asked the Minister of Transport what is the British Railways programme for investment in new rolling stock, and passenger carriages, approved by him for the current year, expressed in number of units and by value.

The Railways Board estimates that in 1970, within its approved programmes, it will spend £10·7 million on 427 new passenger carriages, and £5·2 million on 1,429 new wagons.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the maintenance of new fast passenger schedules are dependent on high-quality rolling stock for passenger purposes? Is he aware that the London Midland—St. Pancras-Sheffield—region has the worst rolling stock and the worst timetables of any schedule in the country? Would he therefore agree that new air-conditioned stock should be put on this as on other lines?

This is a matter for the management of the British Railways Board. I suppose that at one time or another every hon. Member makes these sort of complaints about the rolling stock in his constituency.

asked the Minister of Transport what has been the turnover, profit, value of exports, and value of turnover to outside customers of products manufactured by British Railways workshops in the current year.

Since 1st January this year British Railways' main workshops have been under the control of British Rail Engineering Ltd. The company is subject to the requirements of the Companies Act, 1967, and will disclose information about present activities in its report and accounts for 1970, in accordance with normal commercial practice.

Would the right hon. Gentleman explain, first, why this year the Chairman of British Railways issued a Press release in advance of the annual report, which has not been published, about the performance of British Railways as a whole, and, secondly, why he did not refer specifically to the activities of British Rail Engineering Ltd., which is reputed to have taken on a container contract for Germany which is likely to cost the taxpayer £1 million and which is seriously affecting the private sector, which is in competition with British Railways' workshops in this matter?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that it would be quite wrong if I were to follow him in that comment, because he is trying to steal a later Question which appears on the Order Paper in the name of one of his hon. Friends.

Would my right hon Friend agree that it is a wholly admirable and desirable policy that public corporations should have the same right to diversify their activities as private corporations have?

I agree, and I also agree that they should not be asked to provide to this House, and elsewhere, information which we would not ask a private company to produce. I happened 10 days ago to be in the locomotive and carriage works at Derby and I was delighted to see that they were successful in obtaining a number of contracts in competition with private interests.

Did the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether those competitive tenders were secured at a price which could be reasonably expected to return a profit? Has he examined reports in the Press that the container contract is likely to result in a substantial loss of British Railways?

I am naturally concerned that British Railways should not take contracts which are likely to make substantial losses, but I get my facts and figures from official sources and they are different from some of the highly prejudicial statements which sometimes appear in the Press.

asked the Minister of Transport what reply he has sent to the application from British Railways to spend £20 million on new track and signalling at the approaches to London Bridge and Victoria Stations.

The Greater London Transport Group is examining a number of different schemes for improving the approaches to London Bridge and Victoria, but no firm proposals have yet been submitted to my right hon. Friend by the Railways Board.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the delays on the Southern Region are due to the notorious bottleneck at Borough Market? Is he aware that, with no Underground facilities available, my constituents, and many others in the South-East, are entirely dependent on surface railway links to London? Will he take this into account when proposals are submitted to him?

As a regular commuter on that line I am well aware, and so is my Department, of the present difficulties. The working group is examining a number of different schemes at the moment.

asked the Minister of Transport what recent consultations have taken place between his Department and the local authorities concerned regarding the improvement of the Bickley Point road junction in Bromley.

None, Sir. Neither the London Borough of Bromley nor the Greater London Council, which are the relevant highway authorities, has yet approached the Department about the improvement of this junction.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that everyone seems to agree that conditions at this junction have become intolerable both for motorists and pedestrians, yet no one seems able to produce an effective and practicable improvement scheme? Will he please take the initiative in this matter and try to persuade the G.L.C. to treat it as one of great urgency and also see that his Department gives all help and co-operation in formulating an effective scheme?

I have no doubt that the hon. Member could do just that by putting pressure on his political friends at County Hall to do something about this matter. We understand that the London Borough of Bromley and Greater London Council are discussing alternative schemes for this purpose.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now able to announce his decision on the feasibility study for the road link between the M6 and the Fylde Coast.

My right hon. Friend hopes to announce his decision very soon.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary recall that on 9th December he told the House that he hoped to announce a decision in the spring but he must await a decision on the boundaries of Leyland-Chorley New Town? Does he recall that the decision on the new town was taken over a month ago and nearly seven weeks ago he said that he accepted the need for an early decision? What is holding things up?

Spring has come a little late this year. Analysis of these very complex studies naturally takes a very long time and my right hon. Friend must be certain that he gets the right solution.

asked the Minister of Transport how many miles of road lanes reserved for buses are in use at present; and how many miles are planned.

No such mileage statistics are available, but we know of 21 bus lanes at present and plans for 10 more. We have asked local authorities to examine the feasibility of introducing more bus priority schemes following the recent report to my right hon. Friend of the Working Group on Bus Demonstration Projects.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a most valuable experiment which obviously needs to continue? Will he accept that we shall need to give an increased priority to public service transport, not only in the provision of bus lanes but also in the provision of subsidies?

We are aware of the help that this can give and we are encouraging local authorities to review bus routes with operators to see what bus priority schemes are possible.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for this scheme to work —and I accept that it is a good idea—there must be the width of road required, and secondly, some method of ensuring that private vehicles do not get into the bus lane, which does not happen at present?

These are all points which obviously will be examined.

asked the Minister of Transport when the estimate was made of 8,000 accompanied vehicles as the average daily flow through the proposed Channel Tunnel in 1985.

1966, Sir.

Since this was revised following the White Paper of 1963, will my hon. Friend undertake to lay before the House all the questions that arose following the revision of the 1963 White Paper so that we may join in discussion of this important matter?

No, Sir. We think it would be misleading to publish in full at this stage. We think the right thing now is to await the final studies.

Will the hon. Gentleman say when he expects the final studies to take place? Does he not appreciate the inconvenience for my constituents of having no firm proposal for the Channel Tunnel?

As soon as we are ready for the final studies the announcement will be made. That is when this will come before the House.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement about the Government's policy with regard to the building of the Calder Valley Link Road.

I have not yet completed my consideration of the report on trunk and principal road communications in North-East Lancashire. But I hope to be able to make an announcement very soon.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in North-East Lancashire we consider the building of a fast route linking North-East Lancashire with the proposed new town as absolutely essential if we are to benefit from the new town? Why can we not have this decision soon rather than late?

We accept the importance of an improved link road between the Calder Valley and the M6 and I hope to make a decision very shortly, but the report covers a very wide amount of road building in this area and requires, I think, some study before deciding the priorities.

Does the Minister recall that this road was first promised immediately before the by-election in Nelson and Colne in 1968? Does he not think he ought to get cracking before he is overtaken by another election?

Judging by the result of that by-election, perhaps I ought to defer a decision until after the next election. Then maybe we would have a more satisfactory result for that election. The study was set up by Lancashire County Council with all the local authorities concerned. I think it not only right that I should study the report but that I should have time to settle the priorities. I accept the need for improved roads between the Calder Valley and the M6.

asked the Minister of Transport what are his latest revised estimates for the building of the M11 along the preferred Roding Valley route; and how they compare with estimates for a route through the Lea Valley.

The estimated cost of the published route down the Roding Valley is about £50 million. A continuation of this route to a point common with the Lea Valley route would bring the total cost to about £73 million compared with £84 million for the Lea Valley route.

Nevertheless, was there not an over-estimate of the saving which would result or would be expected to result from preferring the Roding Valley route? Can the Minister say where he now stands in his dealings with local authorities and others making representations?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there were 2,000 objections to the proposals when they were made. A public inquiry has been held, I have the inspector's report and hope to announce a decision upon it. At the inquiry the merits of the two routes and all the figures were gone into. I hope to announce a decision as soon as possible.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to information in the local Press that the Ministry has run into considerable difficulties which are likely to increase the cost of the Roding Valley route? Will he go into this further, because if the Lea Valley route is shown to be better than the Roding Valley route no one would be better pleased than my constituents?

The hon. Member would not expect me to give an answer in respect of the report in answer to a supplementary question.

asked the Minister of Transport what plans he now has for the winding up of the Transport Holding Company; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir.

Does the Minister agree that, since it was part of the 1968 Act that this company should come to an end and most of its important duties for passengers and freight have ended and it is now acting mainly as travel agents, it is time that these important people were freed from this responsibility instead of having to look after companies such as the Penarth Dock Company, whose profits have fallen from £48,000 to £3,000 in two years?

I am delighted to be pressed by the hon. Member to carry out the provisions of the Transport Act, 1968, but he will recall that the Section dealing with the Transport Holding Company was permissive and it seems right to retain this arrangement for the supervision of Thomas Cook's, which is an important company in the travel world. as he has suggested.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the average rate of railway mileage closures for the five years 1960 to 1964 and for the five years 1965 to 1969.

The totals for 1969 are not yet available. From 1960 to 1964 the annual average rate of total route mileage closure was 498; from 1965 to 1968 it was 886. For passenger route mileage alone the figures are 478 and 549 respectively.

Since the Minister, in his own words, always tells the whole story, does he agree that this is a vindication of the last Government's policy on the railways, and does he accept that the Prime Minister's words on this subject were as untrue as most of the other statements he has made?

The present policy envisages 11,000 route miles, of which 8,000 will carry passengers. In each case the figure is about 3,000 more than would have resulted from the Beeching proposals. The system of grants for unremunerative passenger services ensures that socially necessary services are kept open. The Government are paying nearly £60 million a year to keep open socially necessary services.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government's action under the Transport Act in subsidising socially desirable but financially unremunerative railway lines has been greatly welcomed, particularly by my constituents in Hull, as it has kept open a very valuable line for them to get to the seaside and helps to build up the economy of the area?

Does the Minister recall what his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity said a few years ago about keeping railways open for the commuters? She merely said this to get votes. She diddled the public and others, and always has done.

Under our policy we are keeping open some 3,000 more route miles than would have been kept under the policy of the previous Government.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now introduce an eyesight test for applicants for provisional driving licences.

No, Sir. We have no evidence which suggests that such a requirement would reduce road accidents.

Is my hon. Friend aware that recent researches by the Optical Information Council indicate that nearly 2 per cent. of drivers have less than half the vision required for the official number plate test, and that of those 300,000-odd about 12 per cent. are between 17 and 30? Does not that show that the official test is not applied very assiduously?

We are aware of the Optical Information Council's findings, but the unit did most of its work at the kerbside and it has not taken a random sample. The results of the eyesight test in the driving test are very different, but we welcome anything which encourages those with poor eyesight to do something about it.

In the interests of road safety will the Minister study the findings of registered driving instructors, all of whom have to be registered by 31st July next, for is not this body of men the proper instrument for obtaining reliable evidence as to eyesight effectiveness or otherwise?

No doubt we can look at this, but the law on the matter is quite clear. It is an offence for anyone to drive if he cannot at the time meet the appropriate standard.

asked the Minister of Transport what study he has made of a new anti-skid spray based on chemically reacting resin with bauxite chippings which have cut accidents by 87 per cent. at test uncontrolled crossings in London, details of which have been supplied to him by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South; if he will take steps to extend the use of this spray to all British roads; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Transport what consideration he has given to the results of the Greater London Council and Metropolitan Police experiment of treating selected junctions and pedestrian road crossings with epoxy resin and calcined bauxite chippings, having regard to the 72 per cent. reduction of wet weather accident rate in the former and 87 per cent. reduction in the latter; and if he will take steps to induce other authorities to use this method at selected sites.

We have noted the encouraging results achieved in London with this material, and will consider what guidance should he given to local and highway authorities when the results of this and other similar experiments have been fully evaluated.

Would my hon. Friend consider extending the scope of the experiments? The figures suggest that this is a revolutionary step forward in anti-skid devices on the road.

This is something that we are always thinking about, and the experiments are being considerably extended.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now introduce legislation to make it compulsory for cars to be insured automatically at the same time and in the same office as they are taxed.

No, Sir. There would be no advantage, and several practical disadvantages, in my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Does not my hon. Friend accept that it is time to move in that direction? Both taxation and third-party insurance are compulsory, and there seems no logical reason why they should not be carried out in the same office. It would reduce the uncertainties of the present insurance situation, reduce the number of staff involved, and make the whole thing much simpler. Does not my hon. Friend accept that it would be welcomed by motorists generally, and by the insurance companies, judging by the small profit margin that they claim exists on motor insurance?

I am not certain about all that. The first practical difficulty is that vehicle excise duty is standard according to the class of vehicle, while insurance premiums vary considerably with the driver concerned.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to British Railways that seat reservations for the seriously disabled will be effected without charge.

No, Sir. This is not an appropriate matter for a general direction.

Whilst I recognise the Minister's limitations here, will he nevertheless specifically invite the Railways Board just to show a little touch of generosity over the matter, as it used to do?

There are certain limited concessions that the railways allow, such as the booking of reserved seats in trains which do not normally have reserved seats.

Crossman.

I will pass on the observations of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) to the Railways Board.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the indifference of British Rail has created considerable distress and resentment among many severely disabled people, because they are sometimes shunted into the guard's van if they cannot afford reservations? Will my hon. Friend make the strongest possible representations on this issue?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied with the loading regulations for haulage vehicles carrying horticultural produce; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. Vehicles carrying horticultural produce are subject to the same loading regulations as other goods vehicles, and we see no reason to change this.

The Minister plainly says that he is satisfied. Will he accept that no one connected with the haulage of vegetables could possibly agree with him, and that the regulations are resulting in a serious waste of time, labour and money? In the light of experience in this branch of haulage, will he please reexamine the regulations or at least consider doing so?

No evidence has been presented to us that the regulations are causing difficulties. [Interruption.] I cannot say any more than that. I am certain that if the hon. Gentleman can produce some evidence he will send it to us.

Is the Minister seriously suggesting that he should be presented with vehicles full of rotten vegetables to support the many representations made by the trade associations on the matter?

This is evidence of the Opposition's rotten attitude on the Transport Act. If vehicle operators are finding difficulty with the plating regulations, it may well be that the vehicles were overloaded before the introduction of the Act.

On a point of order. In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answer, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Transport having regard to the evidence obtained by the Automobile Association, a copy of which has been sent to him, that 60 per cent. of vehicles are faulty, what steps he is taking to improve vehicle inspection, road safety and safety of pedestrians.

Allowing for the nature of the sample on which the A.A.'s findings are based, they are not inconsistent in detail with the failure rate in the Ministry's test. We will continue the annual tests and roadside checks of vehicles as in the past and the police will no doubt enforce the regulations as before. Strict measures introduced in 1968 to enforce the standards of the vehicle testing scheme are still being maintained.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that that is an appalling confession, which amounts to a statement that 60 per cent. of the vehicles right across the board on the roads of this country are not in a roadworthy condition, and suffer from one fault or another? What is he doing specifically in the early future to raise standards of roadworthiness and to meet general levels of road safety?

The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. I did not say that there was a failure rate of 60 per cent. On the sample that the A.A. made there was a failure rate across the board of 60 per cent. but with the Ministry tests it is about 31 per cent. I agree that this is high, but proper maintenance of vehicles is the responsibility of the owners. Without the vehicle testing scheme those 31 per cent. of vehicles would still be running around and constituting a danger to the public.

Is it not the case that there are about 2,000 rules and regulations and statutory orders affecting vehicles, that invariably none of them are carried out and that very rarely are there any spot checks made at the roadside? Is my hon. Friend aware that there are hundreds of thousands of vehicles on the roads today that have never been stopped at any time by one of these so called spot checks? Will not he carry out the existing laws?

I am not prepared to confirm or deny that there are 2,000, 1,999 or 2,001 rules and regulations. I am prepared to take issue with my hon. Friend about spot checks seldom being carried out. I spent three hours at the roadside with a team doing spot checks yesterday afternoon in the South of Scotland. I can tell my hon. Friend that every week in the northern and southern parts of Scotland at least one roadside check is made. The same applies to England and Wales.

asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has obtained of loading per track mile for Crewe to Glasgow electrification to be carried out at a cost of £25 million and average loading per track mile established Euston to Crewe, 158 miles, compared with the 263 miles Crewe to Glasgow; and what is the economic return on the latter.

As I explained to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) on 24th March, the publication of detailed information about this investment project would not be in the commercial interest of British Railways.—[Vol. 798, c. 1186–7.]

While not wishing to probe that, would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that electrification of long-distance railway lines is only commercially viable and successful where the routes are very heavily loaded, as between London and Crewe, Liverpool and Manchester and Birmingham but that between Crewe and Glasgow the loading is relatively very light'? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that this high investment of £25 million for the latter route will be a commercial proposition?

I assured the House at the time that I made the statement that I would look carefully into all the figures and forecasts. It was shown on a discounted cash flow basis that there will be a return of at least 10 per cent. and possibly more with the economies that will be effected as well as the increased traffic we hope to attract.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the inconsistency of hon. Members opposite who on the one hand are forever demanding increased investment for British Rail and on the other hand are complaining every time he makes a favourable railway investment decision after careful consideration? Is he aware that I deeply sympathise with him?

I have noticed this and I only wish that it were confined to this one subject. My hon. Friend knows that very often there are bitter attacks on the level of taxation coupled with simultaneous demands for additional burdens on the Exchequer.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the questioning from this side of the House on this scheme arose directly from a question to the Minister from his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), who presumably had access to all the figures and was obviously very surprised by the Minister's decision to go ahead?

I do not undertake to read the state of hon. Members' minds and to know what prompts them to ask questions. My right hon. Friend asked a very proper question about what the return would be. As I have assured the hon. Member, in writing and in the House, my right hon. Friend had left the Ministry before the latest assessments and figures came in.

asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received from employers and trade unions in Scotland as a consequence of the restriction of drivers' hours provided for in the Transport Act, 1968.

My hon. Friend has passed on to me a memorandum from a haulage firm. I have received no other representations from individual employers or trade unions in Scotland.

Is my right hon. Friend quite satisfied that there is no misunderstanding among employers and employees about the workings of this aspect of the Act?

I dare say that some misunderstandings may remain. All that I can say is that my Department has done all it can to make information available. Employers have known that the new hours and rules would come into force because they were part of the 1968 Act.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulties caused through the carriage of livestock over long distances in Scotland? While safety must be paramount, can he say when the meeting is to take place which has been arranged between the officials and members of the trade associations, about which the Minister has written me? Is he aware that this is an urgent matter into which some flexibility should now be introduced?

An hon. Member has a Question down later. I am shortly arranging for a meeting in Scotland and if, as a result of that meeting between the associations, the Scottish Office and my Department, an urgent need for action is revealed we will obviously consider it.

asked the Minister of Transport what changes in policy towards breathalysers he plans following the Road Research Laboratory Report No. 6, which indicates that blood alcohol levels between 100 and 119 milligrams/ 100 millilitres multiply the risk of an accident by five and a half and blood alcohol levels above 160 milligrams/100 millilitres multiply the risk by 21.

This information was available when the existing legislation was enacted and I have no plans to propose any changes at present.

Has not the time come to consider varying the penalty upon conviction in these cases in accordance with the amount of alcohol found in the convicted person's blood? Is it not obviously unfair that a person who has mildly overindulged and is in full charge of his faculties should have the same penalty imposed upon him as a person who is grossly and incapably drunk?

The courts already have power to vary the penalty according to the circumstances of the case. It is a matter of argument whether there should be certain disqualification in every case of conviction. When this House decided that this should be so, it became one of the important factors in making the Act such a great success.

asked the Minister of Transport what was the total expenditure on road building between 1965 and 1969, inclusive; and what was the total for the period 1960 to 1964, inclusive.

For the five years up to March, 1970, expenditure in England totalled £1,180 million and for the preceding five financial years, £501 million.

Is that not a remarkable set of figures? Does it not demolish once and for all the myth put round by the Tories and their associates in the motor organisations that in some way this Government have cut back road building?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] I should have thought that anyone who travelled round the country would have seen the evidence with their eyes and would have discounted the propaganda that certain organisations are putting out.

I am sure the House will agree that the Minister answered his own Question extremely well.

On a point of order.

Order. I regret to have to take points of order during Question Time.

A serious suggestion has been made—that in some way the Minister answered his own Question. Can you advise me how I can refute a lie?

Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw the word "lie ".

Why? The hon. Gentleman said it.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw the word " lie ". It is not in order to accuse an hon. Member of telling a lie. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw the word " lie ". If not I must ask him to withdraw from the Chamber.

I am reluctant to embarrass you in any way, Mr. Speaker and that is why I withdraw the word " lie " and say that the hon. Gentleman has made a mistake which he in turn should withdraw.

I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister answered the Question very well even if he did not himself put the Question down. Would not the Minister agree that, as there is a four to five-year delay in road-building programmes, what his answer effectively reveals is that this Government have built only the roads that their predecessors planned?

On the question of responsibility for the Question, I have a serious confession to make to the House. Until this Question was put down it had never occurred to me to get the sums done to produce the figures. I was very impressed when I saw them. Obviously, the plans on which roads are built emanate many years before the completion of the roads, but there is a great difference between drawing a line on a map and organising, and finding the money for, the building of roads.

On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) was good enough to fall in with your wishes in a very courteous way. There was an implication that my hon. Friend had put down a Question as a result of pressure from the Minister, and the Minister has assured us that this was not so. Do not you agree with me, Mr. Speaker, in view of the courteous way in which my hon. Friend dealt with this, that it was arrogant of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) not to withdraw what he said, and that he should now do so?

I cannot comment on whether or not an hon. Member is arrogant. I thought he had fairly withdrawn.

asked the Minister of Transport what requests he has received from British Railways for approval of capital expenditure on the introduction of new passenger rolling stock on the Waterloo to Portsmouth line and the planned redevelopment of the Portsmouth and Southsea Station site; and what replies he has sent.

Approval was given a year ago to the Railways Board's proposal to invest £21 million in 836 new coaches for the longer Southern Region routes including the Portsmouth line. New stock is already being brought into use on this line. The Board has not submitted to my right hon. Friend any proposals for the redevelopment of Portsmouth and Southsea station.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, while regular users of the line are full of admiration for the way the staff try to cope with antiquated working conditions, they are tired of being seen as the poor relations of Sussex and Hampshire? Will he do everything possible to prevent delays in the planned modernisation?

I have no doubt that Southern Region will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on the adequacy of pedestrian crossing facilities in the road improvement plans submitted to him by Portsmouth City Council; whether he will review the implementation of pedestrian crossing plans there with reference to past delays in opening pedestrian underpasses; and whether he will investigate the traffic hazards related to road developments at Hilsea which lie between local residents and their shops, public houses and schools.

Since an oral reply to this Question would be inordinately long I will write to my hon. Friend.

I look forward to receiving the letter. The people in the middle of this development feel that they are marooned in a sea of traffic. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, whenever similar schemes elsewhere are being planned and undertaken, his Department will see that the needs of local communities and pedestrians are not overlooked?

In so far as the responsibility is that of my Department, yes, Sir. In so far as it is the responsibility of a local authority, clearly the local authority will have to bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Is not it time that decisions on pedestrian crossings were left to the local authority in the area concerned? Why does the Ministry of Transport always think that it knows better than people on the spot?

If the hon. Gentleman had made this comment about 18 months ago, he would have done so with some justice, but local authorities now have the right to determine where pedestrian crossings shall be within certain criteria and within a certain number.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make regulations to control petrol fumes by providing for an exhaust after-burner.

We are developing proposals for regulations to reduce fumes from petrol engined vehicles.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the report recently made to him by the Royal Institute of British Architects, he will maintain the limit of 32 tons for lorry-trailer combinations.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a further statement on the licensing of lorries above the present weight and size limits.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on his policy regarding possible revision of the maximum weight of vehicles allowed on the roads.

The views expressed by the Royal Institute of British Architects and by many other organisations and individuals are being taken into account in a thorough appraisal of the implications of permitting the use of heavier goods vehicles. I will announce my decisions and reasons for them as soon as possible.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposed increase from 32 to 56 tons will raise great problems of safety and environmental factors? The present plans for 44-ton lorries would increase the decibels by about ten times the level recommended by the Wilson Committee. Is my right hon. Friend in favour of the industry-financed study, recommended by the Royal Institute of British Architects?

I do not think that my hon. Friend has all his facts right. A condition of any increased size would be that the noise and other criteria would have to conform to standards already laid down, but I have agreed—and this is why the matter is taking time—to a cost-benefit study involving factors of precisely the kind asked for by the R.I.B.A.