TRANSPORT (EXPENDITURE)

HC Deb 01 May 1975 vol 891 cc747-88

4.24 p.m.

Mr James Boyden (Bishop Auckland)

I beg to move, That this House takes note of the First Report from the Expenditure Committee in the last Parliament (House of Commons Paper No. 269) on Public Expenditure on Transport and of the relevant Government observations contained in the Fourth Special Report (House of Commons Paper No. 263) in this Session. This debate refers to the First Report from the Expenditure Committee 1974 which was published on 17th July 1974—namely, the Public Expenditure Committee's Report on transport—and the Fourth Special Report from the Expenditure Committee setting out the observations of the Department of the Environment, published on 5th March 1975. It is the first report made since I became Chairman of the Expenditure Committee, having been a member of that Committee since its inception.

The circumstances in which the Sub-Committee's began their work in 1974 were rather peculiar. It was obvious that that Parliament would be fairly short and that long investigations and reports would not come to very much.

When I became Chairman, I asked the Sub-Committees whether they would carry out short investigations so that the work of that Session of Parliament could be most effective. The Sub-Committees more than fulfilled my expectations. Every Sub-Committee carried out the work quickly and well. Their investigations were short and they all produced the most excellent reports—not least the report of the Sub Committee on Transport, which was chaired by Mr. James Allason, who is no longer a Member of this House. I pay tribute to the work of Mr. Allason in connection with that investigation and the report of his Sub-Committee and the study which it undertook. Mr. Allason was the Chairman of the Environment Sub-Committee for a considerable time. He took a great interest in the subject and steered his Committee through many sets of documents and produced extremely good reports. It was his last piece of work as a Member of Parliament, and I am sure the House will pay tribute to him. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."].

The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) took over chairmanship from Mr. Allason. The hon. Member for Daventry is continuing the good work, and his Committee is about to produce a report on the London Docklands. I hope that before long that report will come before the House for debate.

I have seldom seen better work in a Parliament from the Expenditure Committee than the work it has carried out in that rather short Parliament. Its members have been most diligent. The Committee's work does not appeal to everybody. The work is given very little publicity unless it deals with something sensational. The normal work is objective and non-partisan and does not attract publicity. I believe that some Ministers would be able to make a reputation for themselves if they diligently followed some of the suggestions which have come from these Committees. They would not necessarily have to undertake a great amount of work since much of it has been done for them. It is extraordinary how collectively members of a committee can often produce a better result than the total effort by individuals in it. That is partly because the Expenditure Committee and its Sub-Committees are extremely well served by their staff. They have specialist staff who are expert in their subjects, and they have devoted service from the Parliamentary Clerks. A combination of effort has produced very good reports which often deserve greater publicity and interest than they are accorded.

I am very pleased with the work of the Sub-Committees. The bulk of that work was carried out in what one can refer to as "the short Parliament". This work had been undertaken and brought to a conclusion, in contrast with the regrettable delays of some Departments in commenting on those reports. It is not much good a Committee of the House making a report if the Department concerned is supine for a long time afterwards. There have been considerable delays from some of the Departments in making their observations. Some Ministers have apologised to me for these delays. Normally I do not think it is the Minister's fault. It is often due to the fact that senior officials in the Department do not bring Ministers' attention to key points in a report and to the need for ministerial action.

In contrast to criticisms in general terms of some Departments, there are two Departments in particular and two Ministers who have been extremely active in dealing with the Committee's reports. For example, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture—whom we heard a few moments ago add to his reputation with his report on his recent visit to Brussels—acted quickly following the Sub-Committee's investigation into the subject of milk and followed up a number of the Committee's recommendations.

The same can be said of the Ministry of Defence and its co-operation with the Expenditure Committee. In a sense the Ministry of Defence has a more difficult task because of the element of security involved in its work. It is a widespread Department, and it is easy to pick holes in it, but the Defence Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee has an excellent relationship with the Ministry of Defence from its liaison officers right through to the Minister of State for Defence, who was active in the Expenditure Committee and who has taken a considerable interest in the day-to-day work of the Defence Sub-Committee. He has acted in his ministerial capacity on many of the Committee's proposals. Senior permanent officials and senior military officers and Chiefs of Staff and commanders-in-chief have taken a very responsible attitude in respect of the work of the Sub-Committee.

I mention this in contrast to work undertaken by other Departments where there has been a lack of response and thereby a loss to the country and to the administrative competence of the Department concerned. Good administration does not necessarily come to the notice of television or the Press but it is extremely important for good government.

The Sub-Committees of the Expenditure Committee have worked continuously to improve the economies of expenditure and ensure good administration. I wish to make a strong plea to Ministers generally to take a more active personal interest in the work of the Committees and to see that their senior officials do so as well.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House often comes in for criticism, but from the point of view of the Expenditure Committee we were extremely grateful to him for affording us this half-day debate. We hope that we shall have a further half-day debate, for a debate of that duration is more suitable when the House discusses the work of the Expenditure Committee than is a full day's debate. We hope that, following what was said in business questions today, the debate on the Expenditure White Paper will soon take place, because the General Committee of the Expenditure Committee has spent a good deal of time on that matter and has a contribution to make.

I shall leave it to the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Public Expenditure on Transport to deal with most of the matters in that report, but I want to comment on four of the recommendations.

The first matter is a recommendation dealing with the presentation of the Government's forward planning on spending so that the public may have a clearer idea of what the Government are doing. I refer here to paragraph 11 of the report. The Committee says: We feel that an annual presentation of public expenditure should show clearly whether resources are being spent in accordance with Government policy. That is one of the key features of the reports of the Expenditure Committee and Public Accounts Committee, that Government policy should be carried out to the letter by the Departments, and that these Committees should be in a very clear position to see that that is so.

The report goes on to say: At the moment, that policy requires that resources are diverted to public transport. Although the proposed system under discussion would be able to give a comprehensive picture, we do not think it will show the balance of this expenditure. The recommendation is: that any revised presentation of the Roads and Transport table contained in the annual Public Expenditure White Paper should demonstrate whether the balance of expenditure is in accordance with Government policy. The Department of the Environment in the Fourth Special Report, commenting on that, said that it had altered the presentation of the figures, which now gave a better picture of the division between local government expenditure and central Government expenditure. Unfortunately, it has still some way to go.

What is required—and I would ask my hon. Friend who is to reply if he will take a note of this—is an absolutely clear picture of the objectives of Government expenditure and how this arises. Therefore, it needs probably more breaking down in relation to, for example, local government expenditure.

I had a paper today from the British Road Federation commenting on this particular recommendation, and agreeing with the Committee. It said: It is therefore possible to see clearly the balance of expenditure but this is not sufficient to judge the balance of Government policy. What is important is not only the amount of money spent but the results in terms of service provided. It is therefore meaningless to compare the road programme, which produces a measurable benefit in economic terms and represents an addition to the transport services available, with subsidies which shield public transport passengers for a short period from the true costs of the services provided and have little or no effect on transport provision or traffic carried. I reject the implication that there should not be subsidies for public transport. The implication of the British Road Federation, with a vested interest, is that the money is going down the drain. I reject that but I would say to my hon. Friend that there is still room within the presentation of the figures to see exactly the Government's policy and how the money is being arrived at, and also to make an element of cost comparison, so that the cost benefits of particular lines of transport policy come out very clearly.

This brings me to the second recommendation on which I have very serious criticisms to make of the Department and of local authorities in relation to road maintenance. The Marshall Report has been with us for a considerable time. At the time that it was produced it was hailed as an excellent report on road maintenance and it was felt that all that was needed was an energetic carrying-out of the recommendations. But under scrutiny from the Expenditure Committee before this one, and this one also, there has been very little progress.

I would refer to the particular recommendation of the Committee in paragraph 28: We recommend that as a matter of urgency the DOE should now concentrate on revising their criteria for assessing the appropriate levels of public expenditure on road maintenance, along the lines of the objective standards referred to by the Marshall Committee. In doing this, they should seek comparability with the criteria used in assessing the need for new construction". About one third of road transport expenditure goes into maintenance, and any hon. Member going round the country will see that, far from accepting the objectives of the Marshall Report, a great many local authorities have taken no notice at all; and some of the things done in the name of road maintenance pass comprehension.

The Committee also made a recommendation that until these objective standards were worked out and the Government really knew what they were getting for their road maintenance money, the road figures should be frozen. That has happened, but I take to task the Department of Transport in its comment on that particular recommendation of the Committee. It is a very weak answer. Under the observations, in paragraph 5 of the Fourth Special Report, it is stated: Further work is in hand towards setting objective maintenance standards for roads and, where appropriate, common techniques will be applied to the assessment of the economic value of road maintenance and of road building", and it says that local authorities have been asked to hold maintenance expenditure.

Finally, defending in a way the lack of drive in this field by local authorities it says: It is for the authority directly concerned to determine its priorities in maintenance and how the necessary operations can best be carried out. DOE and the local authorities are working jointly to ensure that maintenance is cost effective. That particular paragraph is a very typical civil servants' stalling paragraph and does not show the urgent consideration that the Committee wished. It complacently accepts that the Marshall Report had been on the table for a very long time and that very little can be done about it. I do not know that accepting the Marshall recommendations will produce a miraculous improvement in efficiency but certainly it is the only obvious line of getting more roads, or less payment for the same roads, that is on the horizon. I would ask my hon. Friend to give a really firm instruction to his Department to get local authorities moving on this and intervene himself in an effective way.

I would make here the criticism that the same thing applies to the Department's attitude on car parking policy. The Committee considered this very carefully and in paragraph 15 recommended a much stronger lead from the Department on a national parking policy. It said: We therefore recommend that except in the case of park and ride facilities, parking deficites be moved from the list of items eligible for supplementary grant". The point behind that is that the Committee wanted much more effective intervention by the Department in relation to parking, and a proper national policy for this. The elaboration of that is in paragraph 17, and here again the observations of the Department were very lukewarm: Since rate support grant is a general grant towards a wide range of local authority expenditure, the Government do not consider it appropriate to introduce legislation to make expenditure on car parks ineligible for rate support grant purposes. Nor is it thought appropriate to require local authority approval of all matters concerning off-street car parking to be subject to the approval of the strategic authority". Here the Department is completely stalling on the recommendation of the Committee and obviously no action can be envisaged. Here again I ask my hon. Friend to have another look, to see whether a national parking policy supplemented by financial action from the centre is not desirable.

Much the same can be said about canals, and this is the last point to which I wish to draw particular atttention. At paragraph 13 the Committee said: We note that expenditure on canals is nevertheless an ineligible category of expenditure for transport supplementary grant. The upkeep of canals is an integral part of transport and probably a more important part. The Committee recommended that this exclusion should be reconsidered. In paragraph 3 of the Fourth Special Report the Department of the Environment gives that the brush-off by saying Canal expenditures are primarily the responsibility of the British Waterways Board. The Department does not wish to intervene.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

Does my hon. Friend note that at the end of that excuse the Department says that the grant would serve no useful purpose? Does not he agree that capital grants for new or improved canals which carry commercial traffic in private and public vessels would be analogous to such grants for expenditure on roads? Would not that be a great advantage? So far no Government have agreed with that analogy, but I hope that the Minister will clear it up at the end of the debate.

Mr. Boyden

Yes, indeed. The Committee is an all-party Committee and not in any way doctrinal. It argues for more Government intervention to achieve a better integrated policy. I thank my hon. Friend for his support.

The Committee is looking for snore vigorous intervention from the Department to achieve integration, and the use of financial controls so that the best available policies, particularly the Marshall recommendations, are applied throughout the country. That will produce economy and efficiency. If the Minister is not in a position to reply today, I hope that we shall have another set of observations which will be more forthcoming.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones (Daventry)

The generous remarks made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) on the work of the Environment Sub-Committee will be widely appreciated. I am sorry that my former colleague Mr. James Allason is not present to hear those remarks, but I am sure that they will be appreciated both by him when he reads them and by some of my hon. Friends who are here this afternoon and who served on the Committee when the evidence was taken and the report was prepared. I was not fortunate enough to be serving on the Committee at the time. I served until the February General Election and then had a break until the Parliament of last November. I previously followed the work of the Committee and am happy to be associated with it again now.

I looked with interest at the Committee's report and at its recommendations. I accept, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said, that there is a lapse of time between the publication of a Select Committee Report and the date when the recommendations are commented upon. The First Report was printed on 17th July 1974 and commented upon on 7th March this year. Perhaps that is not an undue length of time, bearing in mind the present circumstances. I welcome some of the comments made by the Department.

I wish to touch on three major matters covered in the report, namely, major road routes, maintenance and transport policy generally. I shall relate some of my comments to experience on the ground in the light of the implementation of the recommendations of the Select Committee and the Department's comments.

There is increasing and widespread concern over the demands made upon land by further major highway routes. I came closely in touch with this when the extended route of the M40 was under discussion. I accept the principle set out in Cmnd. 5879 "Public Expenditure to 1978–79", in paragraph 6 on page 62: The planned network of 3,500 miles of high quality strategic routes by the early 1980s announced in 1971 is no longer practicable. Instead resources are being concentrated on the completion of a basic 3,100 mile network of routes designed particularly to respond to the use of heavy lorries; ". I welcome that concept. Major road routes could give heavy lorry facilities within a restricted distance from towns so that it is possible to route heavy lorries and vehicles of that description away from towns and on to the major routes with comparative ease over limited distances. That was the policy of the Conservative administration. That policy should be followed and we should work towards it by a system of recommended or mandatory routes.

The First Report from the Expenditure Committee in paragraph 39 recommends: further examination of the effect of the real costs of motoring and traffic growth in the preparation of investment plans. We note that the provision of more road space and improved facilities in general encourages the growth of traffic. That view is widely held. It is said that the more roads are built, the more traffic will be generated and the greater will be the use of those roads. I am pleased to see that view referred to specifically in a recommendation. It is a matter of public concern that the development of more and more road routes may be detrimental in the long term, bearing in mind land use and vehicle generation.

The Oxfordshire branch of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England was sceptical about the need for the extended M40 route from Oxford to Birmingham. It was of particular concern in Oxfordshire and in my own constituency in Northamptonshire. That is why I particularly welcome in the Observations of the Department on the First Report a reference to the fact that a considerable amount of work is to be done in assessing the need for these routes.

The M1-A1 link is a matter in which I have been considerably involved in recent months. There are five choices, but the main proposal is for a link from the M1 in the vicinity of the Crick exit across Northamptonshire, leading to the A6, crossing the A6 and linking with the Al to provide a more effective link to the East Coast ports. This route goes across the open country of North Northamptonshire and it has a very serious effect on the high-value agricultural land in that area. It is certainly very damaging in terms of the effect it would have on the amenity of the countryside. It passes either immediately north or immediately south of the famous village of Naseby. I understand that if it takes the northerly route, it will run right across the site of the Naseby battlefield.

I am sure that the Department should be directing its attention to whether it would not be much more sensible to use the southern-bound carriageway of the MI down to the Collingtree exit, which lies west of Northampton, and to use the dual carriageway which is under construction from the Collingtree exit eastwards, south of Northampton, to a position roughly south of Wellingborough, where it would join the A6, cross the A6 and then go over into Huntingdonshire. There is almost unanimous support for this proposal from colleagues on both sides of the House.

I turn to the criteria—which I know have been altered in recent years—with regard to the assessment of the capacity of roads. I put down a Question which was answered on 26th November 1974. I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, What prospective traffic densities are being used in his recommendations regarding the character and route of the MI-Al link road; and what space capacity is anticipated on the south-bound lanes of the MI between the Crick and Collingtree junctions. The Under-Secretary replied, The traffic anticipated on the MI-Al link in 1995 would be about 10,000 vehicles daily, though around Kettering and Wellingborough it would rise to 15,000-20,000 vehicles. By then the M I between Crick and Collingtree will be nearing the limit of its capacity."— [Official Report, 26th November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 150.] Therefore, we know the estimate of the capacity of the south-bound carriageway of the M1 up to 1995. Surely in terms of the sensible use of public resources we should be utilising the southbound carriageway of the M1 to its capacity, using the dual carriageway which is under construction south of Northampton, taking us to a position south of Wellingborough and then linking up with one of the recommended routes of the Department for the Ml-Al link.

When the recommendations were put forward both by the Department and by the Northamptonshire County Council, it was on the assumption that the south bound carriageway of the M1 was already overloaded. In the subsequent recommendations we have not had any recognition of the fact that, following the change in the criteria of traffic density, we shall have under-utilised capacity on the M1 south-bound carriageway for the next 20 years.

The dual carriageway south of Northampton is under construction and the expense is committted. That is against the recommendation that the MI-Al link across North-Northamptonshire was to be only a single carriageway. This is what led many of us to question the validity of the Department's proposals and to suggest this alternative. In that respect we had an extremely interesting exhibition—I think that is what it was called—at Kettering, at which the Minister for Transport was present. This was part of a consultative exercise which was widely welcomed in Northamptonshire, as was the consultative exercise that we had for the route of the M40. I welcome the recommendation in the First Report at paragraph 59, where it says, We recommend that the right to challenge the need for a transport scheme at a public inquiry should be firmly established. That was denied when the M40 consultative exercise was under way, but I am pleased to see that that recommendation has now been accepted by the Department, which in paragraph 9 of its observations says, The Government agrees that the need for a road scheme may appropriately be challenged at a public inquiry, provided that matters of policy are not called into question. There we have the assurance that the detailed application of this principle is being studied. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to confirm the further thinking in that respect.

The M40 exercise was the first one of its character ever undertaken. I believe that it was an enlightened move on the part of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) who was Secretary of State at the time, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) who was at the time the Member for Meriden. That is a useful step forward.

Turning to public expenditure on roads, I should like to refer to "Public Expenditure 1978–79", Cmnd. 5879, which reports growing expenditure on the new construction and improvement of motorways and trunk roads. It is surprising, in the context of an announcement by the Minister in June of last year, that roads are no longer a growth programme. Cmnd. 5879 indicates a rise between 1974–75 and 1978–79 of 2.1 per cent. per annum. This should be placed in the context of an actual decline in the use of motor spirit as I understand it, in the first nine months of 1974 of 4.4 per cent.

I wish to emphasise that by a careful analysis of the improved use of existing roads and highway management schemes generally, what we should be directing ourselves towards is a more effective use of the facilities that we already have. I take the point that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland made about road maintenance. The Expenditure Sub-Committee made recommendations which the hon. Gentleman quoted. He also quoted from the departmental observations, and I should like to add a further quotation which I do not think he cited, namely that Local authorities have been asked to hold road maintenance expenditures in 1975–76, in common with other of their current expenditures, to the 1974–75 level, and Rate Support Grant has been settled on the basis that they will do so. I should like the Under-Secretary to say what is the definition of road maintenance. Is it just repairs or does it include improvements of roads by way of fortifying shoulders of roads, slightly widening them, the regrading of roads or the taking out of bends and so on? I am not sure whether that is maintenance as such or whether it comes under the designation of improvements. A great deal of work is done by highway authorities to take out a slight bend here and improve a minor matter there. They do it because it is minor expenditure in the whole programme, but for the aggregate cost of these items a significant improvement could be carried out, rather than fiddling with minor maintenance projects. We all see many examples as we go about the countryside.

I turn to the recommendation on page xi that information on transport noise and pollution levels be added to the information required in the presentation of TPPs. The Department was sympathetic to this suggestion. In paragraph 4 of its reply it said, As to noise and pollution, the design features which will produce a road which best fits into the local environment and at the most economic cost are particular to the locality concerned and are subject to the normal statutory planning processes. That may be so, but most environmental damage and noise and pollution problems arise on existing roads. I think particularly of roads through villages, not necessarily main roads but roads increasingly used by heavy lorries whose drivers are seeking short cuts or are seeking to avoid routes with dense traffic on them.

The effect on the villages is very damaging. There are not adequate foundations, with the result that there is tremendous damage to the roads, which were not constructed to carry the heavy traffic now using them. The footpaths, kerbs and verges are destroyed, and property close to the highway is damaged by vibration from the engines and the traffic movement.

In terms of highway management, much could be done by quicker implementation of recommended and mandatory routes. It is done around Northampton, in my constituency, where, to protect the villages, construction vehicles are prohibited from certain routes. I know of one or two villages where heavy vehicles which could be kept out are causing significant damage. I think particularly of Kings Sutton in South Northamptonshire, which is not on a major route but through which heavy vehicles travel because the drivers are using as a short cut the road upon which the village lies.

By improved management and economy in expenditure on roads, by using routes more fully and choosing those which should be used more comprehensively, we could do a great deal to avoid public expenditure or to redirect the available resources. I hope that the Under-Secretary can tell us that this aspect of highway expenditure and traffic management is receiving urgent consideration in his Department. We have had promises, but they are long term in their effect and people are understandably demanding and expecting that central Government, who have the responsibility, will accept that responsibility and do what is in their power to bring about significant improvements.

Highway management is important in the context of limited resources. We have seen tremendous advances in it in recent years. I hope that we shall see a much more effective policy by both central and local government in transport matters.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield (Nuneaton)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) and his Committee and the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) and his hon. Friends, and those who have been members of the Committee at various stages, on producing a report which makes significant and salient points. The report hammers home the point I have been trying to make on many occasions—that it appears that we still do not have an overall transport policy.

When I see the detail into which the report goes, such as the eleventh recommendation, making the point that we still do not have the equipment, the yardsticks, to compare various kinds of transport investment, I feel that the report has hit upon one of the central matters lacking in present transport policy.

I now declare my interest. I recently submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the report of a transport study committee which he set up a couple of years ago. That report also recommends far more co-ordination of investment and pricing policy in transport.

I also speak as a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union who also acts in the House on behalf of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. I am sure that both unions would agree that we do not seem yet to have a transport policy. Ever since we have had the gigantic Department of the Environment the emergence of such a policy seems to have been one of the casualties. Many of us are still waiting for the emananation from Mar-sham Street of the White Paper which might set out the Government's intentions on transport. We have waited a long time. We shall go on applying pressure, and some of the recommendations in this significant report will help in that.

The point to which my hon. Friend has already referred, the recommendation in paragraph 11, that in their presentation the tables should be made much more akin to each other, is also made by the study group of which I was the chairman. We went a little further, and recommended a thoroughgoing analysis of all modes of transport. We recommended that the allocation, or modal split, of transport should be based upon a total analysis of operating costs in each mode. We came to the conclusion that it was not just the economic costs, the private costs, of each mode of transport that should be examined, but also the social and environmental costs.

The Department should have been applying itself to a thoroughgoing analysis of all these costs. I not believe that it has done any co-ordination of even the pricing and investment policies of the industries for which it has direct responsibility, or that it has gone far enough into the analysis of some of the social and environmental costs, which I am pleased to see the report says should be brought into transport policy and programme documents.

I return to the recommendation in paragraph 11, which I feel is central, and which, like my hon. Friend, I do not think the Department has sufficiently answered. To say that it has changed the tables a little does not go sufficiently along the way towards meeting the point made by the report and by my hon. Friend.

My report recommends a national transport authority to do the analysis. We must move towards a transport policy which enables the economic, social and environmental costs of each mode of transport to be thoroughly analysed and examined and the taxes, levies and duties on each form of transport to be adjusted accordingly. That is the only kind of transport policy which makes sense to me. The Department does not even seem to be co-ordinating those parts of the transport industry and transport expenditure for which it has complete responsibility. Separate sections of the Department are responsible for railways policy, road policy and waterways policy. My Committee report made the point that 40 per cent. of the investment submissions recently made by the British Railways Board would not achieve a 10 per cent. rate of return.

As a one-time member of the Select Committee on Expenditure, which examined the motorways and trunk roads programmes, I know that it was nonplussed at the way in which the Department seemed to be ranking road projects all over the country. When we examine the needless investment on motorways such as the M50 and the two-lane investment on the Watford stretch of the M1, we wonder on what scientific analysis or basis the Department ranks the road priorities.

We have now arrived at a significant point in the history of the Department. Under the Railways Act 1974 the Department has taken over responsibility for providing the track and signalling costs of British Rail, so that it is now responsible for both road and rail track costs. Although the Department is responsible for road and rail track costs—it pays for both—it still cannot work out a rôle for the railways. It still cannot work out what kind of road investment programme we must have. In the meantime the poor old British Waterways Board is told that in respect of every investment which it makes—it does not receive a grant for track costs—not only must it justify the economic return on the projects for which it is making a submission but it must also obtain guarantees from the customers. At least let there be parity of consideration for the various transport modes before we commit ourselves to the kind of expenditure which is involved.

I wish that at least similar comparisons could be made between road and rail, because the Department is now responsible for both road and rail track costs. Unfortunately, since we do not have the same figures, we cannot even make the necessary comparisons which would enable us to decide whether the Department is apportioning expenditure between road and rail on an optimal basis.

Another crucial recommendation of the Committee refers to the need for an interurban directorate. When we examine the inter-urban or inter-city investment which is made in transport infrastructure we may come to the conclusion that one part of the Department does not know what the other part is doing. For example, between London and Glasgow British Rail runs an electrified service, while the National Bus Company runs motorway express services and British Airways runs a shuttle service. I accept that the Department is not responsible for civil aviation policy. However there are three competing modes of transport, all with different pricing policies and different investment strategies. Yet in these days we are supposed to cut back on public expenditure and to have a major "save it" campaign on energy.

There must be co-ordination in the Department. There must be a much more thoroughgoing analysis of the various modes of transport. I do not believe that the British Transport Commission's way of doing this is the best way. I do not believe that the Transport Act 1968 was the best way of doing it. As I said in my Committee's report, I believe that the task should be undertaken more properly by a national transport authority. Perhaps the Department does not do that because spending on transport does not enjoy sufficient priority, or because the Minister of Transport is not a member of the Cabinet. Perhaps that is why we do not give sufficient priority to transport I investment or spending. Even if we decide that we cannot afford to give transport spending sufficient priority, we should at least lay foundations and plans against the time when the economy picks up and there is more transport expenditure. Even if we cannot afford to do so now, I suggest that we cannot afford to neglect future planning.

The report makes the point that there should be more devolution of local transport initiative to local authorities. I am pleased to say that that point is made in the May edition of Socialist Commentary. As a member of the Tribune Group, and as a writer for Tribune, I am not normally an admirer of articles appearing in Socialist Commentary. The piece appearing in the May edition of Socialist Commentary is by Councillor Jim Daly, the newly-elected chairman of the transport committee of the GLC, and makes a good point. It says that there must be devolution of matters such as pedestrian and zebra crossing decisions. The Minister of Transport should not concern himself with whether a road should have traffic lights or a pedestrian crossing. Those are matters which can be properly handled only at a local level by local authorities. I fully support Jim Daly's point that local transport initiatives and similar decisions should be handled at a local level, not by the Department and not by a Minister miles away from the scene. No wonder there is no transport policy when the Minister finds his desk cluttered up with decisions on pedestrian and zebra crossings. No wonder he cannot see the wood for the trees. It is time that local government formed this kind of policy and made these analyses.

Just as there appears to be no national co-ordination of our transport infrastructure or investment policies, there appear to be no local policies. I do not say that in a way which would blame the local authorities, because I do not think that in many cases they have been told what is expected of them. I sympathise with people such as Jim Daly who must take over the running of major transport undertakings. I sympathise with people such as Councillor Stan Yapp, in the West Midlands, and anybody else who has the task of running a large metropolitan county council undertaking or a passenger transport authority. Many of those people are local politicians on county councils who were elected to power on transport-oriented tickets.

The Labour councillors of the Greater London Council came to power on the possibility of introducing a flat-fares scheme. In the West Midlands the county councillors came to power on the premise that it was possible to introduce a fares-free scheme. Many of those councillors were encouraged by the noises which then seemed to emanate from the department.

In those early years of 1973 and 1974 every encouragement was given to local authorities by the Department. The circulars flowed thick and fast. Local authorities were told that they must examine lorry parking, designated routes, discrete routes for lorries under the Dykes Act and trans-shipment depots. They were told that they must examine and produce detailed reports on almost every aspect of local transport policy. To many local authorities this was a big burden because they had never had to work out a transport policy before.

I speak as a Member for a constituency under Warwickshire County Council, which had never had a transport responsibility before. It only had a highways department. But it never had the kind of responsibilities now involved in drawing up a TPP document. So many of the non-metropolitan county councils under the previous encouragement of the Department went to town on transport and drew up impressive-looking and impressive-sounding TPP documents. They took on additional staff. They formed additional committees. They took over more offices because they had not sufficient accommodation. Some very ambitious schemes were put forward by them. Just as places like Warwickshire enthused about what the Department was saying, so also did places like Birmingham and Coventry. It was "all systems go". Now we are told in local government Circular 43/75 of April that nothing can be done unless it is viable.

We get some pretty severe reverses in many aspects of Government policy and some severe reverses by prominent Ministers nowadays. I suppose that that is part and parcel of politics. But when all encouragement is given to local authorities, when all hints are given that they will have the initiative, that they can spend money, that they will need additional staff, for them suddenly to be told that they may have to make everything viable represents a considerable kick in the teeth to places like Birmingham and Coventry, and to places in Warwickshire like my own constituency.

This is the sudden volte-face that we have had by the Department. As I say, it may be that it is because it cannot see the wood for the trees. It may be that it does not realise the effect of its policies up and down the country.

It was not as if local authorities were given that much of a hint of what was to come. We had the letter from the Department to chief executives on 19th December last year. That even mentioned the concept of safeguard thresholds. Looking at the list of projects which would still qualify for transport supplementary grants, a gentle hint was given to local authorities that, although they might have to cut back a bit, nevertheless their higher priority investments would be safeguarded. But, although some hint was given of a cutback, still no hint was given of what was to be contained in Circular 43/75. It was accepted that they had to be nudged slightly about car parking. Nevertheless, generally speaking, the information in the letter was on a very waffling basis.

Then, quite suddenly, the circular 43/75 was issued saying that there was to be no real increase in transport expenditure for the next five years. It said that over that period public transport revenue subsidies had to be cut from £102 million to £50 million. It went on to underline that transport had to be made viable. This presented a very serious problem to authorities like the GLC and the large metropolitan county councils which hitherto had based all their transport assumptions on the basis that they would receive revenue subsidies.

Again, I do not know from where the Department gains its collective wisdom. But it is the case—and we have evidence of it in this country and from the Continent and the United States of America——that one of the most significant causes of people ceasing to use public transport is the increase in fares.

Suddenly the Department comes up with the policy that public transport has to be made viable. But still there is no distinction in the Department's mind or eye between what represents an increase in real resources and what merely represents a transfer payment. In the advice which it gives out, the Department should make a distinction between those revenue subsidies which are merely transfer payments and those capital grant increases which represent increases in real resources.

I recognise that there is a need to shift the overall emphasis from revenue subsidy to capital grant. I do not dispute that. But the decision suddenly to tell authorities like the GLC and the metropolitan county councils that in future they will have to move towards viability in public transport now confronts these authorities with some of the biggest fare increases that they have ever been forced to consider.

This is the kind of policy which authorities are now having to consider. Fortunately for the GLC, it has now changed its policy and says that it does not believe in flat fares or a movement towards fare-free public transport. But what about all the other metropolitan county councils? Are all their policies supposed to change?

All this is because we have this major shift in policy in the Department. For an authority like the GLC, which was given £50 million—about two thirds of the TSG allocation this year—to keep down fares, suddenly to be told that that will be cut by half next year and that ultimately it will vanish, this imposes a major shift of policy, and once again it supports the recommendation in my report that initiatives like this should be determined at local level and not by the Department.

I end as I began. I feel, and have felt for a long time, that this report of the Expenditure Sub-Committee once more indicates that we must have a transport policy. As yet we do not have one. Once again the report points up the need for a White Paper on transport policy. We have to know what the Government intend and what the Minister intends.

Even though we may not feel that transport should have priority over houses, hospitals and welfare services—and I recognise the priority that they must have—and even if we do not give transport that kind of priority now, we should be planning for the time when the economy picks up so that it may be given that kind of priority in the future. We cannot do that as long as we do not even compare different transport investments. We cannot do it as long as we have a Department hideously tied down by decisions about pelican crossings and traffic lights, and until we have a genuine devolution of local decisions to local people.

This is the case which has to be made, and once again I congratulate my hon. Friends and Opposition Members for providing a bit more ammunition to strengthen that case.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

I am not a member of the Select Committee which has produced these reports. However, I congratulate those hon. Members who serve on it. At one time I was a member of what was known as the Estimates Committee, which is now called the Expenditure Committee. I do not know when an estimate becomes an expenditure. But in those days we found that usually the estimate was way below what the expenditure eventually became. I am afraid that that is common to all Government expenditure whichever party happens to occupy the Treasury Bench.

This report is one of history. Time has gone by since it was printed. Still more time has gone by since it was discussed. We are in a new ball game. We have a new Government. We also have new scales of Government expenditure. We have a new Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we have just had a new Budget.

The reason why I decided to attempt to intervene in this debate was that, on reading the report, I recognised that it dealt with some of the expenditure which we discussed in the debate we had on the Budget. At that time, various hon. Members said that we should cut our expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer disagreed and said that we should wait until next year. Among the cuts suggested was expenditure on transport, particularly on roads. Therefore, I thought I should see what the report said about that.

The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) have indicated that there has been a stay on this expenditure. The Government have tried to arrest it somewhat in real terms by keeping it where it was in percentage terms. But in times of inflation it gallops up anyway. I do not know what the figures for road expenditure are at this time. The report says that expenditure on road maintenance was about £350 million in 1973–74. I should think that it might have another £150 million on it now. Looking ahead another year, it could be even more. Therefore, I believe that there should be a cut of one third on this. There should be an announcement to that effect very soon.

The report also states that total expenditure on roads—I presume that means the whole gamut in terms of national expenditure on motorways and the like—is three times £350 million. Therefore, if road maintenance costs are £500 million today, three times that amount would be £1,500 million for the whole of the road programme. So I would cut the whole by one third. There is an option to the Chancellor of a saving on the road programmes of about £500 million. Unless this is done by the Chancellor nobody else will do it.

The hon. Member for Nuneaton obviously thinks that I am proposing outrageous figures. This country is in an outrageous state economically. Something must be done somewhere. The question is where it can best be done.

I do not blame the road organisations for pressing their interests. We know about vested interests and the pressures upon Members of Parliament and Governments from all directions. Those who are interested in the promotion of better roads—the AA or whatever, which do a good job—are bound to say that we must maintain expenditure on roads. That is their job.

In normal circumstances it would be right to have an expanding road programme, to have good maintenance of our present road system, and to allocate reasonably good resources for that expenditure. But we are not in that position now. We must make heavy cuts in public expenditure. We cannot avoid facing priorities. Therefore, I suggest that this is one of the best areas where for two or three years there could be a standstill. I do not believe that it would make a great deal of difference suddenly. Indeed, it cannot be done suddenly. It has to be phased. That is accepted, because of what is in the pipeline. But we did it with the Channel Tunnel. We dug the hole half way and then stopped. Therefore, let us not pretend that, because we have started to build a road from A to B, we need necessarily finish it. We can stop it.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has referred to the Channel Tunnel, on which he knows I have strong views. Is he aware that some of the men who were allocated the task of digging that project are, on the latest available information, still digging?

Mr. Lewis

That does not surprise me. They are busy spending the money that the Government allocated last year and have not been able to pull back. Presumably they will continue digging the hole while the money comes in to pay the wages.

I do not accept that we need necessarily stop everything tomorrow. Nor do I accept that, because a road from A to B has been started, it need necessarily be finished.

In our present crisis situation I believe that there should be a traumatic cut in expenditure on the road programme. It would not have a devastating effect on our economy. It would not affect the lorries taking goods from the Midlands to ports in the East, West or South. I do not think that less maintenance on the roads for two years or so would have any effect on the mode of travel in a modern motor car.

My hon. Friend the Member for Day-entry referred to roads being widened by about 18 inches along many miles of their length. When I have seen such road-widening going on I have often wondered how much it was costing. What does it do for that road? It simply means widening the road by a couple of Feet and having to spend a lot of money on the surface of the road which has been dug up to improve the paving.

A lot of this expenditure, which involves county and district councils I suppose—I do not know in which areas of local government all this comes—could be stopped for two or three years and it would have no positively harmful effect whatever. Eventually, a catching-up programme, if there is to be one, will take place when the country finds itself in a better position to pay out the money.

So, looking at the report and the figures that I have mentioned, I believe that it is vital to make a substantial, indeed a traumatic, cut in expenditure on roads.

The report also states that British Rail is supposed to provide us with a 10 per cent. return on investment. That must be a joke. We have been living with that target for years and have never got anywhere near reaching even 2 per cent., let alone 10 per cent.

I am glad that the Department has taken over the cost of the upkeep of British Rail tracks. I suggested that many years ago. I am not the only one who made that suggestion. Many other people have made it. We pressed for it when the Minister of Transport was Mr. Marples, now Lord Marples, but we were always told that there were reasons why it could not be done. It seems eminently sensible that, if the Government pay for the roads, they should also pay for British Rail tracks and signalling as that equalises the competition between the railways and the roads.

If the Government do that, they must go on from there and say to British Rail "We have taken that cost away from you. We now expect you to run a bus service, so to speak, on railway lines". That is what it is. It is just a succession of carriages pulled together. In the freight sense it is like a lot of lorries on a road except that they are wagons on rails. The Government could say "The people you are carrying in those carriages or the goods being carried in those wagons must be so rated that they produce a profit".

The hon. Member for Nuneaton rightly said that when British Rail and London Tube charges are put up people always say that they can no longer afford to travel by those modes of transport because they are too expensive. Only a minimum number of people say that. I think that most people put up with the expenditure. If someone finds that it is costing him too much to get to and from work, he will go to the boss and say "My travelling costs have gone up. May I have a rise to make up for them?". That is what normally happens.

I am sure that the GLC handled the matter wrongly by deciding not to increase fares for a year or 18 months, because, when faced with an inflationary situation, the one thing that must be done with a public service is to make sure that the increases that are imposed are brought in year by year rather than have a gap and then present people with a whacking great increase. People do not remember an increase which they had to pay last year, but they do remember that they have just been asked to pay a whacking great extra sum of money for the service.

If British Railways are to be viable the Government as a whole, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular, must impress upon them that that can happen only if they reduce their work force. British Railways have far too many people employed running the railways. In terms of increased pay which the unions are demanding and are now in the process of negotiating, British Railways should get rid of a large number of men because this would allow more money to be available in the revenue account to pay for the increases which the work force is demanding.

Mr. Frank Tomney (Hammersmith, North)

To my certain knowledge the NUR has reduced its membership by no fewer than 500,000 in the past 15 years. The railways are run on a shoestring from the point of view of the labour force, so that part of the hon. Gentleman's argument is wrong. No transport system in the world has ever been viable since 1880, and in that I include the system in the United States of America. British Railways have a commitment for no fewer than 300,000 new freight wagons. How does one deal with that in these conditions?

Mr. Lewis

I can only say that it would be surprising indeed if there had not been a considerable reduction in the work force of the railways, bearing in mind the track mileage that has been removed, the number of stations that have been closed and the services that have been truncated in the past 20 years. Of course there has been a reduction, but it has not been sufficient. That is accepted by every expert who has looked into the railway system, going back to the report which Lord Marples initiated many years ago.

The report which we are debating today says that the investment programme for 1973–74 is £88.9 million, while for 1977–78 it is £171 million. I imagine that that figure of £171 million in terms of the present-day pound is nearer £300 million. What justification can there be for that kind of investment if we are maintaining the same ratio of men employed? Surely the reason for investment is to use less labour and more improved machinery, and so on.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as he is obviously enjoying himself. May I bring him down to a serious level of discussion? We all know, because we have constituency examples, of the number of trains that cannot be run because there are not enough drivers. We know that tickets cannot be sold at some stations and that some booking offices have to close early or not open at all because there are not enough booking staff. We know that at a number of stations tickets cannot be collected, even if they are bought, because there are not sufficient staff. Where is the overstaffing occurring?

Mr. Lewis

I can only counter that by saying that at many main line stations one sees a number of people standing around doing nothing. There are places at which tickets are collected though they need not be. One sees ticket-issuing machines as well as ticket collectors. Money is spent on improved machinery, but there is still a man to do the job. Every expert knows that there is a need for a slimming down of the work force of British Railways. The same comment applies to London Transport. On many lines there is no need to have tickets checked at one end and then again at the other.

I said that I should not speak for long, but I have been provoked on more than one occasion. I intervened in the debate only because I read the report—

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

When?

Mr. Lewis

— yesterday, and it occurred to me that we were dealing with history. The report deals with something that was considered two years ago The mood has changed, and so has the situation. I hope the Minister understands that in so far as we are debating this report we cannot discount the fact that the new economic situation has imposed upon us all a duty to make sure that we cut back on the expenditure that must have increased tremendously since this report was written. If there are to be cuts in expenditure, at least it would be better to make them here than on some other aspects of public spending.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I think that the interest in this debate is inversely proportional to the interest in the subject in the country. I cannot help feeling that the Environment Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee would have benefited considerably had it been able to receive evidence from wider sources than the Department of the Environment. This is a symptom of something that is wrong in this House, but I know that the procedure is shortly to be changed. I am referring to the notice that is given of the subjects being investigated.

The Expenditure Committee has a wide variety of sub-committees which go by the name of the Department to which they are allocated, but there is no clue to the matters under investigation. However, in a recent reply to a Written Question the Lord President of the Council gave me a list of all the matters being looked into by Select Committees, so newspapers and others can see and publicise what is being done.

Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)

Does my hon. Friend agree that any self-respecting legislature, which this House is not, would take the obvious step of having its own Press Office, which would make a point of issuing information to the Press so that it would not have to rely on something tucked away in an answer to a Written Question at the end of Hansard.

Mr. Spearing

There has recently been a slight improvement in the procedure. I understand that the Select Committee Office now issues to the Press, on a weekly basis, the items that are coming before Select Committees, including the Environment Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee. This information is published in at least two newspapers every Friday.

It is with a sense of shame that I say that until recently hon. Members had a better chance of finding out what Select Committees were doing the following week by looking in the Press than by looking at any official document published by the House. I am glad that a change is to be made. The Lord President of the Council has agreed that in the not-too-distant future the Order Paper will carry a list not only of the Committees that are meeting but also the subjects being investigated and the names of the witnesses for the day in question.

Had that procedure been followed when this Sub-Committee was meeting am sure that the evidence given to it by interested voluntary and other bodies would have made the report even more valuable than it is. I look upon this report as a good starting point for a future discussion.

The investigation into public expenditure on public transport track—because this is what this is all about—would have been helped if councils for inland transport, environment protection societies, conservation societies and the various railway invigoration societies had been able to put their views to the Committee so that it could cross-question the officers of these active groups. I very much doubt that these societies knew that the Environment Sub-Committee was investigating this matter. The evidence in the report is, I believe, that given only by the Department of the Environment, which sent the only witnesses to appear before the Committee.

A symptom of the difficulty which I have just outlined is represented in the emphasis which is placed on roads in Britain. Everyone knows my view on the EEC, but I would agree with some of my Continental colleagues when they say that this country must be mad in the emphasis it has placed upon road transport over the last few years at the expense of coastal shipping, inland water transport and rail transport. Unfortunately that matter is not taken up in the Select Committee's report, and I suggest that the Committee might have addressed more attention to it.

There has been vast expenditure on roads of all sorts, and one of the reasons for that is that we have geared up our local government to do just that. I make no complaint of active borough engineers or the very large roads section in the Department of the Environment itself, which is self-perpetuating in its desire to improve roads and build new ones. When large numbers of engineers gather in one place they have to justify their existence. This is why the vast motorway box project in London was not only put forward but was nearly carried into completion.

I was a member of the highway and traffic committee of the GLC and of its successors, the planning and transport committee and the environmental planning committee of that body. I could see how these self-perpetuating professional men—and I make no complaint about their job—dealt with planning and engineering. The cancellation of the motorway box project was a salutary experience for this country and a victory for democracy at the ballot box. As one hon. Member has explained, it is sometimes a good thing to stop a road which has been begun.

Had the motorway box scheme been continued, it would have been proceeding at the time we entered the fuel crisis, with a marked diminution in road demand, even in London. The folly of the matter would have been clear. The irony of it is that we would now have been pulling down about 200,000 houses—I think that was the figure. Later this evening we shall be discussing the question of London housing. I hope that the Minister will pay tribute to the wisdom of the London electorate. I know that he has a strong interest in road transport, but I hope that he will agree that the electorate made a good choice. Our debate on housing would be even more poignant if all those houses were now being demolished to make way for a motorway.

When my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) opened the debate I raised the question of one of the most extraordinary schizophrenic attitudes in the Department—the difference in treatment between the roads and the waterways. I initiated a debate in this House on inland water transport. I put a number of questions to which I received no ministerial reply. I am not surprised. Everywhere I go I am told that nobody in the Department of the Environment knows anything about canals and waterways. The Department may know something about water engineering, and it hands out plenty of advice on it. We have had a Water Act only relatively recently. But there seems to be a big gap in the knowledge of the Department on commercial water transport. That matter was referred to by the Select Committee, which in paragraph 13 recommends that canals should be eligible for transport supplementary grant.

I assume that there is a difference between grants for the maintenance or minor upgrading of existing canals and the repair of those which have fallen into poor condition, and capital expenditure on vastly improved or new canal track. Unfortunately, the Committee did not make that distinction in its recommendation. This will enable the Minister to give a typical off-the-cuff Department of the Environment reply that such a move would not serve any useful purpose. Nevertheless, everybody in the canal lobby is familiar with the argument concerning the South Yorkshire Navigation, where the British Waterways Board has applied for a capital grant to upgrade the canal. It has shown—and, as far as I know, no one has denied this fact—that if it were given a capital grant of around £3 million, and if that grant were given in the same way as grants are given for roads—that is to say, that there was no calculation of the return on investment and the British Waterways Board would not have to pay the interest—the likely income from increased traffic on that waterway would more than cover the cost.

The Department and Ministers lay down that with canals interest must be paid on the capital, and it has to be shown that increased tolls will cover that interest. That is an illogical arrange- ment. That does not happen with investment in a new road. In the appendix of the report there is a complex computer calculation dealing with cost-benefit analysis, and so on, called COBA. There is no calculation there of a theoretical return. We do not put a turnipke at the end of a road and make people pay a toll for using it, so why should this approach be adopted for canals?

The GLC is at present considering a scheme for widening the Grand Union Canal in the Brentford area, but the Department has stated that a return on the investment must be calculated in percentage terms. When one asks why there is this distinction one is told that the board is not the common user. The canal system differs from the rail system, where British Rail owns the track and the vehicles. On the canals, however, it is not only the Waterways Board which runs vessels. In many canals and navigations there are other craft run by individual owners. There are individual private vessels which are akin to cars on the roads.

I submit, therefore, that there has been a great mistake in the past and that there never has been a justification for the distinction which is made. The Committee offered very good advice on this point. The Minister must now put up a very good case for maintaining the distinction which has always been made between road and canal or he must change his policy.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Fox (Shipley)

I must be careful not to give the impression that I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). The shock might be too great. I did agree with him, however, when he said that we have been rendered a service by having had the opportunity to debate this report. I must not range too widely over it or else it might be thought that the Government's White Paper has arrived and the Promised Land is with us. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) has left the Chamber—

Mr. George Cunningham

Everybody has gone.

Mr. Fox

Everybody apart from the dedicated few. I was about to praise the hon. Member for Nuneaton, a rare event. If the two of us join in asking the Minister for a White Paper perhaps he will let us know when we can expect one.

There are always subjects that concern us more than others. Transport is a subject which deserves more consideration. When talking about transport we mean mobility and not just people travelling to work. There must be an acceptance that for some people travel represents an improvement in their environment. Some measure of support can be seen from this in the January public expenditure White Paper, which revealed that the substantial sum of just under £2,000 million had been spent on transport items. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) has said, July 1974 is a long time ago. It is regrettable that events have overtaken this report.

I am pleased to welcome the hon Member for Nuneaton back to the debate. No doubt he will read my kindly reference to him in the Official Report.

The previous administration was responsible for changing the emphasis from road to rail, something that the majority of us accepted then. That move was not just as a result of the pressure of public opinion. We must remember that we then had a growth rate of 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. and that inflation was in single figures. Now we have no growth and inflation is of the order of 20 per cent.

The climate has changed. While I cannot go along with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford and agree to the massive cuts which he advocated I do say that we must accept, if economies are to be made, that no area of expenditure can expect to escape them. Not only must savings be made, but we must obtain the best value for money. Resources which are being switched to public transport must be examined in this light.

The Committee's report supports that policy. It is fair to look at what has been achieved and to ask what is the attitude of the public towards public transport. The reliability of public transport is still suspect. There is the feeling that it is only to be used when there is no other alternative. It should be the other way round. Public transport should be the obvious form of travel for many people. I still believe that far too many people see the car as representing the only reliable means of transport.

Although I am not happy about the current situation, certain economic factors will dictate changes in such an attitude. I do not accept that Government reports and statements from the Department of the Environment are necessarily the tablets of stone from on high. I view with suspicion the recently-published report of the Government's Transport and Road Research Laboratory which suggested that, despite everything, car ownership and the use of cars is likely to rise to the end of this century at rates not far different from those anticipated before the energy crisis arrived.

I cannot swallow that statement. 1 have a feeling that recent events have given a further push to those people who are asking whether they can afford to run a car. There are a number of families who can afford to run two cars. The pressure must be even fiercer there. Hon. Members will probably have read an article in the Daily Mail yesterday which suggested—and the figures do not seem unreasonable—that it is costing over £1,000 a year to run a medium-size saloon. It must be fair to suggest that hiring a car for weekends or holidays might be a far more attractive proposition than owning one. I do not believe that people will cease to enjoy the convenience and flexibility which a car provides for leisure and holiday activities, but for many people some sort of change in the pattern of their daily lives is feasible.

I am certain that in future debates reference will be made to the report of the Committee. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) on the part he played and on the way in which he introduced the report. I wonder whether the word "discourage" in paragraph 5 is the right word. We would be making a mistake as politicians if we talked in terms of harassing the motorist. With events moving the way they are might it not be better to talk about making alternatives more attractive? There might be a public reaction to the other attitude.

Paragraph 9 deals with the transport supplementary grant. An important principle is established here. We all accept that the prime responsibility for allocating resources rests with the local authorities. There are many who believe that they should have more responsibility. One thing we all accept is that local authority expenditure should be carefully monitored. We must ensure that Parliament's wishes are not frustrated by the delegation of its functions to other bodies. I am all for delegation, but not at the expense of Parliament losing ultimate control.

As an example I cite the subsidies to public transport from local authorities. There seemed to be a certain conflict in what the hon. Member for Nuneaton said here. He appeared to be criticising steps that had been taken whereby transport authorities are being made to pay their way instead of fares being subsidised. I understood him to argue in his article published in Socialist Commentary that the level of the subsidies seemed to be more than is rational.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

I know that the hon. Gentleman tends to be reasonable in these matters. Will he recognise that the point I was trying to make was that until recently the Department had taken a consistent line on revenue subsidies as opposed to capital grants? We now have had a complete change of face by the Department so that revenue subsidies are to be viable. It is that change of policy I am mainly criticising.

Mr. Fox

I accept the point and agree that there is nothing inconsistent there. I hope that the hon. Member is not withdrawing what he said.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

No.

Mr. Fox

Paragraph 14 refers to parking. There are anomalies if we accept that we should discourage—I go back to that word again—people from bringing their cars into city centres. If we continue to provide free or cheap parking spaces, is the House right to say that a national parking policy is called for? I can see tremendous problems ahead if we say that this is a matter for Parliament and try to lay down clearly defined principles. I agree that park and ride is the secret. It is important that these parking provisions should be made before any attempt is made to attract people back to public transport. Demand is always a good yardstick. We must be careful not to allow extra parking places to be inserted in planning permissions. There are many instances in planning conditions being imposed, making excessive provision for parking.

Mr. Boyden

One of the main points behind the Committee's recommendation was that local government expenditure on car parking was running at a high deficit. It was of the order of £10 million or more. The idea behind the Committee's recommendation was that the money should be brought into balance and that, with a general declared policy, the local authorities would be able to fit into the scheme.

Mr. Fox

I am sympathetic to the Committee's recommendations. That is why I made the point about cheap parking provisions. I would agree with the Committee's recommendation that a grant should not be given in that sort of instance.

I turn to the subject of canals on which I am sure there is agreement by all hon. Members. It seems strange that canals should be ineligible for grant. I do not see why any form of transport should be excluded if a proper evaluation is made.

Road maintenance has received a considerable amount of attention. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) mentioned this. The amount of £340 million is a great deal of money; it is a third of the total expenditure on our roads. I think most people would agree that there is concern over the way in which repairs are carried out. Certainly, we have not observed much efficiency in new road programmes. The length of time many of these job take is a frustration, to say the least, to the travelling public.

I am glad to note that the Committee referred to the report of the Marshall Committee. Whether its standards are high enough is open to debate. Certainly it is a matter of concern that many of the findings in that report have so far not seen the light of day. We have been told that the methods of evaluating maintenance on the economic side are not very well advanced. This is not very helpful for the future when we talk about getting the best value for money. However, at least the Department of the Environment and local authorities are working together to ensure the maintenance of cost-effectiveness we hope for.

My hon. Friend the Member for Day-entry made a number of interesting remarks on the subject of roads. We all accept that we must have an effective road network to keep our lorries out of town centres and villages, and to help public transport perform its functions. The Minister for Transport—I am sure it was not to his liking—has presided over a 40 per cent. cut in the road building programme. At the same time it is only fair to make the point that, since 1970, subsidies to British Rail, in real terms, have risen by 126 per cent., with no visible sign of an increase in traffic back to the railways.

There can be no question that the road programme is vital. We could have a debate on this issue alone. I shall not quote from the report, but some valuable points were made, especially in paragraph 39. It is quite true that, by providing more road space and improved facilities, we can encourage growth of traffic, when that is not necessarily the object of the exercise. Therefore, we must take the view that a look at our motorway programme is necessary. The Minister suggested in his study group—we are talking about bypasses and other things—that selective improvements can achieve the same objective.

There is an interesting section in the report on investment criteria and transport co-ordination. It is a pity that time prohibits me from developing this theme because the word "misallocation" of resources is too weak. The word "waste" might be more appropriate. Whatever we call it, in a number of instances duplication and piecemeal allocation of funds have led to a situation that should not be tolerated.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) introduced a debate on British Rail on 14th April. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to bring this into our present discussion. We all know that the subsidies amount to £450 million or £500 million. It is questionable whether a system that provides only one- tenth of Britain's transport should receive more than half of what is spent on roads.

The report hardly touches on the central problem of public expenditure on transport, which is mainly the size of the railway deficit. However, I would congratulate our colleagues who have prepared the report, and I repeat that we look forward to a further debate when the White Paper is produced.

6.8 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael)

This has been a most interesting debate, although the attendance has not been as large as we had expected. I should like to apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend, who has intimated his reasons for not being able to attend.

These reports are extremely valuable—more valuable now than they were when I first served on the Select Committee, which seems a long time ago now. In those days we could not tell anyone what the Committee was studying; it was a closely guarded secret. Expert witnesses were not called and no one could take part. Only when we were writing the report did I realise the sort of questions I should have asked the witnesses.

I expect that there are shortcomings in the methods of Select Committees. A great deal has been done by some of my hon. Friends to try to improve this. However, a great deal more needs to be done. The House of Commons may move rather slowly at times, but frequently—I am not being smug—we manage to arrive at the right results.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) on his introduction of the report and on the commendations he has paid to the hon. Members on the Committee and to the Chairman of the Committee. The very fact that the Committee chose transport as a subject shows that it arouses great interest. From the correspondence we receive from hon. Members, there is no doubt that transport is an important issue. It should be an important issue if expenditure means anything. Last year public spending on transport amounted to £1,700 million. Private spending was very much higher, with individual spending amounting to nearly £6,000 million. I welcome the interest of the Committee and of hon. Members in this subject.

I should like to begin by covering in a general way some of the points made by the Committee in its report and by hon. Members today. I hope to answer specifically some of the points made.

Transport policy has a simple aim, namely, to produce a fair and efficient system for moving people and goods around. The industry—both public and private—and the way it is financed are far from simple. In practice. whatever is attempted, there is always room for improvement. One of the most difficult problems is to achieve a proper balance of investment in the face of the various competing pressures.

The Expenditure Committee was concerned about the appraisal methods used for different investments. I share this concern. We must see that resources are sensibly used to achieve value for money. The nature and purpose of investment in railways and roads is somewhat different. The inter-urban road programme consists mainly of extensions to our existing road system, with particular emphasis on taking through traffic out of towns and villages to minimise disturbance to decent living standards. Most road freight traffic travels short distances—93 per cent. goes less than 100 miles—and is in fairly small consignments. For such traffic rail is neither economic nor practical. Rail investment is largely to maintain and improve the existing system so that the railways can cater more efficiently with traffic which is suited to them—the long-distance hauls of bulk freight, heavy commuter flows and fast inter-city passenger traffic.

One of my hon. Friends suggested that I was too oriented towards the road lobby. I can assure him that that is not so. However, I do not find it easy when people in certain societies try to make the railways do jobs for which they are not suited. The outline which I have given is the job for which the railways are absolutely suitable. We should encourage them, in the interests of the nation, to do it more efficiently.

The financing and management of the different modes of transport are also different. The major road network is the direct responsibility of Government Departments and its improvement is fin- anced from voted money. Except in a few cases, users do not pay directly for the use of specific pieces of road; they pay generally through taxation. The management of the railways, on the other hand, is the responsibility of the Railways Board, which has the primary responsibility for planning and development of the system. It is for the Government to decide how far the railways should be supported and how far the community should pay, through taxation, for benefits which are not reflected in charges to users.

The allocation of resources must reflect both what the country can afford and the Government's overall priorities. This has to be a fairly long-term exercise both for road and for rail because the schemes have long planning and construction times. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) mentioned an exhibition held in relation to a link road. Such exhibitions are excellent, but they extend the time required since many more alternative routes have to be examined. There is now 10 years between the establishment of the necessity for a road and its building.

The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) spoke about the importance of the road programme, and I agree that we should not underestimate it. We spend about £1,000 million each year on building and maintaining our road system, one-third of it on our main inter-urban roads. Many people spend a good deal of their time asking us to stop. We should ask whether they are right. I am continually asking whether particular roads are necessary.

We all accept the need for a balanced transport system, but we must face the fact that 90 per cent. of all passenger transport and 85 per cent. of our freight travels on the road. It is no accident that people choose to spend large sums on their cars: they value their time and their freedom to move about. Freight, too, cannot all travel by rail and water.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) feels that not enough is done for the canals. He should realise that over 50 per cent. of the expenditure on the canals is paid for by the Government and certain facets of canal operations are eligible for transport supplementary grant.

Mr. Spearing

Would not my hon. Friend agree that that grant covers largely non-commercial waterways and that my point about capital is related to viable commercial waterways, of which he knows of many examples?

Mr. Carmichael

If my hon. Friend will allow me, that is something I shall take back to the Department for another look, especially on the specific Yorkshire canal to which he referred. I wanted to emphasise that I am interested in canals, although they are not my chief responsibility in the Department. Because of the procedure of the House, I should like to deal with one or two points that have been raised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland and others referred to the recommendations on parking and the transport supplementary grant. The Government accept this. It would not be possible to make such expenditure ineligible without legislation because car parking is specifically listed as eligible in the Local Government Act 1974, but Circular 43/75 on TSG, issued as recently as 4th April, said: …overall deficits on the operation of car parks will not normally be accepted for TSG. The intention implied by the word "normally" was to allow for park-and-ride facilities, which the Committee recommended. This is a feature that we are anxious to encourage.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) talked about the Department not having any national transport policy. Like the hon. Member for Shipley, I found some contradictions in my hon. Friend's speech. Although he said that there was no national policy, he then went on to say that local authorities and not the Government should arrange their own policies. He spoke at some length about the Department being terribly involved in what he considered time wasting on pelican and zebra crossings. He must realise that there is a general policy on these matters, which are admittedly time-consuming, but this was found to be necessary because it is very difficult for a local authority to resist local pressure about the granting of crossings. My hon. Friend himself has been to see me with at least one delegation to try to persuade the Department to change its criteria so that a crossing can be put in his area. I think that we reached a compromise and got one out of two. There must be criteria or the local authorities would be under heavy pressure. I would not wish to depart from that policy.

My hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland and Nuneaton stressed the need for a revised presentation of the roads and transport table to show whether the balance of expenditure accords with Government policy. This year's White Paper contains substantial changes in presentation. The Department's reply to the Sub-Committee's report agrees that the White Paper should so far as possible make clear the relationship between policies and expenditure, and improvements will be sought. Hon. Members will appreciate that the presentation in one table with accompanying test of forecasts of future expenditure of £9,000 million is a quite difficult matter.

I thank the Sub-Committee for having made this debate possible and hon. Members for taking part in it. I can assure them that the Department has paid a great deal of attention to the report and to this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House take note of the First Report from the Expenditure Committee in the last Parliament (House of Commons Paper No. 269) on Public Expenditure on Transport, and of the relevant Government observations contained in the Fourth Special Report (House of Commons Paper No. 263) in this Session.