asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the need to make the use of dipped headlights compulsory in built-up areas.

Representations have been made, mainly by a body called the Night Safety Advisory Bureau, that I should make it compulsory to use headlamps in built-up areas at night. I am not convinced that it would be right to introduce this new element of compulsion.

Are not uniformity and simplicity in road traffic law to be desired? Would it not be more convenient for everyone if sidelights were used only for parking and dipped headlights were used at all other times?

I agree with the hon. Lady that simplicity and uniformity are desirable aims. On the other hand, I do not think that the motorist should be over-regulated in circumstances in which his common sense can be trusted. The rules are perfectly clear, and the advice in the Highway Code is worth following.

Will the hon. Gentleman consult the many bodies that believe that there should be a change in the law, so that at least he will learn their opinions?

I shall keep a watch on the matter. As the hon. Gentleman said, a number of groups have made representations, particularly the one I men- tioned, and also the motoring organisations. I shall keep the matter under review, but I do not feel that there should be a change at present.

Is the Minister's commendable refusal to use compulsion a policy that he will consistently follow in other aspects of policy in his Department?

I believe that it is always a mistake to use compulsion, unless one has failed by voluntary means to achieve one's object.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with bodies representing commuters.

None just recently. British Rail, of course, has frequent contact with local commuter associations.

Commuters have probably suffered more than most from recent industrial disputes. Will the Minister intercede on their behalf in an attempt to make it possible that, on days when there are no British Rail services, season tickets can be used on comparable stretches of the London Underground services? Is the Minister aware that ASLEF is opposed to that suggestion on the basis that it would be strike-breaking by London Underground drivers? As intercession appears necessary, will the Minister undertake it, because I am told that British Rail approves of the idea?

I foresee complications in pursuing such a course. However, it is an interesting suggestion and I should like to examine it more carefully.

Will my hon. Friend keep his eye on the discussions taking place between his Department and the various authorities that are concerned in determining where the public financial support will come from to keep open the Epping Ongar section of the central line? Many commuters depend on that section, both those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and those in my constituency. Is the Minister aware that many of those constituents are concerned because of the delay in resolving the matter?

My hon. Friend was present at a meeting that was also attended by Opposition Members. There is a problem with the out-county services—London Transport services operating beyond the borders of the GLC. Machinery has been set up for discussions with the counties concerned—Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Essex. That is making reasonable progress. However, I shall watch it carefully to ensure that there will be results soon.

Does the Under-Secretary of State recognise the extent to which the commuter has suffered during recent industrial unrest from cancellations, disruptions and delays and the recent fare increase? Does he recognise that there is a limit to how much the commuter can stand in deteriorating services and rising fares without British Rail suffering long-term damage from the loss of revenue and diminution of passenger traffic?

I recognise and agree with the hon. Gentleman's point, which causes my right hon. Friend and myself considerable concern.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest estimate of the cost of the Humber Bridge.

The latest estimate by the Humber Bridge Board is £66·2 million.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is more than likely that my original forecast of four years ago that the cost of the bridge will be nearer £90 million than the original estimate of £19 million will prove to be correct? Is he satisfied that any of the road communications to the south of the bridge will be required to cope with the traffic that uses the bridge?

The increase on the last figure that I gave the hon. Gentleman is mainly taken care of by the rate of increase in inflation during the previous 12 months. It is not a higher figure in real terms, and the hon. Gentleman should be made aware of that. He should also be aware that road works on the south bank of the Humber are among the largest in the country. Considerable progress is being made in improving communications with the Grimsby, Immingham and Louth areas.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) is an extremely Right-wing Conservative and that his concern is that the height of the bridge above the tide at all levels should be sufficient to allow the passage of gunboats?

I thought that my hon. Friend was more concerned with the Humber ferry than with gunboats.

Does the Minister realise that the rising cost of the bridge has led to fears on Humberside that the tolls will be so high that the bridge will be little used? Are there any prospects of an EEC grant to make some impact on the tolls?

That is another interesting suggestion and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would like to look at it when discussing EEC transport infrastructure grants, which are a point at issue within the Common Market. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have other projects in mind for those funds. We were not necessarily thinking of the Humber bridge, but the hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends next to meet representatives of the Road Haulage Association.

Whenever the need arises.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the members of the RHA in and around my constituency and their drivers were extremely concerned about the activities of certain pickets during the recent industrial dispute? Does he agree that some of those activities were unacceptable in a civilised democracy? If so, can he tell the RHA and the House whether, and how, the new concordat which the Government have reached with the TUC will change the situation?

There was a widespread view that some, though by no means all, of the activities of pickets caused concern. Both the TUC and others have learned from that experience, and if another such occasion should arise—I hope that it will not—we shall see whether the agreement with the TUC reduces, as I believe it will, some of the anxieties.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the Road Haulage Association and the transport unions are apparently united, for once, on the tachograph issue, and that they all agree that the proposal is unnecessary, inappropriate and damaging? Will he therefore ensure that the issue is brought back to Parliament so that we can decide what is or is not law in this country?

Any final decision on tachographs will be one in which Parliament is involved. There is no doubt about that. I understand what my hon. Friend said in the earlier part of his question. There has been anxiety about tachographs. I have made my view clear, but we must consider the judgment of the European Court.

May I press the Secretary of State further about industrial action? Is he aware that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) said, the public were appalled at the unacceptable picketing that took place during the recent dispute, particularly at the ports? Does the new concordat mean that the Government intend, and the unions accept, that in any future road haulage dispute the picketing of ports should not take place?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House are familiar with the agreement and its precise terms. There is an annexe dealing with the issues mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and it is very much in the terms of the TUC's view. My opinion is that if we have such circumstances again—and I hope that we shall not—the control of pickets will be such as to make unnecessary the anxieties that existed previously.

Would the Secretary of State care to compare the additional cost to the industry of the recent settlement with the additional cost that would fall on the industry from the general introduction of the tachograph and limits on drivers' hours, both of which are being pressed on us by the Common Market?

Comparisons of costs in the industry are highly complicated, and there is a later question on the Order Paper by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) dealing with that aspect of the industrial dispute. We have all recognised that the introduction of limitations on drivers' hours has some penalty, but my view is that it is much smaller than was once supposed.

Does the Secretary of State agree that we must do our utmost to avoid a repetition of the recent damaging dispute? In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said to the nation about a month ago, does he still believe that the best way of avoiding another damaging dispute is to introduce a statutory incomes policy?

I expressed a personal view about the possibility, in certain circumstances, that statutory policies might be required, but I think that developments since then, particularly the agreement with the TUC and the very much more hopeful mood in the country, sustain the view that there is a genuine prospect of getting the present pay round completed very close to the Government's original guidelines.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many persons received compensation under part I of the Land Compensation Act in respect of the M6 motorway in Birmingham.

So far, 1,655 claims have been paid. Some of those have related to more than one property.

Does my hon. Friend accept that that figure should be at least 200 higher because 200 families in my constituency did not have the chance to claim as they did not understand the rules in 1975? Will he repeat the commitment given to me in August that, now that the Select Committee on the Ombudsman has reported on the Rochester Way case, the residents affected by the M6—in exactly the same circumstances—will receive consideration at the same time?

Certainly. My hon. Friend has raised an important point. The Select Committee has expressed its view on the matter clearly. My right hon. Friend and I will study the Select Committee report carefully, both on the general issue of whether there is inadequate publicity, which relates to the whole country, and on particular issues, whether in my hon. Friend's constituency or in any other. We shall do that as soon as possible. I know that my right hon. Friend is anxious to do so. It is important that the matter should be settled as soon as possible.

What about the residents of the other part of the Rochester Way, who are affected by new road building on either side—

Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts down a question about that matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether, in view of the severe weather, he is satisfied that sufficient funds are available for road maintenance.

We have increased the funds for maintenance in the latest annual settlement and I believe that the total is broadly right in normal circumstances. However, in view of the severe weather conditions over the past few weeks the Government have decided to make additional financial assistance available to local authorities, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment has indicated.

Is it not a fact that, according to the White Paper on public expenditure, funds for the maintenance of motorways, trunk roads and local roads have been cut and are proposed to be cut still further? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the funds that are available are used? That is particularly important in present circumstances. I understand that in recent years available funds have not been used for maintenance to the extent that was planned.

The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there have been cuts in maintenance funds in the past, but, as I indicated in my main answer, there has been an increase for next year compared with this year, and we do not anticipate any further cuts. We hope that the level will be roughly stable. There has been some underspending in the past, though that is the responsibility of the local authorities, which carry out the maintenance work throughout the country. I understand from the latest estimates that there is much less underspending in the current financial year.

How will my hon. Friend ensure that the additional money which he is allocating to local authorities for road maintenance is spent for that purpose? Does he intend to introduce some sort of monitoring system to ensure that it is spent in the right direction?

We have done precisely that. Three years ago we set up machinery to look at the spending on maintenance and the needs for repair work throughout the country. It is a sampling system covering, I think, 61 different parts of the country, and generally it ensures that we are kept in close touch both with what is necessary and with the level of spending.

Does that mean the Minister is confirming that the criteria for giving additional money towards road maintenance are over and above the expenditure of a penny rate on the part of the local authority concerned? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many local authorities, my own included, have announced rate increases over and above 30 per cent., about which ratepayers are already in revolt? Due to the weather conditions—and I accept that in my constituency the Secretary of State was very generous this year—is the Minister prepared to give additional money without that restriction?

I think that we must stick to the formula which has been applied in the past. Last year, for example, local authorities up and down the country, though mainly in the West Country and East Anglia, received additional funds from the Government under the formula which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment reiterated the other day, namely, 75 per cent. over and above a penny rate.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the recent road haulage dispute.

There is nothing significant I can add to what I said at the time and have already said this afternoon. I greatly regret that it took place and resulted in so much inconvenience and disruption.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any estimate of the approximate total cost of this dispute to British industry?

It is extremely difficult to measure the total costs. The industry is made up of many small firms. They are at present assessing the cost. As I said earlier, there is a later question on the consequences for charges.

Can my right hon. Friend say how many food shops ran out of food during the dispute, how many people died of starvation, and how many million workers were laid off? Has he those figures? If he has not, does he accept that no one knows of a single food shop which ran out of food, that no one died of starvation, and that only 200,000 workers were laid off?

One per cent.

If I may be allowed to join in, I think that the implication of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is right. No shops closed as a result of the dispute. I am very glad that no one starved to death. At one stage it was suggested that many more people would be laid off than were. That is not to say, however, that the strike was not damaging, that much inconvenience was not caused, and that a great deal of anxiety did not result from it. I regret that. Equally, I regret the hysteria which occurred at the time in some quarters.

Does the Secretary of State think that some apology is due to the employers in the road haulage industry for the rapid changes that occurred in Government policy, mainly resulting from the problems experienced, whereby first the industry was threatened that if it went above 5 per cent. action would be taken about its charges, and then when the strike hit the Government were desperate that it should be settled at any cost?

No. The hon. Member is sometimes more reasonable than others of his hon. Friends, but he is now being rather silly. There were no changes in Government policy. I and the Government would have very much preferred to see a settlement within the guidelines of 5 per cent. The RHA moved very quickly to an offer of 15 per cent. As I made clear in the House time and time again, I could not endorse that. In the end, of course, the parties settled at a very much higher figure.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his progress in consultations about his proposals concerning the future of vehicle excise duty.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further representations he has received on the proposed abolition of vehicle excise duty.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further representations he has received on the proposed abolition of vehicle excise duty.

We issued a discussion paper earlier this month on the timing of the change; I hope to have comments shortly.

In view of what has happened in Iran and the possible consequences for petrol prices arising from other factors, is the Minister as confident as he was last year when this paper was first published that this is a sensible policy?

In many respects, events have rather reinforced the conservation aspect of the policy. If we are to live in a world of unforeseeable shortages, the sooner we get to a rational policy on this, the better. I think that that has the support of both sides of the House.

Does the Minister accept the concern felt in some rural districts about the possible cost of these proposals, and will he carry out a full evaluation of those concerns before proceeding further?

I accept that we should evaluate carefully what will happen in the rural areas as a result of this change. I must repeat to the House a point which has been made before, namely, that the majority of rural private motorists will gain from this change. In any case, the change will be very small in its total effect.

How does the Minister propose to assist the disabled, whose vehicle licence tax is already remitted?

That is one of the subjects that we shall consider during our consultations, although it is fair to say that the disabled have an advantage now over the rest of the community.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Bassetlaw is a rural area and that his proposals in general have been welcomed by working-class people in the area who run old bangers to get to work rather than Jaguars such as those owned by Opposition Members, and who very much prefer to pay the road tax weekly rather than every four months or once a year, because that is all they can afford?

I could not have put it better.

Does my hon. Friend agree that his proposals are much fairer than the present system, will conserve petrol, and will lead to a large reduction in the kind of Government expenditure which the Opposition are always demanding?

I am glad to have my hon. Friend's distinguished support in these matters.

Is the Minister aware that these proposals were popular in many parts of my constituency but that since then, as has been pointed out already, we have had the trouble in Iran and strikes, and petrol is already 10p per gallon more in my constituency than it is in the South of England? Will he make that known to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and also consider whether this is a matter that the Price Commission might examine?

The right hon. Member makes a very interesting point. The differential in the prices of petrol sold in rural and urban areas is a matter of legitimate concern.

Does the Minister accept that there are rumours that petrol will cost £1 a gallon, and sooner in some areas than in others, and that his proposals will make petrol, even in current terms, £1·20 a gallon, plus perhaps an annual registration tax at a level which is still a Government secret? Does he recognise that this will impose an unacceptable burden on many motorists, especially in rural areas, where people depend on their own transport to get to and from work?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. People in rural areas will be saving the £50 vehicle excise duty. This has a considerable advantage not only for the person who does a reasonable mileage but also in the sense that it is easier to buy a car in the first instance and keep it on the road with that much less to pay. Therefore, on balance the rural motorist will gain, not lose.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with gritting and salting of roads so far in 1979.

No, Sir.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in the Birmingham area the motorways have been in a very dangerous state during the past few months, especially because of the lack of gritting and salting as a result of NUPE action? This has resulted in far more accidents and greater danger to motorists travelling on these motorways. Does he agree that he has a responsibility to ensure that the roads are safe? If so, will he ensure that in future volunteers are allowed to grit roads when there is action of the kind to which I have referred?

Probably there are lessons to be learnt by us all from the experience of the past few weeks, with very exceptional weather and additional difficulties caused by industrial disputes. I am not responsible for all the roads in the United Kingdom. If I pretended that I was, I should be immensely unpopular with local authorities, which like to handle these matters themselves. My main concern has been to keep open motorways and trunk roads as far as possible. In general, we have been successful in that. I could not be satisfied if roads were closed, were dangerous or were inconvenient to travellers.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the motion on the Order Paper congratulating bus drivers on keeping vehicles on the road despite the unevenness of salting and gritting? Will he acknowledge that many more elderly people might have been riding on those buses if the Government's proposals for a national concessionary fares scheme had been implemented? Can he give any indication when this welcome scheme—a major step forward—will be the subject of a statement so that we can ask questions about it?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been peculiarly friendly today. He is right to say that buses managed to run, often in difficult conditions. If he refers to my Green Paper, published on Monday, he will see that it is hoped to introduce a national concessionary fares scheme as soon as we can get it through the House of Commons.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current waiting time for a driving test in the Exeter area; and how this compares with that for Great Britain as a whole.

26 weeks, compared with 22½ weeks for Great Britain as a whole.

Is it not scandalous that in this self-financing scheme we should be so short of examiners? Why has this happened? Why has the offer to become test examiners by several driving instructors in my constituency been turned down?

I would like to look into the second point, if the hon. Gentleman would supply me with the details. The problem has been a big increase in demand for tests, starting roughly in the spring of last year.

Does the Minister consider it fair that those who wish to take the test should be required to send a cheque with their application although they may be asked to wait three or four months before actually taking the test? Why should they not pay for the test when they take it?

That is another interesting point. I would like to look into it.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total track mileage of each railway system in each European Economic Community country and the extent of Government subsidies made in each instance, respectively, in the last two years for which this information is available; and if he will make a statement.

The latest years for which this information is available are 1974 and 1975 and I will arrange for it to be published in the Official Report. Great care is needed in interpreting international comparisons of this kind.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government are again freezing British Rail investment this year to £312 million, while the smaller Italian railway network is investing £480 million for the same period? Why cannot British Rail have that kind of investment?

I would prefer to put the matter in different terms. I do not think that we are freezing investment. We are keeping it stable. That is a very satisfactory approach in present circumstances. I would also point out to my hon. Friend that it is difficult to make proper international comparisons. The large sums sometimes quoted in France and West Germany reflect different circumstances.

Does the Minister accept that one of the main causes of decreased revenue for British Rail and the possible need for increased subsidy has been inter-union disputes? What action is his Department taking to encourage the formation of a single union throughout the railway industry on the Continental pattern?

It is not his responsibility.

As my hon. Friend says, that is not a question for my right hon. Friend.

Is my hon. Friend aware that British Rail compares favourably with other EEC rail systems? If it is to be kept in the forefront it must have money to invest in new stock and improvements. Will he make sure that so far as possible that money is available.

Yes. My right hon. Friend and I have made clear that we attach great importance to maintaining the right level of investment in British Railways. As my hon. Friend knows, we have made available a new grant for the renewal of assets for passenger business, which has been welcomed by British Rail. We have undertaken to keep investment at a stable level for the foreseeable future.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about drivers' hours and the European Economic Community regulations relating thereto.

Regulation 543/69 has applied to international journeys by United Kingdom registered vehicles since April 1973, and is being applied, on a staged basis, to internal journeys over a three-year period ending on 31 December 1980.

Is the Minister aware that the latest estimate of the cost of introducing these hours and restrictions is £350 million, with a 15 per cent. loss in productivity? As both the increased cost and the loss of productivity are policies which this Government—or any Government—should not follow in this country, will he not allow these regulations and directives to operate here?

I was not aware of those estimates. They sound vaguely familiar to me. I did not know that they were recent estimates. As I said in reply to an earlier supplementary question, I believe that there was a good deal of exaggeration—I blame no one for that—at a time when we were negotiating the introduction of these regulations. It is possible to argue that we wish that they did not exist. In all the circumstances, I think that the staged introduction has been widely welcomed as the best outcome of a difficult problem.

Can my right hon. Friend say to what extent the question of drivers' hours is related to weights of vehicles, particularly increased maximum weights? Will he confirm that the latest proposal of the EEC Commission is for universal licences for vehicles of 44 tons, which would be 12 tons more than is allowed in the United Kingdom?

The reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is that there is no connection between these two considerations. He is right in saying that there is pressure from the Community to move to larger and heavier lorry weights. I have made plain to the Council of Ministers, and in the House, that that is unacceptable to the Government. I repeated that to my colleagues in Brussels yesterday afternoon.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current waiting time for a driving test in Cam bridgeshire; and how this compares with the position in Great Britain as a whole.

16 weeks, compared with 22½ weeks for Great Britain as a whole.

The House will welcome the fact that the waiting time has not increased since the Minister answered question No. 10. Sixteen weeks is fractionally better than the average. As the Government are in the business of job creation, will the Minister consider appointing more examiners? Is he aware of the abuse of the procedure by driving instructors and driving schools, which manage to circumvent or cheat on the waiting lists? What will he do about that?

I shall certainly look into any allegations which the hon. Gentleman can substantiate. I should be interested to do so in the general public interest. With regard to recruiting more examiners, we are about 400 under complement. We have about 140 trained examiners. It takes about six months to train examiners from the time the advertisement appears in the newspapers. About 140 have come into the ranks, which leaves roughly 260 to go. We are recruiting steadily.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to meet the chairman of the British Rail ways Board.

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

Soon.

When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of British Rail, will he discuss the latest delay to the advanced passenger train project? Apparently, as part of the present industrial action, drivers in Scotland are refusing to operate the train on trials. Will the right hon. Gentleman seek ways to ensure that the industrial dispute is not allowed to spill over and affect the advanced passenger train project?

Yes. I am sure that this is a matter about which I should speak to the chairman. I have seen a report to the effect that there has been a delay today. I have not had the opportunity of substantiating it. I would regret, as I am sure the whole House would, any delay in the introduction of an important new technological development which will do a great deal for British Rail.

When the Secretary of State discusses the next inevitable round of fare increases with the chairman of British Rail, will he remind the chairman that the rail commuters of southern London have had to pay unprecedentedly large fare increases in recent years? They have also had to put up with unprecedentedly calamitous industrial disruption in recent weeks. The commuters of southern London deserve some compensation for their present hardships.

The chairman of British Rail is fully aware of the anxiety felt on both sides of the House about the problems that the commuter faces, not only because of the increase in fares from time to time—which everybody who uses the railways must inevitably bear at a time when prices continue to rise too fast—but because of the special inconvenience of travelling in London and the South-East. The chairman is aware of that, and I am sure that he will do his best to remedy the situation.

When the Secretary of State meets the chairman, will he see that the chairman makes a really loud announcement—not like the muted one that he has made—to the effect that season ticket holders who have lost their train service because of industrial disputes or otherwise can claim either cash and/or an extension of their season tickets to make up for the inconvenience that they have suffered? Will he ensure that this is widely publicised, because hardly anyone in the House or the country knows that to be the case?

My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. I remember that when I answered a supplementary question some weeks ago it caused surprise on both sides of the House that this provision existed. I shall draw the attention of the chairman to what my hon. Friend has said.

The next time the right hon. Gentleman sees the chairman, will he discuss with him his Green Paper on concessionary fares for the elderly? Can he give both the chairman and this House some idea of how he thinks the half-price local fare can be financed?

Yes, I hope that British Rail will be giving evidence to me as a result of the consultation which the Green Paper has introduced. If this were the appropriate moment, I would say that I would greatly welcome any comments from hon. Members upon this important issue as it affects rail as well as bus services.

Does my right hon. Friend find it strange that hon. Members opposite, such as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), should criticise the increase in prices on British Rail while at the same time calling for cuts in public expenditure and, necessarily, for cuts in subsidies? By what amount have the Government increased subsidies to British Rail and what would have been the effect on prices had that action not been taken?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this fact. There are no two ways about it: either we have an increase in fares—although I should want to see it at the minimal level consistent with the railways meeting their obligations—or we have an increase in revenue support. I have tried to stabilise that revenue support and give the railways the maximum opportunity of becoming increasingly cost effective. I think that that will be widely welcomed.

Given that the only effect of a large pay settlement will be even higher fares, does the Secretary of State still look for a pay settlement of well under 10 per cent. in the railway industry?

Yes, indeed I do.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what the recent dispute on the railways is estimated to have cost British Railways.

I understand that the Board's present estimate is £14 million.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents are fed up with industrial troubles which result from an inter-union dispute and which have nothing to do with pay policy or anything else? Will he tell the union leaders when he meets them that losses such as he has mentioned will put back the capital investment that the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) is so anxious to advance?

I have said before in the House, and I shall say again, that there is no question of the Government baling out the railways, regrettable though that might appear, if, as a result of industrial disputes or an excessive pay claim, they cannot maintain their services. Everybody who works on the railways knows that. In fairness, I should say that the great majority of railway men appreciate this and are anxious to give an increasingly good service to the public.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the industrial tribunal which is sitting at the moment is doing its best to resolve the differences among the parties involved? One regrets that this amount of money has been lost, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that British Rail's recent performance has managed to wipe out the tremendous deficit that it was running on freight and that it is working well within its cash limits on the PSO?

I am happy to confirm that. British Rail has won a great measure of support—I should like to believe on both sides of the House—as a result of its performance in recent months. Much of this is to the credit of the chairman of British Rail and the leadership that he has given to the whole industry. We have a great deal to be proud of. I hope that we shall sustain it and improve the position still further.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to meet the general secretary of the Trans port and General Workers' Union.

I have no immediate plans to do so.

I hope that when the Secretary of State has a word with the general secretary he will draw his attention to the fact that 12 members of the Cabinet are alleged to have been sponsored by trade unions, and if he will also draw his attention to the fact—

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman put it in the form of a question? It makes things more respectable.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also draw the general secretary's attention to the fact that his own union sponsored the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Energy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong."]—and does he agree that this practice should be discontinued because it could lead to unfairness in dealing with industrial disputes?

No, I would not propose to speak to him in those terms. This is all on the record much more accurately than the way in which the hon. Gentleman has presented it to the House. I am sponsored by a trade union—not, as it happens, by that of which Mr. Moss Evans is the general secretary—and I find no conflict of responsibilities or obligations, and I do not believe that my colleagues find such a conflict either.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members behind him think that the quality of the Cabinet would be enhanced and improved if it contained more sponsored members of the TGWU?

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what he estimates will be the average increase in haulage charges resulting from the recent haulage dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what he estimates will be the average increase in haulage charges resulting from the recent haulage dispute.

The settlement seems likely to raise the industry's costs on average by about 8 per cent. but it is not possible to predict at this stage how this will be reflected in charges to its customers.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Has he also taken into account the actions by bodies such as the Port of London Authority in charging up to £10 per container per day demurrage for containers which were kept there because of the strike, which had nothing to do with those who operated them?

Yes, I hope that I have taken account of that. Although this will not affect all the road haulage companies, I appreciate that it might in certain circumstances help to determine their future costs. However, despite all the problems, I hope that as large a part of this increase as can be absorbed will be and that the industry will make, as it has been making—I do not want to undervalue it—a valuable contribution to our industrial performance.

rose—

Mr. Ellis.

No. 25, Sir.

I called the hon. Gentleman to put a supplementary question.

I am one of those hon. Members who do not presume on your courtesy, Mr. Speaker.

I would not want to comment now on matters which arose in this dispute. I am concerned only that the costs which inevitably fall on the industry are absorbed as far as possible and are not passed on.

Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the continued clamour of the Opposition during the road haulage dispute and the fact that no official spokesman of the Conservatives expressed regret at the death of a picket during the dispute at Aberdeen? Would he comment also on the fact that in recent times the railways have continued to provide a service in spite of adverse weather conditions, and that, yet again, the Opposition, after having made many carping criticisms—

Order. We are on road haulage, I think.

I am just coming to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker. The Opposition have failed to mention that four railway men died trying to maintain those services. It should be recognised that they are working people who try to give a service to the public.

Yes, there is from time to time a certain lack of generosity, but I understand that in trying circumstances people sometimes fail to say what otherwise they might say. I very much appreciate what my hon. Friend says about what we owe, particularly in weather of the kind that we have been experiencing, to all those who provide a service to us in the House of Commons of a kind that we never have to play any part in providing ourselves.

To what extent were the increased charges mentioned in the question, arising out of the increased wage rates, due to the EEC directive cutting down drivers' hours?

The hon. Gentleman is ingenious, but I give a precise reply to a precise question. The answer is "Not at all".

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the survey ordered by his Deparment into traffic flows on the A6 road at Mountsorrel and Quorn, Leicestershire, to take place.

The survey will be carried out by the Leicestershire county council as the Department's agents. It should take place during the latter part of March and the beginning of April.

Will the Minister take it that local people are extremely grateful for this survey, especially since he himself said in the House only last year that there could be no question of a bypass at present? Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Department has a completely open mind on the matter and that it will be substantially guided by the results of the survey?

Indeed, we have an open mind on the matter and we shall be guided by the figures which are thrown up by the survey. I must also apologise to the hon. Gentleman that we have not started the minor improvements which I promised him quite as soon as we should have liked.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what additional measaures to improve road safety are currently under consideration in his Department.

The House will be aware of our initiatives on compulsory seat belt wearing and on motor cycle training. In addition, we are carrying out the necessary preparatory work for new drink and driving legislation. Further measures are under consideration to improve the safety standards of coaches and heavy goods vehicles; and new initiatives are planned on child cycling.

Since the Minister has referred to motor cycle training, may I remind him that 90 per cent. of all learner motor cyclists do not enter the training scheme? What initiative does he intend to take to encourage young people buying a motor cycle for the first time to use that scheme and thus to improve road safety?

As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, we are increasing the facilities available for training for people wishing to ride a motor cycle, and that scheme is going very satisfactorily. In addition, we are advertising much more widely the training facilities which are available. All of this will help. Also, we have just received a report from the standing advisory committee on motor cycle training, and we shall see how we can take further measures to help in this direction. The figure given by the hon. Gentleman is entirely accurate and is most deplorable.

Is my hon. Friend taking any further steps to deal with irresponsible motorists on motorways who, at times when the red lights are flashing or when there are patches of fog, still seem to think that they can go along at 70 mph?

I think that the police have strong views about that and are making them generally known whenever it happens.

How can the Minister use the word "initiative" to describe the Government's activity on seat belt legislation when in a week from now it will be three years since the House, on a free vote, gave a majority of 100 to that legislation? As every week's delay costs 20 lives, what is the reason for it? Since we all know that both he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State want to introduce this legislation, can the hon. Gentleman explain why it is that two persons, the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip, are stopping them from doing so?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is accurate in what he says in the last part of his question. Nevertheless, I recognise his personal concern on this issue over many years. We have had the First Reading of the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill, and I hope that we shall have the Second Reading very shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to hold a public inquiry into the proposed closure of the Humber ferry.

No formal notice of the proposed date of closure of the Humber ferry has yet been given by Sealink, which operates the service. It would not be for me to hold a public inquiry, but the local transport users' consultative committee may decide to do so.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the opening of the Humber bridge and the possible closure of the ferry will alter the whole traffic infrastructure—the complicated bus routes and the rest—and that ordinary people have a contribution to make? Therefore, rather than let this matter drag on as the opening date for the bridge goes back and back, will my hon. Friend use his influence to have the inquiry now so that everyone can have his point of view made known? It is possible that there may be a case for retaining a passenger-only ferry. All these matters have to be gone into, but things are dragging on, until one day the bridge will be opened and everyone will say "That is it". It will be very unsatisfactory.

Order. Did not the hon. Gentleman say that he never took advantage of my good nature?

In reply to the substance of my hon. Friend's question, it is possible for anyone who uses the ferry to appeal to the transport users' consultative committee to hold a public inquiry when—and if—British Rail indicates that it is finishing the service on the ferry. That allows adequate time for all people in the area to make their points to a public inquiry. I think that that is the right forum. In the meantime, I take note of the points which my hon. Friend has made. Perhaps he should address his remarks to Humberside county council, too, which also has some responsibilities in this matter.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a good idea to keep the ferry going, because it loses very little money indeed, rather than pour money down the drain to the tune of £100 million on this useless bridge?

I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) are at last in agreement, though I am not sure whether they will both welcome that.

That is a most unhappy alliance for the House, and one expects that from the south bank of the Humber. Is my hon. Friend aware that there is concern about whether we maintain a passenger ferry when the bridge is opened since, if we have weather such as we have had recently, or high winds, it may well be possible that the bridge cannot be used and an important route will be needed for taking people from the south bank to places on the north bank?

Yes, I take that point, but the inquiry may well decide that a ferry should continue in existence in spite of the building of the bridge. It is perfectly possible that it could so decide.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the present level of expenditure on bus revenue support.

Revenue support in shire counties is rising broadly as planned, but there are still counties which could do more to maintain and improve bus services. I made this clear in the recent TSG settlement.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is now a serious danger that the White Paper proposals for increased spending on rural buses will not be met, and can he confirm that this is so largely because many of the shire counties, which are Tory-dominated, will not take the initiative in this matter?

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I have to say that a number of shire counties—especially one or two of them—have a very poor record in support for their buses. As my hon. Friend says, these are Tory councils. I am still hopeful for their redemption, however, because there is a powerful case for improving our public transport everywhere, but particularly in rural areas.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the situation is rapidly changing with the escalating cost of fuel, which means that many people living in country areas are virtually cut off from public transport? Will he look at the new picture in a new light today and see what he can do to help?

I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support, because there has been a considerable deterioration in public transport in rural areas over a period of time. We are attempting to remedy this both by the provision for extra spending on public transport and by the Transport Act 1978, which should lead to a substantial improvement in both conventional and rather less conventional transport in rural areas.

Will my right hon. Friend accept from me, as someone who has lived for the greater part of her life in a shire county, that the Tory leopard is most unlikely to change its spots? If the Tory councils do not spend the money which he has allocated, what will he propose to do?

I understand my hon. Friend's scepticism, and I think that it would be justified in a number of parts of the country. But the truth is that, whereas in 1977–78 about £34 million was being spent on revenue support in shire counties, that figure has since risen to about £45 million; so I think that there is still some hope. If I am wrong and my hon. Friend's scepticism proves justified, we must look at the problem again.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, whatever Government schemes are introduced, the local authorities still have to find about 40 per cent. of the total cost of these bus support schemes? If he is right in asserting, as I believe him to be, that what we are concerned with ultimately is service to the public, and not subsidy to the public, and these schemes involve giving less to those areas which have the most inadequate services, is it not more important to relax the licensing system so that one can get improved services in those remote rural areas which at present perhaps have no bus services at all?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong if he implies that there is a contradiction between service and subsidy. Without substantial subsidies to public transport, especially in rural areas, there would be no prospect of providing a service. I think that that has been largely accepted. There are still some areas that are trying to provide a service in circumstances where it is uneconomic but where the need is real. That should be remedied within the provision that I have already made under the TSG.