asked the Minister of Transport when next he plans to meet the chairman of British Railways to discuss future investment.

asked the Minister of Transport when he will next discuss with the chairman of British Railways the future financing of British Railways.

asked the Minister of Transport when next he plans to meet the chairman of British Railways to discuss future investment.

Next Monday.

When the Minister meets Sir Peter Parker, will he be able to offer him some financial assistance to speed up the railways' electrification programme and to bring new vehicles into use so that the railways can play, as stated in Sir Peter's statement today, a ready and relevant role when the economy finally recovers?

We are awaiting the final report on electrification, which I expect to receive during the autumn. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are devoting a great deal of public money to British Rail. We are spending £ 575 million on passenger support. The hon. Gentleman will recognise the amount of commitment by the Government to the railway system.

I support the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). Will not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a difference in terms of public investment between putting money into British Leyland or British Steel, which are manufacturing, goods, and supporting British Rail, which is part of our national transport infrastructure? If we are, as we do, to ask British Rail whether it makes profits or losses overall or on individual routes, is it not odd that we never seem to ask ourselves how much profit or loss is made on the Ml or the M6?

The comparison between road and rail is a matter on which we are trying to make progress. I remind my hon. Friend that we are making available up to £ 277 million in investment, the same as the last Government's ceiling.

Is the Minister aware that the appalling service between Sheffield and London is not likely to be improved unless there is substantial electrification or the right hon. Gentleman allows British Rail to spend money on HS125 sets which would give a decent service?

I shall mention that matter to the chairman of British Rail. I know that he has taken the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Has the Minister seen the advertisement by British Rail implying that the M25 should be scrapped so enabling the cost of a number of advanced passenger trains to be met? Will he accept that my commuter constituents, who pay dearly in fares and taxes to sustain British Rail and who are looking forward to the completion of the M25, consider that public money should not be spent in this manner to oppose what is, after all, Government policy?

I agree with my right hon. Friend. I do not think that that is a particularly distinguished piece of advertising by British Rail and I do not think that there is any justification for these expensive and barren knocking matches between road and rail.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree on reflection that he made a bad mistake in using the occasion of closing a debate to announce an important investment project and "privatisation" plans for the ports? Will he take note of Sir Peter Parker's comments in an interview yesterday, when he said that if there is to be investment in the various sections of British Rail's subsidiaries, it should be done in a fragmented way and not in a block, in order to leave control with British Rail? Does the Minister agree with that statement, and will he pursue it with Sir Peter Parker?

I know that the hon. Member realises that the chairman of British Rail has nothing to do with the British Transport Docks Board. Certainly, I do not believe that I was mistaken in any way in making that announcement on Monday evening. On the question of the attitude of the chairman of British Rail, I am sure that the hon. Member has seen Sir Peter Parker's letter in The Daily Telegraph two days ago in which he said that the move to introduce private capital into the capital-hungry subsidiaries was welcomed by the British Railways Board. I hope that the hon. Member will note that welcome.

Further to the answer that my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), will he confirm that the completion of the M25 remains the top priority for this Government, as it was for the previous one? Will he instruct British Rail not to place advertisements in publications calling into question either the wisdom or the cost of the scheme?

I am not in the business of instructing British Rail but I am sure that the chairman has seen the anger that that advertisement has caused. I can confirm the view of both sides of the House that the M25 is the number one road priority in this country.

The Minister will have seen the statement by Sir Peter Parker that the industry has lost nearly £ 30 million due to the recession. At the meeting next Monday will he give Sir Peter an indication that he is prepared to allow him to use the surpluses on his external financing limit, built up over the last four years, or will he accept the conclusions of the Riley committee, which will increase the borrowing possibilities for British Rail in line with the EEC rail systems?

We shall certainly talk about the flexibility in external finance limits. I hope that the hon. Member will recognise that most of that loss on British Rail was in the freight area and a great deal of that loss was a direct result of the steel strike. It was one more unfortunate effect of that strike.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the introduction of the advanced passenger train on the Euston-Glasgow central route.

Two advanced passenger train prototypes will enter regular service between London and Glasgow on 6 October, and a third one will follow in the new year. My right hon. Friend has recently received proposals from the board to carry the APT project forward, and we are now considering these.

Is the Minister aware that this news will be warmly welcomed by the people in the West of Scotland, particularly, as the introduction of this advanced passenger train has been postponed time after time? Will the Minister do his utmost to secure that this date of 6 October will definitely be honoured?

There is no reason to doubt that that date will be honoured. This is a very interesting and encouraging technical development by British Rail.

May I, as a Member for a constituency through which the APT will pass in due course, welcome the Minister's words and ask gently whether the standard of catering on the APT will be a little bit better than it is on the present service?

I hope that the APT will pass through a lot of constituencies between London and Glasgow. We all appreciate that there is room for improvement in the standards of British Rail catering but British Rail has that aspect of its services very much in mind. Indeed, a recent appointment was made to the board of someone with expertise in the catering field.

Will the Minister give us a little more information on the proposals? When he says that there will be two APTs does he mean two in each direction or one in each direction?

There will be two prototype sets in service and a third is planned. The details of the timetable and the service are entirely matters for British Rail.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to announce his decisions with regard to the leases of the 38 motorway service areas currently on offer to interested operators.

My agents, Richard Ellis, are continuing their negotiations with the existing operators and other interested parties for disposal of the motorway service areas on new long leases. I shall announce the results of those negotiations as soon as they are concluded.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread disappointment if these leases go to the same dreary lot who operate our motorway service areas at present? Will he seek to ensure that at least some of the leases go to operators in France, Germany and Italy who run their motorway service areas with such flair and imagination, so that the British motorist can discover what he has been missing all these years?

I take on board what my hon. Friend has said. I must point out that we seek to change policy in this area because of what we regard as the failure of the operation over the last 20 years. We are trying to open up the motorway service areas to new competition with the aim of getting a better service.

Will the Minister tell some of these private enterprise sharks who operate the service areas that they should not charge 20p a gallon more for petrol than the prices in the city areas?

The previous Government made £ 2 million of taxpayers' money available for the support of petrol prices on motorway service areas. We do not believe that that is the right use of public money, given all the restraints that exist at present. There is competition, there will be further competition and that is the way to proceed.

Does my right hon. Friend hope to find operators to take out leases on those sites for motorway service areas that have not yet been allocated? What chance is there of ending the current situation where, on some motorways, such as the M62 between Leeds and Hull, there is no motorway service area for about 80 miles?

We hope to improve the spread of motorway service areas and that is one of our policy aims.

Will the Minister say what effective surveillance he will put into operation when the new contracts come into being to ensure that the disgrace to which the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) referred, is not repeated? Will he take steps to ensure that contracts which are breached in the way that he has described are terminated immediately?

We do not intend to do what the last Government proposed and have catering inspectors going around tasting fish and chips in various motorway service areas. That was absurd. Instead we intend to improve the competition on motorway service areas and to enable, for the first time, the operators of such service areas to advertise their names on the motorway. It will be up to the common sense of the public to choose between the services.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the timing of the reorganisation of the road construction units.

We hope to be in a position to put firm proposals to the main organisations and individual county councils during September.

Does the Minister accept that there is a four-year agreement between his Department and Durham county council for the rundown of the Durham unit? That agreement should be honoured. The very least that should be done is that the Durham sub-unit should be allowed to complete its outstanding projects. Is it not a fact that the work must be done anyway, and that means employing consultants whose costs are at least 15 per cent. greater than those of the sub-unit? In view of the highly efficient and dedicated work that has been done by the sub-unit is not this another doctrinaire blow wielded by the Government?

First, we have agreements with the participating county councils and we hope to reach agreement with them in September about the rate at which the sub-units work is changed. We realise that that must not be done precipitately. On the other hand, we do not wish to extend the present uncertainties which have had such a damaging and demoralising effect upon staff. Comparison of costs is a matter which we shall consider carefully but they are difficult to calculate. There are a number of other considerations to be borne in mind when deciding how best to manage the road programme in the most efficient way during the next few years.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that his Department's decision is an excellent one and will be welcomed by the majority of people? On the other hand, is he aware that there is anxiety felt by many of those affected, some of whom have spent many years in those units? In those circumstances, will my hon. and learned Friend give careful consideration to the many representations that have been made on their behalf?

I accept what my hon. Friend says. We are, however, not reducing the amount of work to be done on the road programme. We are simply reorganising the way in which it is done. We are particularly concerned at present about making the best possible arrangements for staff, not only in the interests of good industrial relations and of being a good employer, but also because it is in everybody's interests that we retain their acquired skills on particular schemes, and that we achieve as smooth a transition as possible from sub-units to consultants.

Will the Minister give an assurance that his doctrinaire approach will not delay the building of the Newcastle upon Tyne western bypass which should, if anything, be brought forward?

Our approach is not doctrinaire. As I have tried to indicate, we are consulting carefully and we expect to achieve a smooth transition and a more sensible way of running a reduced road programme. There is no way in which the changeover from sub-units to consultants need delay any road scheme.

Is the Minister aware that in Cornwall there are problems in that there is an absence of design engineers and the local county council has been carrying out participative work with the road construction unit on a number of schemes? May I ask my hon. and learned Friend to look carefully at that continuing participation?

We have asked county councils to put special cases to us, where they believe they exist, for work to be transferred to them. Obviously, we also realise: that county councils are hoping to reduce staffing levels. There is no reason to transfer to another section of the public sector work which can probably be done more efficiently in the private sector by consultants.

Does the Minister agree that there are considerable problems in transferring existing road schemes from the road construction units to private consultants? What delays in the completion of these schemes does the Minister foresee arising from the transfer? Can he still give a categoric assurance that there will be no slippage in current road programmes? How will the Minister finance the additional 15 per cent. cost in transferring the work to private consultants? That cost was indicated by the NEDO report.

The NEDO report did not produce an absolute figure of 15 per cent. It is extremely difficult to make direct cost comparisons. The advantage to be achieved by going over to private consultants is greater flexibility in the use of manpower on particular schemes in particular parts of the country, as well as giving a valuable home base for the export earnings which our consulting civil engineers can earn. There is no reason why the process of change should delay any scheme.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to ban smoking on public transport.

No, Sir. The provision for smoking on public transport is a matter for the operators, and is not one on which I would seek to intervene.

Has my right hon. Friend seen reports of the recent conference of the British Medical Association which called for the banning of smoking on buses and trains? If he is not prepared to go that far will he, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Social Services, consider, in the negotiations that are taking place on advertising, the idea that advertisements should appear on public transport pointing out the dangers to health caused by smoking?

I shall look at my right hon. Friend's second point. If he wishes to hear my view on smoking it is that people should not smoke. I also believe in the minimum of Government intervention rather than more.

Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to resist the attempts of the Stalinists in the House to remove individual freedom from 50 per cent. of our population? Is he aware that on trains and buses 50 per cent. of accommodation is reserved for non-smokers and that on London Transport more than two-thirds of the accommodation is so reserved? What will these people wish to ban next? Will it be drinking, sex or what?

Not necessarily in that order.

The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) says "Not necessarily in that order." All the same, the mind boggles at what could come to pass. I should point out to the House that British Rail intends to increase the non-smoking accommodation on trains. However, the Government do not wish to lay down general rules in this area.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he did what my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) advocates he would simply reduce the number of people travelling by rail and make them use their motor cars, which would make no sense at all?

My hon. Friend's comment is very sensible.

Is the Secretary of State aware that one of our greatest parliamentarians said that smoking never hurt him? He lived to the age of 90.

That is so and is a further reason why Government should not seek to intervene in this matter.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he has taken to ensure that the resources available for trunk roads are adequate to carry out the three priorities set out in the White Paper on roads.

I have of course, set my priorities in the light of the available resources. We are spending more on trunk roads than the previous Administration spent in each of their last two years in office.

Does the Secretary of State recall that the White Paper said that priority would be given to industrial and port routes? Work on the M20 has been suspended and work on the M3 has yet to be announced. Bypasses are another priority. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that 36 bypasses are on the list of suspended schemes, that 34 are waiting to be included in the reserve list and that a further 35 schemes will not begin until 1994?

I do not claim that we are proceeding with all the road schemes with which we would necessarily like to proceed. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman will have noted our decision 10 days ago about the M3. In 1979-80 this Government spent £ 380 million. That compares with an expenditure of £ 369 million by the previous Administration in 1978-79 and £ 357 million in 1977-78. I think, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman is on slightly weak ground in making his complaint.

Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, in view of the continuing carnage on the M3, and in the light of the fact that his decision is not perfect, he will, nevertheless, proceed with those sections that are agreed and not hold the entire scheme up on the pretext that, because some people do not wish the road to be built, we should do nothing until every inch has been agreed?

I certainly give that assurance. Obviously, I understand the disappointment of my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I have followed the recommendations of the inspector. We must now proceed not only with two-thirds of the road but look again at the possibilities of finding a less damaging solution.

Does not the Minister agree that public resources are precious at present? Will he, therefore, suggest to Sir Peter Parker that they should not be wasted on this spurious advertising campaign which he is currently undertaking? Although we need electrification of the railway service and high speed trains, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we also need vital road projects such as the M25 if we are to have a good infrastructure and a successful economy?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I made that point in answer to an earlier question, but a comment such as that coming from the Opposition Benches will underline the concern felt about that advertisement.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks about the M3? However, is he aware of the concern felt by those who earn their living from the port of Southampton about the fact that we shall have a different financial structure for the British Transport Docks Board? Does he realise that we wish to make that undertaking viable? Is he aware that the only way it can be made viable is if there are sufficient motorways serving the port of Southampton?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The M3 is a crucial route to one of our most important ports. We now have to look at the possibilities for the remaining one-third—the Winchester bypass—and if it will help I shall certainly meet a delegation of my hon. Friends on the matter.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the timing of the sale of the National Freight Corporation.

I would hope in the first part of next year, but that must depend on the market.

Does my hon. Friend realise that these proposals are most welcome on the Conservative Benches, that they have been well accepted within the NFC, and that the sooner they are implemented the better? Does he agree that the wider the role permitted to private enterprise under his proposals, the safer and more secure will be the long-term future of all the employees in the NFC?

My hon. Friend is right. This is a good company which can become even better under the structure we have in mind for it.

What consultations has the Minister had about his proposals with those working in the corporation?

We have had consultations over the past 15 months. We debated the provisions in our proceedings on what is now the Transport Act. I am glad to say that within the NFC a great many people are enthusiastically in favour of these very good proposals.

asked the Minister of Transport what contribution the British Railways property board made to the finances of British Railways in each of the last five financial years.

The contribution to the railways board's cash flow from both the operational and non-operational property activities in each of the last five calendar years was £ 28 million in 1975, £ 32 million in 1976, £ 26 million in 1977, £ 33 million 1978 and £ 41 million in 1979.

Will the Minister give an undertaking that that sort of money will continue to be made available under the sell-off scheme that he announced on 14 July? Or will it be sacrificed as part of the right hon. Gentleman's privatisation policy which seems designed to demonstrate his political virility to the Prime Minister?

I think that I made the position clear. This policy has been agreed between myself and the chairman of the British Railways Board. The hon. Gentleman must take that point on board, as must the official Opposition. The board will retain the cash flow from most of its operational property. Of course, it will continue to have the proceeds from disposals in this area.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the British Rail property board could develop its surplus land more profitably, and so reduce the public sector borrowing requirement, it could only do so if the worst iniquities of the development land tax under the 1976 Act were eliminated? Will he therefore have early and urgent discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this regard, especially in respect of the Old Street and Liverpool Streeet station development?

I take that point. The Position of DLT is, of course, of great importance for BR, and I will undertake to talk to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor about it.

What would be the effect on the fares structure of depriving British Rail of the profit margin? Has the right hon. Gentleman any answer to Sir Peter Parker's statement that fares will have to be reconsidered in September unless there is a distinct change in Government policy on the external finance limits?

Our policy will have no effect on fares. Again, I must remind hon. Members that the four non-rail businesses into which we are introducing private capital have as a whole been cash takers rather than cash givers for the board over the past five years. There has been a cash flow of about £ 25 million from the BRB into the subsidiaries.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on current delays on the Ml and M6 as a result of roadworks; when the works will be completed; and what discussions have taken place between his officials and the police concerning remedial action to reduce and control delays.

As my right hon. Friend announced in last month's White Paper, 13 major repair contracts will be carried out on the Ml and M6 motorways this year at phased intervals between March and the end of the year. While some delays to drivers are inevitable, we intend to take every practicable step to reduce them to the minimum. We are greatly assisted by advice from the police who are consulted early in the planning of all major motorway repairs.

May I draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the problem arising from signposting, particularly where lanes are reduced from three to two or even one? Will he consult the police to see what can be done about the problem of drivers ignoring early warning signs to get into the appropriate lane with the result that chaos is caused where the merging of lanes eventually takes place and there is frustration all round? Will he look at the general question of signposting on motorways to ensure that where repairs are carried out it is accurate, adequate and is removed when not required?

The problems arising where lanes are reduced are being eased by constant sophistication of the contraflow system. We certainly do our best to ease the flow of traffic into reduced lanes by proper advanced signing and coning. We consult the police about that. We are thinking of extending further the information available to motorists about possible delays, and we are even thinking of locating courtesy boards at road works so that motorists can understand the cause of the delay.

Will my hon. and learned Friend call for a report on the time taken by direct labour departments, such as that used in my county of Northamptonshire, to complete work on the Ml compared with the performance of contractors to see whether, as I suspect, there is a difference?

The whole question of direct labour organisations is being examined. When we reach conclusions there will be some changes in the arrangements for highways works, as for other work.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a few years ago these road works were a major inconvenience? Then they became a national joke. Now it is more serious than that. When will it be possible to make an uninterrupted journey to the North-West?

The extent and age of the motorway system is such that I do not think that anyone can anticipate a time when it will be free of major repairs. We have to time repairs in such a way that no excessive delays are caused in any part of the system, and we must carry on improving our methods to reduce delays to motorists.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that it is a euphemism to say that our motorways are being repaired? They are basically being reconstructed. Clearly, in the early days, inadequate information was supplied and the wrong decisions made by those responsible for the construction of the motorways. Would not the work now being carried out be unnecessary if the right decisions had been taken earlier?

With hindsight one can undoubtedly say that the extent to which heavy traffic would be attracted to the motorways was underestimated. However, it is also the case that some of them are getting quite old. A road does not have an indefinite life. The motorways had a design life of only 15 or 20 years, and substantial reconstruction work is inevitable.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will review the effectiveness of the present regulations relating to motorway safety.

The regulations are still effective, although a few minor revisions are being considered. If my hon. Friend has a particular safety point to put forward I should be happy to consider it.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the concern that exists about motorway coaches and their behaviour on motorways, particularly in view of recent accidents involving coaches with children on board, and particularly in respect of the fast driving of coaches in the fast lane?

Coaches are subject to speed restrictions and regulations as are all other vehicles. I doubt whether any one category of vehicle is responsible for bad driving on motorways. I am most concerned about recent accidents. Rigorous standards of PSV driver licensing are enforced which should prevent a low standard of driving.

I recognise that priorities for transport safety lie in directions other than motorways, and that these roads are reasonably safe. Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that coaches should be prohibited from the fast lane? Is the Minister aware that the first indications of the inquest this morning into the tragic death of a boy over the weekend on the M62, on the borders of my constituency, indicated that a contraflow system may have contributed to the cause of the accident? I do not want to prejudge events, but it seems that the cause was not fast driving in the fast lane. Is the Minister aware that contraflow systems are dangerous?

Motorways are the safest roads in our network, and coaches provide one of the safest forms of travel in the country. We are mainly concerned with improving the regulations on the structure and safety of coaches. I shall look at the suggestions that are being made, but the hon. Gentleman must realise that modern coaches can quite well be driven at 70 mph, and it would be an inconvenience to them to exclude them from the fast lane if they are being driven properly.

Will my hon. and learned Friend consider holding detailed discussions with a firm in the Midlands—of which I know he is aware—that is putting forward alternatives to the barriers used for motorway contraflow systems? Having met that firm and examined its proposition, would he then consider introducing regulations to encourage innovations that would make contraflow systems more visible, safe and better for the motorway users?

We are constantly considering ways to improve contraflow systems, and constantly looking at new devices, such as barriers. I am aware of the example that my hon. Friend has in mind. I shall continue to examine that, along with any other examples that may be put forward.

Will the Minister give some thought and consideration to making crash barriers compulsory on all motorways, especially the M74 where there have been so many serious accidents? Docs the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that would obviate many of the difficulties that affect that motorway?

Once a road goes north of the border any questions relating to it are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is the practice in England to have crash barriers in the centre of motorways. We extend them to other trunk roads where that is justified.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will issue a direction to British Railways and London Transport to keep down rises in fares in the next financial year to less than 10 per cent.

No, Sir. Fares policy is a matter for the operators concerned. I am sure that they will consider carefully the effect of fares increases on the use of their services and seek ways of avoiding unnecessarily steep increases by reducing costs and improving efficiency.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that a large number of people commute to and from work via British Rail and London Transport? Is he further aware that there have been considerable increases in fares during the past year? Does he realise that the Government will find it difficult to keep down wage and salary increases to 10 per cent. if British Rail and London Transport increase their fares again? Is he aware that, despite OPEC, it is cheaper to come into town in a car than as a commuter on public transport?

The Government continue to hope that British Rail can maintain a system of annual fares increases. We are currently holding discussions with the board about its financial difficulties. The Government have firmly set their face against any suggestion that the captive market of commuters should be singled out for high fare increases. London Transport is a matter for the GLC. My hon. Friend will be aware that the GLC is anxious to make progress on improving efficiency and reducing costs on the London Transport network.

Is the Minister aware that users of the Central line in Essex are not only paying higher fares than other users of the Central line, but are threatened with the closure of the line between Epping and Ongar because of the refusal of the Essex county council—unlike the GLC—to support that line? Will the Minister say when he will meet the deputation that has asked to see him to settle the matter? What action will, he take to safeguard the interests of users of the Central line in Essex, both in keeping the line open and in paying the same fares as other users of London Transport underground lines?

The consent of my right hon. Friend is required before any line can be closed. I would not wish to prejudice the statutory proceedings that lie behind that. I have already met deputations about that issue, and I should be happy to meet more. I cannot understand why Essex county council feels unable to make any contribution to the line. In the end, it must make choices about transport priorities in the county.

Because the unfortunate fare increases seem to be becoming biannual, if not tri-annual, agonies for the commuting public, will my hon. and learned Friend approach the management of both concerns to suggest that their public relations be improved so that the travelling public know precisely what proportion of the increase is attributable to wage increases, to energy cost increases or to other causes?

The figures are difficult to break down. The travelling public do not expect any of the passenger industries simply to pass on to them the effect of high wage increases. They must look for ways to increase productivity, reduce costs, and generally improve the efficiency of services.

Does the Minister agree that with inflation running at 20 per cent. it is quite impossible for British Rail or London Transport to keep down their fare increases to 10 per cent? Does he agree that they cannot isolate themselves from inflation any more than anybody else?

I accept that point. But, like any other well-run business, they have a duty to keep their costs under control and their fare increases to a minimum.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the proposition advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) would mean that the generality of taxpayers would have to subsidise the users of British Rail and London Transport? Is not the real answer to proceed along the lines set out in the Transport Act 1980 and widen the choice for all customers, and provide an opportunity to break down the artificial barriers that British Rail has enjoyed, such as privileges of monopoly rights?

There is some case for subsidy of public transport in relatively restricted areas such as providing services to isolated rural communities, or relieving urban congestion in commuter services. I accept my hon. Friend's point. There is no reason why the generality of taxpayers should give a general subsidy to reduce fares for that section of the population which travels by train and bus. We put our faith in increased competition and efficiency. That is underlined by the Transport Act.

Does the Minister realise that railway fares in Britain are higher than in any other country in Europe? Does he further realise that investment in railways in Britain is lower than in any other country in Europe? Is that the Government's transport policy at work, or is it the consequence of other policies that they are pursuing, the cost of which they expect the British travelling public to bear?

As my right hon. Friend has said, the investment being provided for British Rail is at the same level as that provided by the previous Labour Administration. The investment ceiling for British Rail is exempt from the Government cuts in public spending. Many international comparisons are made about railway systems. It is true that ours is a high fare-low productivity system. I know that the board is anxious to improve the position.

asked the Minister of Transport if he intends to hold an early meeting with interested parties who have made representations recently on the need to change the motor vehicle registration number plate system.

The present registration system comes to an end in July 1983 and I have today published a consultation paper inviting ideas on a new system of registration marks.

Subject to seeing that paper, which I have not yet done, may I ask my right hon. Friend to assure the House that he will take steps to get rid of the year letter on the number plates which, although originally introduced for good reasons, has now distorted the pattern of motor sales and caused social snobbery?

That is one of the points that we shall examine. There is a variety of solutions set out in the consultation document. We should welcome representations and views on them.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for such an interesting reply? Will he ensure that there is consultation with those involved with security? My right hon. Friend probably knows of my interest in that matter. Does he agree that better security, especially in tracing stolen vehicles and vehicles used in crimes, could come from a different and better number plate system?

We shall take that point into account when considering the representations. We intend to have as wide a consultation on that matter as we can.

asked the Minister of Transport how the recent settlement of the United Kingdom's contribution to the Community budget in the years up to 1982 might affect the funds returned to the United Kingdom and earmarked for particular projects such as roads.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any proposals following the European Economic Community budget settlement, for increased Community expenditure on infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom.

Detailed arrangements for implementing the recent agreement on reducing our net contribution to the Community budget have yet to be agreed. The Commission has proposed participation in transport infrastructure as part of the Community's supplementary measures, but it is too soon to say what programmes or projects will eventually be associated with the increased receipts.

Will those receipts be for projects of Community interest? Is there not a need for care in defining what we mean by Community interests? Will my hon. and learned Friend assure me that the projects will include an expanded and speeded-up road programme? I have in mind an infrastructure link between Sheffield and Manchester, which has been dawdling for many years.

The projects with which the receipts are linked must have some Community interest. We shall agree those with the Commission. As my right hon. Friend has made clear, there is no way in which the return of our budget contri- bution can lead to increased public spending in Britain. We are avoiding the need for further cuts in public spending in transport programmes by taking the receipts from the European Community. On the question of the infrastructure link between Sheffield and Manchester, there are already improvements at Stocksbridge and Wortley in the programme. They are scheduled for the reserve list for 1982-83.

Will my hon. and learned Friend say whether he has discussed the possibility of a Community contribution towards the Channel link? If so, what would be the probable level of that contribution?

That cannot possibly arise out of the short-term matter that we are discussing here, of what happens as a result of the budget settlement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has achieved. The Channel tunnel is obviously a much longer-term project. If that gets any aid from EEC funds, it will be in the context of the proposed transport infrastructure fund, which is still being considered by the Council of Ministers.

If there is to be no increase in public spending as a result of this operation, will the Minister confirm what other Ministers have stated—that the schemes on which this EEC money will be spent are those which would have gone forward anyway with United Kingdom finance?

Had we not achieved this settlement, and had the supplementary payments not been forthcoming from the Commission, there would undoubtedly have been further cuts in public spending programmes. Therefore, the schemes with which these funds are associated are maintaining their places in existing programmes because of the budget settlement.