HC Deb 05 May 1976 vol 910 cc1287-9
7. Mr. Newton

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received from the public concerning his transport policy review; and what have been the main themes of these representations.

Mr. Shore

I have so far received about 50 representations, mostly from the public, related specifically to the consultation document. The main theme has been concern over the future and cost of public transport.

Mr. Newton

Will the Secretary of State accept that there is very great concern, especially among young married couples who were encouraged to move out of London and now find that they are in a vice—a money trap—with rising commuter fares? Will he further accept that there is a general feeling that the policy for commuter fares has not been properly related to social and planning considerations in the whole area around London? Will he take another look at that?

Mr. Shore

I promise to give serious thought to the whole connection between —as the hon. Member puts it—broad social environmental policy and the allocation of subsidies that are available for passenger transport.

Mr. Robin F. Cook

How many members of my right hon. Friend's Department who are involved in preparing the consultation document have first-hand knowledge of running a railway system or, for that matter, any other transport industry?

Mr. Shore

I cannot help my hon. Friend on that point. In producing a review of this kind we have to strike a balance between those who have professional experience in running a transport service and those who have the advantage of being able to take a broader and overall view of all the different kinds of transport services.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

Does the Minister agree that the emphasis in the consultation document is on transferring from rail to road? Will he bear in mind the article in the Daily Telegraph concerning possible closure of those lines which are receiving a social subsidy? Will he give an undertaking that he will put before the House, before they are implemented, any proposals by British Rail concerning possible closures of these services?

Mr. Shore

The hon. Member is entering into hypothetical questions, beginning with his opening remarks about action to transfer from rail to road, which he says we envisage. I do not necessarily agree with that at all.

15. Mr. Robin F. Cook

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet leaders of the rail unions to discuss the conclusions of the transport policy review.

Dr. Gilbert

My right hon. Friend and I hope soon to meet the leaders of the railway trade unions to discuss the consultation document.

Mr. Cook

Does my hon. Friend accept that, despite a reduction of over half of the manpower of British Rail, many rail workers remain anxious to achieve even greater productivity in the railway system, but they find it difficult to reconcile the greater output that that would require with the policy of higher fares, reduced frequencies, lower investment in electrification and advanced passenger trains and other aspects of the policy?

Dr. Gilbert

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the investment level for British Rail under the Public Expenditure Survey Committee is at a higher level than it has been since 1962, in real terms, after allowing for inflation. We are intending to continue that level of investment throughout the PESC period. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is really for British Rail to decide how it meets the financial disciplines that we are imposing upon it. As the consultation document says, to the extent that one solution is forsworn, the burden will fall that much more heavily on the other possible options.

I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend on his recent sponsorship by the National Union of Railwaymen.

Mr. Fry

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the rail union leaders clearly whether he agrees with the commitment in the October 1974 manifesto that there should be a major transfer of freight from road to rail, or with the consultation document that his Department has produced, which describes this as a pipe dream? Surely the rail union leaders deserve to know where he stands on this issue.

Dr. Gilbert

We always made it clear that the transfer of freight from road to rail was our objective where it made economic and environmental sense. That is still the formula in the consultation document.