§ 2.54 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total annual cost of the transport and planning side of the Department of the Environment (including the Road Research Laboratory); and what proportion of this cost can be assigned respectively to road, rail and waterway.
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, total voted expenditure on transport by the Department of the Environment, including the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, in the year ending March 31, 1974, is expected to be about £750 million. Of this, about 72 per cent. is attributable to roads and road transport, about 26 per cent. to rail and about 1 per cent. to waterways. The remainder is expenditure on other transport services, mainly on ports.
THE EARY OF KINNOULLMy Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that information? Could he say, in view of the general concern felt over the future movement of freight, and in particular of course the juggernauts, whether the railway share within the Department of the Environment's planning will be increased? Secondly, is his right honourable friend satisfied that the present heavy concentration of planning on road improvements is any longer meeting the balanced needs of the country's future transport system?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, with regard to the railway share's being increased, I cannot answer that of course because this may depend on the rail policy review study which is being done at the moment. All the Government are concerned with is to see that there is an efficient use of the nation's resources made available for transport. There is one other point I should remind the noble Lord about; that is, the railways investments themselves are running at about £100 million a year as well.
§ LORD POPPLEWELLMy Lords, would the Minister not agree that that really is an unsatisfactory answer? Would the Minister be able to say how many people are engaged on the planning side so far as railways are concerned? In view of the statements made by some of the noble Lord's right honourable friends that railways are now going to be encouraged to cater for freight traffic, and in view of the attitude of the Government in the past in closing down collecting depots, would he not agree that it is essential to have further expenditure on the planning side and further staff at the Ministry of Transport? Only a small number of staff is actually engaged at the Ministry of Transport on the planning side. Would he not agree that it is time that a considerable re-thinking took place on these transport needs?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I thought I had said many times that we are having a very large rethink and we want to get the answer right. I must not be tempted into a transport debate by the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell. I do not know how many people we have actually on planning of railways alone. A lot of people are concerned with both railways and roads, and it is very hard in the Department to pin down who is doing just what, and only what. But we are spending on rail research about £2½ million a year.
§ LORD POPPLEWELLMy Lords, would not the Minister agree that the very answer he has now given me, that he cannot give any estimate about the number engaged on planning because they are mixed up between road and rail, indicates it is time that the Minister had a look so that he can define this situation in order that we can get this re-thinking right in the future? Transport has been an unholy mess, particularly under a Conservative Government in the past, and it is time that this re-thinking was taking place so that transport facilities are used in accordance with national need.
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, if the noble Lord would put down a Question asking me exactly how many people are employed on railways in the Department, I will try to find the answer.
§ LORD WYNNE-JONESMy Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the 603 Question which is on the Order Paper specifically refers to this problem of allocation of resources? Does he not think it unsatisfactory that the Government now say they are beginning to think about the problem, when surely the country as a whole has been deeply worried about this problem for several years?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, the Question on the Order Paper specifically refers to costs and I have given the answers to that. As to beginning to think, this is not beginning to be true, either, because what we have been doing is thinking very hard, and we are hoping shortly to bring the fruits of our labours to the House.
§ EARL AMHERSTMy Lords, could the noble Lord say how much of this rethinking accounts for what the railways will have to do to re-develop their systems to meet what will be ultimately required for the Channel Tunnel?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, this is all included in what is being thought about.
§ LORD TREFGARNEMy Lords, during the course of this re-think will the Government consider the possibility of carrying low-value, bulky commodities along the waterways, bearing in mind the very small amount of money that was apportioned to that section according to the noble Lord's Answer?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, if it can be shown to be practicable, most certainly the answer is,Yes.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, would the noble Lord consider setting up a "re-think tank"?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, that is another idea we will consider.
§ LORD POPPLEWELLMy Lords, will the Minister give any indication of when he hopes this "re-think tank" will be able to complete its work and we shall get a report to Parliament of its deliberations?
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport Industries is only too keen to get the report to Parliament.