§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hugh Rees.]
§ 11.38 p.m.
§ Mr. W. T. Rodgers (Stockton-on-Tees)At the end of April we had a two-day debate on transport. There is something to be said for the view that we spent two days debating the wrong Report. Dr. Beeching's proposals for the future of the railways are certainly far-reaching and controversial, but discussion of the railways makes sense only in the context of the future of transport as a whole, and that is why I should have liked to see the House find some time to discuss Sir Robert Hall's Report on the transport needs of Great Britain in the Next Twenty Years. Not only have we not discussed this Report but there was hardly more than a couple of references to it during the whole of the Beeching debate. I am therefore grateful for this opportunity, not to deal with the Hall Report as a whole, but to take further some points which it raises about transport research.
What I very much hope for from the Parliamentary Secretary is that in his reply he will place on record a much clearer picture than we now have of the research which is going on into transport needs and also of future plans for research. There have been times in the past when the Ministry's attitude towards research was, to say the least, equivocal. I recall, for example, the remarks of the then Permanent Secretary, Sir Gilmour Jenkins, before the Select Committee on Estimates in 1952–53. He said,
The best kind of research—he was asked about his attitude towards research on roads—is experience on the job".That seems to me an original but rather odd definition. Further asked whether his Department had ever urged the Treasury to make more funds available for research, he said, "No, certainly not."Times change and during the régime of his successor there was, I think, a 402 feeling among transport experts outside that a breath of fresh air was blowing through the dusty corridors of the Ministry. It was, if I may change the metaphor, getting to grips for the first time with the twentieth century. But, of course, tradition dies hard, and it is no reflection on the present Ministry to say that there is a very difficult job of catching up on the wasted years, particularly when the pressure of immediate transport problems is so very great, as we all agree. But it is not clear exactly what research is being carried on and under whose auspices and that proper use is being made of transport experts in the universities and elsewhere.
I am not concerned this evening primarily with either traffic engineering or with the technical research being carried on in each transport field, for example, the research which the Road Research Laboratory has been doing for a long time. I am concerned with economic studies. Perhaps I may be allowed in passing to ask one question only of the Parliamentary Secretary. In answer to a Parliamentary Question on 27th February last, the Minister said that adequate facilities existed in the universities for post-graduate training in highway and traffic engineering. The need, he said, was to stimulate the demand for these places. We certainly need more traffic engineers. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary would be good enough to say what his Ministry is doing to encourage people to take up these studies and whether any special incentives are being provided.
Turning to the economic studies in transport, there are, as there always are, both the long-term and short-term problems. The Hall Report pinpoints this. Perhaps "pinpoints" is not quite the right word, because it is all rather confused and muddled. In paragraph 73 the Hall Report speaks of two fundamental problems and then goes on to list five.
I am not going to argue the Report on that. It may be a hotch-potch, but out of the hotch-potch emerges a question which is a good one. It is the 403 question of the total long-term investment in transport which is required to achieve the minimum target of a 4 per cent. economic growth, including the regional distribution of this investment. This is the crux of the matter as far as transport policy is concerned. We must be planning at least 20 years ahead, as the title of the Hall Report implies.
What we want to know is what sort of transport system we shall need in the 1980's and 1990's and what distribution of population and industry it will be required to serve. This is not an academic approach or a visionary one. The under-developed areas of the world in their decisions about their economic and industrial structure certainly look at least as far ahead and no transport planner worthy of his name summoned to Karachi or Accra would dare to start work on transport without finding out the answers to these basic economic questions of development. Nor would he think his job was properly done unless he had succeeded in outlining a plan of a transport system which would reach its peak of efficiency in 20 or perhaps 25 years ahead.
I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to say exactly what research is being carried out in this field of essential strategic transport planning. Perhaps at this point I could also ask him three questions about short-term issues. In March the Minister promised that further studies would be commissioned into the development and application of cost-benefit techniques. Could we know what has since been done?
In March also the Minister said that he was actively considering how studies on the costs incurred by transport operators can best contribute to the development of transport policy. Here, again, can we know how far active consideration has gone?
Finally, on these short term issues, at the beginning of April, in reply to a Question on the application of transport policy to industrial and residential development, the Minister said that this was being considered. Could we know from the Parliamentary Secretary how far consideration has gone? I am not asking for the results of the research—that would be nonsense as it would take years—but I should like to know if it 404 has begun. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not take refuge tonight in the Buchanan Report. This has already become almost the passport of the Minister to a quiet life. "Wait for it" he says, as if when we have it all our problems will wither away. I am sure it is an admirable Report, but it deals with only one aspect of the problem and there are many others.
What about the means of getting this research done? I should like the hon. Gentleman to place some facts on record. What about his own Ministry? Is Sir Robert Hall still the Ministry's economic adviser and is he responsible for the long term strategic economic research, or is the Report all we are likely to get from him? What about Mr. Winston, who, I believe, is the statistical officer; what is his sphere of responsibility? What about the general division of the Ministry itself? I should like to know how many trained economists there are working in the division on research.
I shall be interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments on this. I should have thought there was much to be said for having someone of deputy secretary level with a direct and continuing responsibility for research. I should like to think that there is always someone at the Minister's right hand. Until recently the Ministry has had the reputation for not showing a great deal of imagination and initiative in this field. Most of the enterprise has come from elsewhere. I should like to know how far this has been remedied.
This leads me to the rôle of the universities in economic transport problems. When one considers how much is spent on agricultural economics, the amount spent on transport economics is pitiful. Earlier this evening we had a debate on the White Fish Authority and my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) proposed an economic research unit into the question of white fish. I always have great respect for his views, but it would be ridiculous if we found ourselves spending more money on research to achieve leadership in the white fish industry than we were spending into research on transport. That is not so ridiculous a fear as it may sound.
In the universities there is the Institute of Transport endowment at Oxford and the Rees Jeffreys endowments at London 405 and in the Institute of Applied Economics at Cambridge. I would be surprised, however, if the total expenditure on transport economics in the universities is more than £25,000 a year. I shall be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary can correct me and give another figure. Can he also say whether money can be found in the new universities for this purpose and if he has discussed this matter with his colleagues?
An item appeared for the first tune in this year's Estimates. Under subhead F of the Transport Estimates there is £10 provided for research into transport economics, but so far as I know there has been no supplementary estimate for the financial year ending next April, and therefore there can be no expenditure on transport economics until April, 1964. This is disturbing. If that is so, why put in this item? Surely it is not because the Ministry cannot find a useful way of spending money on transport economics? On a very generous estimate, I would say that we are spending perhaps £100,000 a year on this type of research. This is a negligible sum. On the London traffic survey we are spending £½ million. If we can spend £½ million on the London traffic survey, surely we can spend a little more on research here at home? I would like to believe that, if the traffic survey is extended, a greater effort should be made to bring in home-grown research experts on traffic problems so that they will gain experience and not simply leave the present American firm to do the whole job.
I am concerned with the whole question of co-ordination of research on transport. I know that I must not go on for more than a few more minutes. I know also how easy it would be to produce a formula which would look very good on paper and might even sound convincing in a speech but which would be in no way related to the practical jobs of administration and of government. I am certainly not in favour of another committee of men and women of good will, the main purpose of which would be to act as a buffer between the Minister and the many pressure groups outside.
Nevertheless, these things being said, I wonder whether the present machinery for economic research is adequate and whether we might not perhaps have a 406 transport research council which would work closely with the general division of the Ministry and bring in experts from outside. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say that this will be a job for the National Economic Development Council. The truth is that the National Economic Development Council is not doing the work and has no plans for doing so in the near future. We do not know what its future is, for that matter, and it has not got the facilities or the resources, although perhaps things will change in a year or two. This being so, would the Parliamentary Secretary consider the possibility of an economic research council? I am not being dogmatic, but it seems to me a suggestion worth bearing in mind. It would then initiate studies and find and disburse money for them.
By common consent Britain needs a growing economy. By common consent also this depends upon having an efficient transport system. Transport has in the past lent itself to many dogmatic and doctrinaire attitudes from all sides which are not necessarily conducive to getting the efficiency we ultimately require. This being so, I would like to believe that there are plans already in the Ministry for ensuring that we get more research into the economics of transport and that this research is better directed and is in the right places.
§ 11.53 p.m.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith)The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers) has made an interesting and stimulating speech. He has already shown his interest in this subject by the several Questions which he has asked arising out of the Hall Report. He was good enough to write and tell me some of the other points he wished to raise tonight.
As we have heard, these are all really related to various ways of ensuring that we get the right answer to our transport problems by carrying out adequate research. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's courtesy in informing me beforehand of his interest and of the points that he wanted to raise. I will do the best I can to give him a comprehensive answer showing the Ministry's current research policy. In doing this I shall try to cover his points, but this is a wide 407 subject and in the time available I do not wish to get embroiled too much in details when the important thing is to show—I think I can do this to the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction—that we are well aware of the need for research and, indeed, use it increasingly as a means of formulating the forward-looking policy which I think characterises not only the Ministry of Transport but indeed the whole Government.
Before dealing with research and the use we make of it, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that the request for more research is sometimes only an excuse for delay. A good example of what I mean is the demand, to which the hon. Gentleman himself referred, from some hon. Members opposite that there should be no major reshaping of the railways until a complete survey has been made of the country's whole transport needs.
I do not want, tonight, to embark on a general discussion of transport policy, but this sort of reaction seems to be a classic example of demanding research to procure delay. We do not really need to know more. The facts already available concerning the railways show the necessity of reducing the railway deficit. Indeed, as to the bulk of the railways' proposals for closure, it is impossible to think that further research would, in general, lead to different conclusions about what should be done. I emphasise "in general". In any subject, we may not know the answers to everything, but we often know enough to be getting on with, and in a practical world it is necessary not to make a god of research.
To a certain extent, I agree partly with the hon. Member and partly with the former head of the Department whom he quoted. The best, here as in anything else, is often the enemy of the good, if only because it takes so long to discover what is absolutely right. If I can give the hon. Member a homely example, perhaps he will understand what I mean. A young married couple living with their in-laws may not know exactly the right place to go and live, but they do know that it is right to make a change and find somewhere of their own to live.
In its leading article on 15th July, The Times recognised this in referring 408 to the difficulty of formulating all that needs to be done about transport in one comprehensive plan. This sort of completely comprehensive plan is really not "on".
I have spent what the hon. Member may regard as too much time on a rather negative approach because there is danger in people becoming research mad. We have to keep moving. We cannot stop the world until we are ready to go forward on all points simultaneously. When it is clear that something should be done now, there is no need to wait for comprehensive research. Therefore, for example, we stepped up the rate of road building without waiting for a report on it. Because I say this, however, perhaps by way of warning, does not mean that I do not recognise that there are many directions where research is helpful. An example of this is the inquiry which we have just initiated into the licensing of road haulage.
What we have to aim at in the Ministry is to keep a balance between action and research. It sometimes even happens—and this, I think, is what the former secretary, whom the hon. Member quoted, was getting at—that only when dealing with a problem in practice can one see where the difficulties lie, what additional information would be helpful and where more research is needed.
In transport, therefore, research is best concentrated in a way that will help us to solve problems of policy and planning that actually exist. It is not a field, like science or medicine, in which pure research is likely to lead to a dramatic breakthrough. The Hall Report, on which the hon. Member was commenting the whole time, recognised this. It began with a statement of the fundamental problems facing the Ministry and it proceeded to discuss possible lines of research. This is the way we work in the Ministry. The first thing is to find the facts.
As an example of what I mean by that, I should like to refer to the problem of transport in cities, which was particularly mentioned in the Hall Report. Here, the difficulty is to get a solution that gives the right balance between the various conflicting interests. There is the desire of individuals, naturally, to travel more or less where and when they 409 want. There is the desire of trade and commerce to collect and deliver goods at times convenient to themselves. There is the need to avoid waste when investing in transport and there is also the importance of seeing, at the same time, that our cities are places in which to live.
Those are the problems. To answer them, we have to find out such things as the future pattern of personal travel, the strength of people's preferences for different forms of travel, the future needs for the movement of goods, the pattern of transport facilities today and the costs of adding to them in various ways—in fact, all the information that can come from a comprehensive transport survey. But even when we have all the facts from such a survey, we need to have techniques for abstracting from this knowledge what would be the best pattern of transport facilities; how many roads or railways are needed, what is the right "mix" between public and private transport, and so on.
Economic analyses must be applied to the information obtained from surveys to find out what systems will give the right balance between costs to the community and benefits to travellers. There are, therefore, over the whole range of transport, two stages; research that will enable the facts to be got and research that will enable the right lessons to be drawn from them. A good deal of research has been going on in an endeavour to discover the facts. There is the Hall Report, which gives the general outlook for traffic in 1981 and then, for the railways, there is the Beeching Report, which has tried to discover the traffics which the railways should carry and to evolve the methods by which they should compete for that traffic and to plan the necessary reshaping of the railway system. This is an important piece of research and one that has been carried out by a transport operator, which is as it should be because transport operators are just as much concerned with research as are the Government.
From the urban point of view, a lot of research is going on. Soon we will have the Buchanan Report with its wide implications for city life. The hon. Member will be glad to hear that that is the only reference I shall make to the Buchanan Report. As the House 410 knows, the Ministry of Transport and the London County Council jointly commissioned the London Traffic Survey, which will give detailed information of future traffic needs to enable us to relate these to changes in employment, residential patterns, and so on.
The hon. Member referred to the question of associating British experts in the extension of the work on this survey. They are already part of it, for the survey is being undertaken by American and British consultants working together. The reason for employing Americans is because they have experience of dealing with problems which will not hit us for another generation or so. We think that this use of Americans produces useful cross-fertilisation and, in order to spread knowledge widely, other Government Departments as well as transport operators are being associated with the survey.
The same sort of thing is happening in the provinces; for example the results of the Merseyside Survey should be ready this year and others will be following soon after that. However, I think that it is best for the lead to be taken by the; local authorities because they have responsibilities for general planning, highways and traffic. In this respect, I am glad to be able to say that my own City of Glasgow has taken the initiative in requesting such a comprehensive survey for the Clyde Valley.
Naturally, in all of this the Ministry of Transport has an important part to play, not only in encouraging a start on the surveys but in working closely with local authorities in carrying them through. Parallel with all these special studies, there is a continuing programme of research designed to find out more about long-term trends in transport, which is going on all the time. Two major new inquiries have recently been undertaken. One is a large-scale sample survey of road goods transport and the other is a continuing series of surveys of the ownership and use of private cars.
It is all a problem of getting at the facts. We are being fairly active, but the problem of the other side of the coin appears to be mainly in the mind of the hon. Member; that is, the question of how, once the facts are obtained, 411 the techniques of analysing them are being improved and how research in this sense is being speeded on.
Here, as the hon. Gentleman realises, the Ministry cannot make all the running itself. Many of the skills required are those of economists. Therefore, for this sort of interpretative work we intend to rely to a great extent on outside sources, such as the universities. Of course, transport research in the universities is still a young subject, but it is developing in two ways. The first is in the growth of traffic engineering from engineering proper into wider questions of the economics of transport, pricing, and so on. Secondly, there is increasing interest in transport as a subject of its own within the overall field of economics.
The hon. Gentleman asked what we were doing to improve the demand, and we are trying to step up demand by emphasising to local authorities the value of making greater use of traffic engineers. The development that is going on is very helpful to us, and the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the Ministry has been strengthening its links with the universities, and a useful two-way traffic in ideas is developing. Sometimes we describe the problem that needs solution, and sometimes the idea for new projects comes from the research workers themselves.
A sign of the importance we attach to this sort of development is that this year, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, money has been specially voted for research. It is only a token sum, of course, because 412 we did not know how much is to be spent, but we intend to make use of it. That does not mean that we are setting out to control or finance all research work in transport. It would be a great pity if the universities did not develop some research of their own. What it does mean is that, in collaboration with the universities, we plan to use this Vote to stimulate more research and, where appropriate, to commission specific studies which we hope will help us in making policy decisions. An example of this is that we have just commissioned with British Railways a cost-benefit study of investment in a railway electrification scheme.
That leads me to the question of research into cost-benefit raised by the hon. Gentleman, and the techniques that have to be examined. I have mentioned one example already, but there is also the Victoria line. The Road Research Laboratory has also done a good deal of work on this technique in relation to roads. At the same time, in developing these new techniques, we do not forget the need to develop better ways of measuring the commercial return on investment, and we are engaged in studying this with the nationalised industries now—
§ The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at eight minutes past Twelve o'clock