheffield, it could cost about £100 million.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the improvements he is suggesting will last for only a few years but that eventually we shall need—so the experts tell me—a dual three-lane road from Sheffield to Manchester to ensure that heavy freight from South Yorkshire to Manchester is carried efficiently?

I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. The proposals that we are putting forward today will, on present forecasts, last until the end of the century. I am happy to leave any further decision on this matter to the appropriate Minister at that time.

Is the Minister aware that his reply will be very well received in the area of the Peak Park through which this road is likely to run, and that his views certainly reflect the views of the many people, including the environmentalists, who feel that the invasion of this area would pose a great danger to the Peak Park and that the proposals that he has made will create the minimum intrusion? We are grateful to him.

That was a statement rather than a question but I welcome t none the less.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be inconsistent to talk at the moment of a new motorway between Sheffield and Manchester when we are considering closing down a major railway line? What is the value of Leitch's recommendations on comparability?

We have taken on board the Leitch conclusions on comparability between railways and roads where we can make appropriate studies, and I can assure my hon. Friend that that will not be lost sight of.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on future road development in national parks.

Our policy remains that road development in national parks should be avoided unless there is a compelling need and no reasonable alternative.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I welcome that statement? Does he agree that it is most important that long-distance heavy traffic routes should be devised to avoid the parks altogether, and that there should be no unnecessary so-called improvements in the natural road linkage within a park?

The only changes to the Peak route that we have just been discussing will be minor improvements along the existing route. There will be no new route.

Will the Minister maintain a flexible approach to this problem? Whereas we do not want motorways going through national parks, in my constituency the main route between North and South Wales passes through the Brecon Beacons National Park. We want improvements to that road, because traffic is no help to a national park.

The situation is different where there is an existing trunk route which is heavily used by traffic. Of course, one would consider that in the circumstances which are appropriate. Earlier I was talking about building a new route, and there one is obviously predisposed to be against it, in these sorts of circumstances.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I used to walk through the Derbyshire dales and through North Yorkshire, and that I know the beauty of the countryside? Should we not be doing something to try to open up the national parks? A roadway through them with good service stations and excellent parking facilities would encourage motorists to get out there with their families and stroll around.

I am delighted to hear of my hon. Friend's walking habits. I hope that he lives to a ripe old age to enjoy the Peak National Park. I am sure that he will.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the report of the steering group studying the case for a programme of main line electrification.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has received for further railway electrification.

I expect to receive the steering group's report early next year. Meanwhile, no proposals are in front of me.

In view of the delay before the report comes out, will my right hon. Friend urgently consider the case for electrifying the London Midland region, which is rapidly becoming the weak sister of the English regions in railway services? If he cannot agree with me about that now, will he take a ride on the train from London to Derby or Sheffield, when he speedily would agree with me?

No, I do not think that I can agree with my hon. Friend now or that I would agree with him even if I took the ride that he invites me to take —and for one simple reason; that I would not have set up the steering group if I knew the answers. It is right to wait for its report in order to consider a decision.

Will my right hon. friend try to ensure that the United Kingdom rises from the bottom of the electrification league of European countries, in the interests of efficiency in operation, greater productivity and fuel conservation?

I am always in favour of this country's rising from the bottom of the league in any area, but I think that we should do so on merit, when the justification is plain.

It is.

My hon. Friend knows better than some. I wish that I shared his certainty. However, as soon as we get the steering group's report, we shall have to move forward to decisions. I recognise the strength of feeling about electrification.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the adequacy of arrangements for consulting the public about proposed changes in bus services.

Much depends on the attitude of individual local authorities, but the Transport Bill lays down firmer guidelines.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware in at least two recent cases in my constituency, major proposed changes in bus route have come as a sudden and unpleasant surprise to groups of constituents and, in one case, to their parish council? Since this seems to be direct evidence of inadequacy, will he not take another look at this and see whether he can strengthen the provisions in the Transport Bill?

I know the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have faced in one case and I understand that discussions are now taking place between the operators, the council and the police to sort out the problems in good time. Certainly I take the point that the Transport Bill goes to this area. What we are providing elsewhere, apart from what is in the Bill, is that the county councils should set up advisory committees to consider plans of this kind about bus routes under the provisions that we are making in response to the views of nationalised industries.

Will my hon. Friend take note that the opening of the Humber bridge, although that date goes further and further back, will affect the whole of the transport infrastructure in North Lincolnshire, and that there is a vital need that the inquiries which have to be held —whether we keep the ferry or discontinue it—will have an impact on the bus services in that area? Will he press for the appropriate bodies to put those inquiries in hand immediately, so that we have plenty of time before the due date?

My hon. Friend contrives to bring the Humber bridge into absolutely everything. I shall ensure that the appropriate consultations take place.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, at the last Transport Question Time, we talked about the National Bus Company's community bus scheme? Is he aware that when I have had a chance to discuss this with neighbourhood councils in my constituency, some of their members were under the impression that this scheme was available only in what one described as "remote rural areas"? Will he yet again take on board the need to encourage the NBC to bring to the attention of parish councils, neighbourhood councils and community groups everywhere the fact that community bus schemes can be operated successfully in many parts of the country, provided that the information is made known to the right people?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The NBC has made a great effort to publicise its scheme. As he knows, the pamphlet "With a Little Help from your Friends" is now widely distributed. I will put all the support I can behind it. In addition, at the end of our consideration of the Transport Bill, which is now due to come back to the House, we shall certainly issue a comprehensive circular setting out what can be done in this area. I agree that the maximum publicity is needed.

Would the Minister see the chairman of London Transport to ask him whether the head of his bus section could see representatives of the outer London boroughs to see what can be done to improve the deteriorating provision of bus services in, for example, the London borough of Ealing? Will he also discuss with him the alarming increase in violence used against London bus crews?

My hon. Friend has raised one detailed point and one more general point. I shall certainly see that they are drawn to the attention of the appropriate bodies.

Is it not a fact that the Government have done almost nothing to encourage new bus services to develop, particularly in rural areas? Why do not the Government reform the traffic commissioner system so that new services can develop naturally, which would be to the benefit of the public and was requested by the county councils?

The hon. Member's charges are breathtaking in their inaccuracy. It is Tory-controlled county councils throughout the country which have been denying operators and people their bus services and have been cutting back one after another. It is only as a consequence of our policies that they are now beginning to change their minds.

You walked right into that one, Norman.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether, in view of the increasing number of major repairs needed for the United Kingdom's motorway network, he will put in hand an urgent review of the safety procedures adopted when such operations take place.

Because of the particular problems of carrying out road works on motorways, methods of operation are carefully and clearly laid down. We are satisfied that these provide the safest available means of carrying out this essential work, but the arrangements are kept under continuing review in the light of research and operating experience.

In view of the horrendous number of serious accidents—particularly on the M1 recently—where there have been major road works, does not the Minister think that there is still scope for improving the traffic contra-flow and that more ought to be done to reduce the speed of vehicles as they approach road works?

I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point. It is a difficult question of judgment. On the one hand, we want to cause the minimum of inconvenience to motorway users and, therefore, we have instituted these contra-flow measures, which allow two streams of traffic in each direction although one lane is wholly closed; on the other hand, I accept that these provisions should be carefully monitored, with a keen eye to safety considerations.

Do not the latest figures show that a substantial number of serious motorway accidents occur where repairs are being carried out and that the public do not understand the dangers and need to be taught? What is my hon. Friend doing to emphasise to drivers the dangers that they are causing to themselves and others by the way in which they approach, and behave in. repair areas?

Undoubtedly accidents are more numerous when repairs are taking place to a section of road. What we are trying to do is to give the maximum information to motorists about the period over which the repair work will be carried out, the amount of road involved, and the speed at which they should go.

Will the Minister look at the instructions given to those carrying out repairs to ensure that the problem is kept to the minimum and that, where traffic diversions or lane closures have been indicated, the signs are taken down when, particularly at weekends, the work has stopped? In too many instances, the signs for closures are kept on when no one is working on the lane; traffic is bunching although the barricades could have been removed ages before.

The hon. Gentleman's observation is one that many people have made. As a consequence, my right hon. Friend and I instituted a special investigation to ensure that cones are taken down when it is possible to do so, when no work is taking place. I agree that nothing is more frustrating than the sight of a stretch of road coned off when no work is being done on it.

What co-operation takes place between my hon. Friend's Department and, for instance, research divisions in the Department of Industry on the question of developing and producing safer and more durable road surfaces?

There is research into road surfaces, and there has been a major change in our practices. There was a thickening of the road surface in the early 1970s to take account of the forecast number of heavy lorries, for example. There is continuing research in these matters.

Is it the policy of those responsible for undertaking major road works on motorways that such road works should be undertaken at peak traffic periods during the year? Would it not be sensible to have the road repair works on motorways undertaken when the volume of traffic on motorways is at the minimum rather than the maximum?

Of course. I have personally gone into the schedules of motorway repairs, especially on the M5, M6 and M1 this summer, for example, to ensure that the minimum amount of repair work is undertaken during the peak holiday periods. I have in fact rescheduled repair work on the M5 because of the difficulties there during peak periods, and I have insisted that there shall be no repair work on the Midland motorway links during, for example, the period of the Motor Show.