asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects heavy lorries to meet in full the costs attributed to them.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward proposals to ensure that heavy lorries meet in full the costs attributed to them.

The great majority of lorries—some 87 per cent.—already meet their attributable road costs in full. It remains Government policy that all should do so, but I cannot anticipate future Budgets.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but does he still hold to his intention, expressed in the White Paper, that the British Rail freight deficit should be eliminated this year? Does not he agree that that is unfair to British Rail? Will he consider withdrawing that directive until the lorry costs are ready to be implemented?

I would like to help my hon. Friend in this matter because I share his wish to see as much freight carried by rail as possible. But I must remain committed to what I said in the White Paper. Freight should pay its way, and we shall be working towards ensuring that all lorries do so—as many of them do already.

Precisely how does my right hon. Friend intend to ensure that the social and environmental costs of lorries should be met through taxation?

The commitment is to acknowledge that not only does the building of roads bear directly on the Exchequer but that environmental considerations are involved. That is set out clearly in the first chapter of the White Paper.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that any increase in the costs of running large lorries will be transferred at once to transport costs, and then on to the consumer, so that there will be no net overall gain? The right hon. Gentleman says that many commercial vehicles already run at a profit. Does he appreciate that if heavy lorries are specially penalised the result will be many more smaller vehicles, which will probably cause as much damage to our road system?

No one is suggesting—certainly I am not—that heavy lorries should be penalised. The argument is only about whether heavy lorries should pay their share of attributable costs. I think that both the public and the House will answer "Yes".

Can my right hon. Friend give the latest figure for the extent to which lorries of over 30 cwt—long-distance haulage lorries—fail to meet their full attributable road costs? Does that figure not include environmental costs, accident costs and pollution costs caused by such lorries?

There is a significant deficit between the revenue earned from such lorries and the attributable costs, which do not include environmental costs, but the gap has been narrowed because lorries have been making somewhat shorter journeys. But I think that the House as a whole is agreed that lorries should pay their attributable costs, whatever some hon. Members may think.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that both road and rail should pay full direct costs and be able to operate without subsidy? Does he also agree that, rather than suffering a continuing barrage of criticism, our road haulage industry deserves credit as one of the most competitive industries in Britain?

I have said before, and I repeat, that freight should pay its way and that there should be an element of choice in this respect. I do not think that the road haulage industry is as battered as it likes to believe. It has been successful in expanding and has made a very important contribution to our economy.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider the need to rebuild the A21 trunk road as a dual carriageway from Tonbridge to Hastings.

No, Sir; our approach is to improve the route by providing bypasses, such as those for Pembury, Hurst Green and Robertsbridge, which we announced recently.

Bearing in mind that in 1974 the Government doubled the minimum qualification for trunk roads to give dual carriageways 17,000 vehicles a day, will the Minister himself bear in mind that there has been an enormous growth in the South-East of England, especially on the A21, of long-vehicle and juggernaut traffic, which has made the 17,000 vehicles qualification irrelevant and far greater than warranted by the roads?

It is true that the figure was increased to 17,000 in 1974, but it still does not mean that this road meets the requirements. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants this road improved as fast as possible. If we can do it in small pieces by means of bypassing these attractive villages, we can probably do something quicker than by going for a whole new route.

Is the Minister aware that Kent has more goods vehicle traffic passing through it than any other county and that north-south routes, especially this one, are probably the most lacking in improvement of any in the country? What is more, Kent is the most densely populated county. Will the hon. Gentleman do something for our road programme, because we are starved of cash for roads, especially in the north-south direction?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We are conscious of Kent's problems with heavy lorries and juggernauts and we are conscious also that it has not had its fair share of road spending in the past. That is why we are anxious to improve these roads as quickly as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on plans for the M42.

I hope that early in the new year we shall be in a position to publish the remaining orders for the Bromsgrove section and the revised proposals for the Kingsbury and Polesworth sub-sections, to announce a decision on the subsidiary orders for the Water Orton sub-section and to consult the public on alternative routes for the Castle Donington section. This is subject to our current trunk road review.

I welcome that answer, but does my hon. Friend accept that there is considerable concern, on both sides of the argument about the M42, at the failure so far to reach any decision on the Castle Donington section? When making final decisions on the M42, will he undertake that apart from economic and trading considerations he will bear in mind suggestions for bypass routes, which could curtail considerably the money required for a full M42?

Yes, indeed. If my hon. Friend heard my replies to the previous Question he will realise that this is the very point that I had in mind. If we are to bring any relief to some of our villages, it is important to get ahead with bypasses. These quite often bring improvement faster than would a wholly new route.

Will the hon. Gentleman turn his attention to the other end of the M42? Does he think that there is a greater need for the construction of the Bromsgrove section than for the widening of the dual-lane M5? Can he give any indication when we shall be able to discuss such matters? When will he issue a White Paper on the Government's motorway strategy?

We are at the moment reviewing the trunk road programme, and we shall bring our proposals to the House in the shape of a White Paper, as was indicated in the White Paper on transport policy, as soon as possible. I do not think that that will be too long. As regards the priorities between the M5 and these proposals, I still think that these deserve higher priority. These are for a new route rather than for improving an existing road.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the crucial importance to Tamworth and its residents of the Tamworth section of the M42? In view of the town's tremendous housing record in providing overspill housing for the West Midlands conurbation, is not it time that it had the road structure that it requires?

I agree entirely. The growth of Tamworth has been especially impressive, since it has not had some of the advantages of other growth areas and the road planning has lagged behind. I hope that at a meeting later today I shall be able to give more encouraging news.

Is the Minister aware that the majority of residents in the Midlands would be dismayed if vast sums were spent on building this motorway in these difficult times instead of merely having certain bypasses?

Our priority is to get value for money within a restricted road programme. I am sure that our proposals will meet those criteria.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the Chairman of the National Bus Company.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet representatives of the National Bus Company.

Next week.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets the chairman, will he urge upon him the desirability of persuading the constituent companies of the National Bus Company to follow the example of British Rail and provide cheap off-peak fares, especially for old-age pensioners, since the present level of fares discourages the use of buses, especially in rural areas?

I shall draw the chairman's attention to what the hon. Gentleman said. I am sure that it is the chairman's wish to raise the standards of all the companies within the National Bus Company to the standards of the best and to bear in mind exactly considerations of the kind mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. Friend draw the chairman's attention to the most unsatisfactory condition of many buses upon which the public are expected to travel? Will my right hon. Friend also direct this gentleman's attention to the large number of buses lying unused because of the shortage of spare parts and ask him to take immediate and effective action to tackle the problem?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing these matters to my attention. I shall convey them to the chairman. My hon. Friend may like to give me some details of specific examples of what he has in mind so that they may be examined more carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the present road safety position in regard to vehicles engaged in transporting steel coil.

Regulations already exist which require safe loading, and in addition the Department has published a Code of Practice on the Safety of Loads on Vehicles which contains detailed advice on methods of constraining a wide range of loads, including steel coils.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the current practice, on flat-bedded lorries, of stacking coils in an upright position and putting blocks of wood each side is completely unsatisfactory? Will he consider introducing regulations so that a proper purpose-built cradle is utilised? Is my hon. Friend aware that the TGWU, of which I am a member, is extremely concerned about this? Has he any statistics to show what is happening to these loads on the road?

This is not a particularly serious cause of accidents. We believe that if people follow the instructions that we have laid down in regulations there should be no problem. However, I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I know that there have been one or two accidents recently in his area because of this, and I shall keep a careful watch on the position.

In addition to road safety for steel coils and everything else, may I ask the hon. Gentleman about the expenditure of county councils on road maintenance, which is decreasing constantly between 1973 and 1981? We are mortgaging our future—

Order. That is a quite different matter from the Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the working of the transport supplementary grant formula as it has affected Essex.

The formula treats all counties in the same way, including Essex. But my right hon. Friend is now considering whether any changes are needed for the 1978–79 grant settlement.

Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and I were grateful for his helpful attitude on a specific problem recently but that this is no substitute for avoiding a situation in which the county of Essex got virtually no TSG this year? May we be assured that this will not be allowed to happen again?

I cannot give specific assurances about the level of TSG. Obviously it will vary considerably according to the spending of the local authority and the money available from central Government. I recognise that Essex was hard done by in the last round, and we hope to avoid that situation again.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the way that the shire counties are taking up the transport grant and that they are keen on maintaining public transport in rural areas? Would not it be dangerous to hand over to them the control of railway branch lines?

No. I am not satisfied with the way in which many shire counties, particularly Conservative-controlled ones, are feeding funds into the support of bus services. Rail services are an entirely different matter and it is not appropriate to comment on them on this Question.

Is it not wrong for the Government on the one hand to proclaim a belief in local decision-making on transport matters, yet on the other hand to threaten shire counties with economic blackmail if they cut public expenditure in an endeavour to modernise local bus services in an efficient manner?

Nobody is threatening shire counties. All we want is a responsible attitude towards the provision of public transport, and we have taken measures to ensure that.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he is making in his arrangements for the provision of driving instruction for motor cycle learner drivers in the United Kingdom and in particular in Leicester.

My right hon. Friend recently announced the launching of a new nation-wide motor cycle training scheme to be operated by STEP Management Services Limited in conjunction with local authorities. In addition, the Department gives financial assistance to the RAC training scheme, which now operates in more than 300 centres, including one in Leicester.

I congratulate the Minister and his Department on the safe rider scheme and emphasise the enormous importance of giving more information about future steps to be taken to reduce the terrible carnage on the roads. Is the Minister aware that this carnage has resulted in hundreds of motor cyclists and their pillion passengers being killed each year and thousands more being injured? What further help does he propose giving these people to ensure that they learn to drive safely, both for themselves and for other road users?

All sides of industry and riders themselves felt that the right way forward was in the provision of proper training facilities being on as wide a scale as possible. The STEP provisions that have been announced will fill a clear gap in this area, and we want to put maximum possible pressure behind them in the short term, as we believe that this is the right way forward.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next proposes to meet the Chairman of British Railways.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the Chairman of the British Railways Board.

I met him today and I hope to see him again soon.

When he met the chairman today, did the Secretary of State ask him why commuters from Hove and Brighton should be expected to accept as reasonable a further large increase in their fares before they, the taxpayers generally, or the House have had an independent assessment of the efficiency of British Rail's operations and before they have been told how profitable are the particular lines on which they travel?

The simple answer to the hon. Member's question is "No" but he might not find that sufficient. I simply say to him and to rail travellers that in order to meet the costs of the railways we must either increase the fares in line with the increase in inflation or subsidise the railways to a much greater extent out of the general fund of taxation. The second possibility is not generally acceptable to the House, because of the greater public expenditure involved. The Chairman of British Rail is very concerned about the need to increase the efficiency of the railways and to make sure that commuters get value for money.

Why does not the Secretary of State take the Chairman of British Rail to do some train spotting? If he stands for a while alongside any main line station and watches the inter-city trains hurtling by he will see that most of them are less than half occupied. How can further extravagant fare increases help to get passengers back on to the railways, which are at present pricing themselves out of the market? The consumer is paying enough already for under-occupation and inefficiency.

The hon. Member's experience is somewhat different from mine. I have found to my delight that most inter-city trains are full, or nearly so. British Rail has shown a significant increase in the last year in the number of passengers carried. The logic of the hon. Member's question is that British Rail should reduce the number of services, and this is not generally acceptable to the public.

Can the Secretary of State offer possible help to the British Railways Board in providing restaurant and sleeping car facilities for Egyptian Railways?

Yes.

I presume that the previous question had a West Lothian flavour. Can the Secretary of State give us any encouragement about the question of reopening lines where traffic appears to be becoming available? I refer specifically to traffic in northern Scotland, particularly in the Peterhead area, where very large loads that are taken by road could readily be taken by rail if a relatively small stretch of line were opened.

The chairman is anxious to increase the number of passengers and the amount of freight carried on the railways. If this involves reopening lines, he is prepared to do so. But he must be the judge of whether this makes the best sense in the circumstances. However, I shall draw his attention to what the hon. Member said.

Is it fair to commuters in Brighton and Hove, who have had massive increases in their fares over the past few years, that they should have another increase—well in excess of the Government's pay norm—particularly when they are facing a situation in which they are called upon to subsidise large numbers of travellers in the Greater London area? Is that not a disgraceful position?

No, it is not disgraceful. The hon. Member should have a greater sense of perspective, allowing, of course, for his constituency obligations. Fares must increase, and British Rail has been very good in holding them down for a whole year. There is a degree of understanding on this matter, and it is inevitable that there must be a certain degree of cross-subsidisation.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will announce his plans for the financial reorganisation of the National Freight Corporation; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to introduce legislation to change the financial structure of the National Freight Corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will announce his plans for the financial reorganisation of the National Freight Corporation; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to introduce legislation to change the financial structure of the National Freight Corporation.

I refer the hon. Members and my hon. Friends to the Written Answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Johnson) on Monday 14th November 1977.

In connection with this financial reconstruction, has the Secretary of State seen Press reports today which claim that he is to take control of Freightliners away from the National Freight Corporation and give it to British Rail? The Press reports speculate that this is partly in order to appease the rail unions and the Labour Party conference. Is any of this true? If so, what regard has the Secretary of State paid to the customers' interests?

I do not think that I have ever appeased the Labour Party conference, for better or for ill. I have read the Press reports, but Ministers have made no decision on this matter yet.

Will the Secretary of State take note that he will not still demands for positive investment simply by transferring Freightliners to British Rail? Is he aware, however, that many of us would welcome such a transfer as a positive step and regard it as a return to British Railways of control of the market for services that they provide and for which they must bear the investment costs?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations for a decision that I have not yet made.

In view of the fact that the Corporation operates in a competitive sector and may well become profitable, would it not be sensible, instead of arguing about a transfer between various sections of the nationalised sector, to return the business to the private sector?

I welcome what I interpreted as the hon. Member's kind remarks about the National Freight Corporation, which is an efficient and very successful body. However, it does have its problems, which are well recognised by the House. These are concerned mainly with certain parts of the business inherited some years ago. My concern has always been that the National Freight Corporation should function efficiently without subsidy for its freight operations.

Does the Secretary of State agree that if he approves the transfer of the NFC to the management of the British Railways Board it will be a step in the right direction, towards an integrated transport policy?

I do not think that any proposal has been made for the transfer of the whole of the NFC. There are arguments for transferring Freightliners, which I acknowledge, but when Freightliners was placed with the NFC it was with a view to a successful intermodal operation. I pay tribute to Sir Dan Pettit and his board for the success that they have had in recent years.

Does the Minister recall that the Chairman of the National Freight Corporation, in the annual report two years ago, described the financial structure of the Corporation as being a bad practice, reminiscent of medieval usury?

Yes, I remember it well.

Will the Secretary of State be shocked to be told that the views of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) coincide with my views and with the views of all Labour Members who have a Freightliner depot in their constituency? Will he also be shocked to know that all but a few of the employees to whom I have spoken in the West Hull depot believe that the accountancy of Freightliners is open to suspicion and inspection? Will he think again about hiving off this non-road sector of the NFC?

Yes, certainly. It is not an easy decision. Most of these decisions are difficult to make, because one has to bear in mind the need for efficient operation, to provide employment and meet national needs. We shall bear in mind all that my hon. Friend said.

The-Minister will remember that the Labour Party conference rejected the Government's White Paper on transport. Will he, in turn, disregard the advice given to him by that conference about transferring Freightliners to British Rail? What steps has he taken to consult those very important people, the consumers and the users? How long will this appalling uncertainty continue?

I think debate has gone on too long, but for that reason everybody has had an opportunity to express a point of view. I would not dissent from the view that Ministers should make up their minds soon.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to announce his decision upon the recommendations of his inspector's report, following the public inquiry, into the whole question of the route and the junctions on the proposed section of the M27 between Hedge End and Chilworth.

My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment will announce their decision as soon as possible, but full consideration of the inspector's report is likely to take some months. However, if it proves possible to make an earlier announcement about the alternative route, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friends will do so.

I appreciate that the Secretary of State must fully consider the matter before announcing a full decision, but will he urgently announce the line and route, because that will set at rest the minds of my constituents and relieve many anxieties, and it will certainly be helpful?

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. The consequences in respect of blight involving the two alternatives are still undecided. Therefore, I shall take account of the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Is the Minister aware that the completion of the M27 is urgently required, as is the completion of the M3? Will he confirm that he has received representations from the Hampshire County Council on the vital need to join up the two motorways and provide fast access from London to the port of Southampton?

I can confirm that I have received representations from the Hampshire County Council on this subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when the preferred route for the Stoke—Derby link road will be published.

It will take some time to deal with the whole 42 miles of the link. However, I hope to bring forward much more quickly proposals for dealing with the most urgent sections.

Does the Minister agree that the sooner the line of route from Derby to Stoke is settled and finished, the better it will be for everybody concerned, particularly for those of my constituents who have the misfortune to live on this road?

I shall consult my right hon. Friend on this matter.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his visit to my constituency to consult on this route was warmly received by those who met him? Is he able at this stage to comment on the proposals of the Derby-Stoke Action Group, which he met?

This road, as my hon. Friend knows, is given personal attention by my right hon. Friend and myself. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The proposals of the DeSTAG will be examined with all the others, and will be commented upon later.

Have the proposals for the M64 been dropped?

I think the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the name of the proposals that proceded the present one. It was at one time called the M64 proposal between Stoke and Derby. It is now called the Derby-Stoke link. It has not been dropped. We are considering a road along various alternative lines within this corridor.

Is the Minister aware of the urgency of the Derby-Stoke link road, bearing in mind the fact that it might relieve some of the intolerable burden of traffic that thunders dangerously through Uttoxeter, and is he also aware that the citizens and industry of the area would prefer the speedy construction of the Uttoxeter bypass?

That was the whole point of our reconsidering the M64 proposal, as it was originally called—the present Stoke-Derby link. We are examining the matter with a view to providing relief as quickly as possible to those areas and villages which need it most pressingly. We are examining the scheme as a whole rather than the economic proposals originally conceived.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations he has so far met in the course of his consultations on the White Paper proposals on local railway services; and when he expects to complete this process of consultation.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations he has so far met in the course of his consultations on the White Paper proposals on local railway services; and when he expects to complete this process of consultation.

I have not yet met any organisations, nor have I set a timetable for consultations.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that these proposals have met with general hostility, not only from the Labour Party and the TUC but from the Tory-controlled county councils, which do not want to be saddled with the blame for unpopular decisions affecting local railway services? Will he now re-examine these proposals and, in his review, encourage the use of all forms of transport?

Yes. My hon. Friend is right to say that these proposals have not had an enthusiastic reception. They were one of the "green" parts of the White Paper and I hoped that they would encourage thoughtful and constructive discussion of the problems raised. I still hope that that discussion will take place. There is no prospect of legislating on this matter in the immediate future.

Has the Minister had any representations from commuter organisations, bearing in mind the continuing deterioration of commuter services in South Essex and the astonishing admission by British Rail that it can do nothing to improve them until the 1980s? Will the Minister invite commuter organisations in South-East Essex and Members of Parliament to see him in order to discuss this matter?

I generally find that invitations are not necessary for hon. Gentlemen, and, for that matter, members of the public, who invite themselves. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which is valid. Many commuters are not particularly happy with the services that they enjoy. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is a different issue from the one involving a local option. One of the arguments for a local option is that it will enable people who live in the locality to decide how best they want public transport to be run.

Does the Minister agree that the local option proposals are seen by many as passing the buck from the central body to local authorities? Does he not see the danger, since this is seen also as the thin end of the wedge or as decentralisation of the railway system? Does he further agree that if that takes place it will be disastrous to the industry?

My hon. Friend properly draws attention to some of the supposed disadvantages of the proposals. There are arguments both ways, but we must try to find a solution to the problem of those railway lines that cost large sums of money to maintain. It must be decided against the background of those railway lines, mainly to meet local needs, and also the view expressed in the House today that fares should not rise disproportionately to inflation.

Will the Minister confirm that we have met and discussed these proposals, but that they have received little or no support?

I think that that is a fair rendering of the situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the construction of the Beverley South-West Bypass.

Following the reopened public inquiry, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment hope to announce their decision on the bypass early next week.

May I remind the Minister that the line of this route has been altered on a number of occasions and that that has caused great delay? Will he do his best to have the road constructed before the Humber Bridge opens, otherwise northbound traffic will overwhelm many villages in the area?

That is an important consideration, which I shall take into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received, following the publication of his proposals set out in the transport policy White Paper, Command Paper No. 6836, concerning plans to license and tax private car parking spaces in offices and factories in Central London; and if he will make a statement.

The White Paper makes no parking proposals specific to London. There have been about 170 replies to the consultation paper on additional powers for local authorities to control off-street parking.

Does the Minister realise that these misguided proposals have been savagely criticised in many quarters because they are rightly seen as nothing less than a spiteful attack on the motorist? How can it possibly be justified to burden individuals and companies with a new tax and the expensive new bureaucracy that would be needed to operate it? Will the Minister think again about this Socialist lunacy?

I am not quite clear whether the hon. Gentleman has read the White Paper and understands the proposals made in it and, particularly, whether he has read the consultation document. We are proposing only that local authorities may like to have powers to enable them to decide whether they wish, in one way or another, to control off-street parking. I should have thought that it was a reasonable spread of democracy to give such powers to local authorities, which would be free to use them or otherwise.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are people, particularly hon. Members representing urban areas, who are in favour of these powers being given to local authorities but believe that they should be given to district councils in shire counties and not left in the hands of the shire counties, which use their position to strangle urban life in the cities? That has happened in Humberside, by the shire county refusing to develop lorry parks.

It is certainly clear that in many towns and cities there is a widespread view that parking should be subject to control, given only that local authorities should make the decisions and that they are subject to the normal democratic processes. However, each town and city is different, and it would be extremely foolish of me to lay down the law. Only certain powers would be given, but my hon. Friend was right in saying that these powers are more applicable to districts than to counties. Under the local government reorganization—for which the Labour Party was not responsible—many powers relating to traffic and transport have been given to the counties.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that in many cases the provision of car parking for offices has been a condition of planning consent being given by a local authority? Is not this a case of trying to change the rules after the game has been started?

I take that point, because I was a member of a planning committee in a metropolitan borough some years ago and I was insistent then that new office buildings should have car parking accommodation. However, we all have to learn from experience in handling traffic, and local authorities should be free—given the proper consultative process and all the safeguards upon which the House would insist—to have these powers at some stage.

With reference to traffic congestion and parking troubles in Central London, has my right hon. Friend seen the GLC's plans for removing many bus lanes and reinstituting parking meters in a way that will inevitably make intolerable traffic congestion even worse? Have the Government powers to do anything about that?

I am very bothered by the proposals. I have read of them only in the newspapers, because, I regret to tell the House—although this is totally consistent with my view on local decisionmaking—this is the responsibility of the GLC, control of which changes hands from time to time, and changed in the wrong direction last May.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken)? Will he confirm that in the consultation document that he has issued, though not publicly, it is implicit in his plans that a new enforcement body of inspectors will check on motorists parked in private car parks in the areas designated? Is not the whole thing a hopeless over-reaction to the problem, and will he undertake to drop these absurd plans into the departmental wastepaper basket?

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. These proposals are worthy of consideration and have received a reception that was friendly from some and less friendly from others. I am sure that as the years go by the hon. Gentleman will find that an increasing number of local authorities will want to have the powers, whichever way they may choose to exercise them.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is holding any discussions to simplify the procedures for siting new pedestrian crossings.

Yes. We have discussed with local authority associations a proposal to withdraw the requirement for my right hon. Friend's approval of individual new pelican crossings on roads other than trunk roads. Their siting will then be determined by the local authority in the same way as zebra crossings.

Does the Minister appreciate that in the past it has often taken as long to develop and produce an airliner as to obtain approval for a pedestrian crossing on a main road? Will he make sure that in the new consultative procedure more weight is given to the views of local residents?

That is an extremely important point. I am conscious of the need not only to look at the statistics—which can sometimes conceal more than they reveal—but to consult public opinion and an hon. Member's constituents about a crossing. I hope that the change that we shall make will be consistent with what we are saying about local options and will lead to quicker results.

Does the Minister recall our correspondence about the need to site a pedestrian crossing outside Crawshaw-booth Junior School in my constituency? Does he agree with me that procedures that prohibit the siting of a pedestrian crossing on the busiest road in north-east Lancashire, where there is a steep gradient and where children cross, are entirely ridiculous?

I had thought that I should not be able to get away without my hon. Friend raising this problem, which he has brought to my attention on a number of occasions. It is because we want quickly to announce decisions on such matters that we are trying to get local authorities to make up their minds. I cannot go all the way to Lancashire for my hon. Friend, but I shall look into the matter.

Is the Minister aware of the fact that the formula of cars per hour squared times people must amount to at least 100 million? Will he tell us where that formula came from, and upon what it is based?

I have no idea, and I am not sure that I entirely believe it.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the route of the M40.

I am very conscious of the hon. Member's understandable concern about this, and I assure him that we shall reach a decision as soon as we possibly can.

Is the Minister aware that the high number of purely local Questions on the Order Paper, which are boring to those not involved, amounts to a criticism of his Department and its procrastinating attitude towards the development of road systems? Does he recall how many times he has told me that we shall hear very shortly about the route of the M40? Today he has not even said "very shortly". Is he aware that real trouble is caused in respect of such of my constituents as farmers who can make no firm plans and households that are being blighted? Does he realise that industrial development in Banbury cannot go ahead until he has let us know? Will he please do something and let us know quickly?

I am conscious of the danger of saying "very shortly". That is why I did not repeat it today. However, I am aware of the number of times that the hon. Gentleman has received that answer, indicating that a reply would be coming fairly soon, and am also aware that a reply has not yet appeared. I am conscious of the genuine problems of blight and other difficulties in his and adjacent areas that have been caused by our taking time over the decision. The matter is high in our consideration, and the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we shall give it priority.

Before the Minister commits himself to an extravagant extension of the M40, will he study the Leach Committee's report on traffic forecasting? When will it be published? Will it be shortly?

We have only just received it. It will take a little time to consider, but will be published as soon as possible.

As the M42 Bromsgrove section is to be renamed the M40, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that its construction will not proceed in advance of the construction of the rest of the M40?

Our plans remain as we have stated. There is no change.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the implementation of EEC regulations on drivers' hours.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his negotiation in the EEC on drivers' hours and other related matters.

I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) on Friday 4th November.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of the recent agreement in Brussels, very short notice has been given regarding the imposition of the 450-km rule and that this will cause considerable problems for the road haulage industry, which will need to reschedule its journeys? Does he propose to do anything to recognise these difficulties? Can he confirm that the Government and not the bureaucrats in Brussels will be responsible for the timetable for phasing in the new drivers' hours regulations?

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says about the 450-km limit and the difficulties facing the industry. We should be happy to discuss any problems with the industry. Most people believe that we achieved considerable success in Brussels on this occasion in reaching agreement in principle to a three-year period of implementation, which was something that we were uncertain about achieving. Discussions are taking place with the Commission on the phasing of that implementation. The House would not wish me to say anything that might prejudice a satisfactory outcome.

The right hon. Gentleman's recent Written Answer disguised the fact that the 450-km limit would be coming in on 1st January and would not be subject to a three-year transitional period. Does not this undermine the transitional arrangements on drivers' hours, and is it not inconceivable that the industry could reorganise itself in the six or seven weeks before 1st January? Is it possible for enforcement to be deferred? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that we shall have a debate on this critical issue?

I am sorry if my Written Answer disguised anything. That was not my intention. I wished to summarise as briefly as I could the outcome of the discussions in Luxembourg that were regarded as successful. If the hon. Gentleman considers the matter carefully, he will find that the great bulk of the road haulage and bus industries are pleased. I have had letters and telegrams congratulating us on the outcome. If I can facilitate discussion in the House, I shall he happy to do so. I recognise that there will be problems for all parts of the industry from 1st January.

Does not our obligation to comply with the 450-km limit reduce considerably the value of the otherwise welcome concession that my right hon. Friend obtained on drivers' hours?

I do not think that the concession is, to use my hon. Friend's carefully formulated phrase, reduced considerably. It was never likely that we would achieve 100 per cent. success in the discussions, and until the meeting in Luxembourg it seemed possible that we would have to implement the provisions from 1st January without any staging at all. There has been a net gain.

What costings has the right hon. Gentleman made of the effects of the legislation in rural areas? Is he aware of the concern of small contractors, particularly in the North and West of Scotland, who fear that they may be put out of business by the implementation of these rules? Is there to be any exemption for such small contractors or for the carriage of livestock?

Such exemptions do not arise, but the point that the hon. Lady makes about remote areas was very much in my mind and in the mind of the House in seeking to get a transitional period of phased implementation. I am rather surprised that our achievement has not received a more general welcome in the House.

Although I am normally an anti-harmonisationist, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that, in the interests of the implementation of EEC regulations and in the interests of safety, it would be advisable to make the use of tachographs compulsory?

There was an earlier Question on the Order Paper on that subject, but the hon. Member who tabled it was not here. It raises much wider issues than are covered in this Question. All I can say is that I do not propose any change in the position that I have previously adopted.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recent halting of foreign drivers by police on motorways? Has he discussed this with the police, and does he draw any conclusions from it? Does he agree that, generally, the EEC is more stringent on hours while our vehicle safety regulations are more stringent than those in the rest of the Community? Could there not be a useful compromise in marrying these to get a package of controls for lorry drivers?

If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether we can learn from each other, the answer is "Yes". There are differences in enforcement, and our standards are rather higher than those in some other EEC countries. I should like to see high standards throughout the Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take action to prevent laybys being used for long periods as dwelling places by itinerants.

Itinerants are not moved from trunk road laybys unless their presence creates safety problems or there is a suitable permanent site available to accommodate them.

Will my hon. Friend give more serious consideration to this problem, because near Castle Donington in my constituency, for example, some laybys are in a revolting, filthy condition and some of the itinerants occupying them have markedly anti-social and sometimes criminal propensities? The problem requires careful consideration.

I shall certainly look carefully at what my hon. Friend has said, but we must be careful not to move people on if there are no suitable sites provided for them by the appropriate county council.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a real problem, not least in the rural areas? Will he consult the Secretary of State for the Environment about action that should be taken generally on this problem, and not least the implementation of the Cripps proposals?

I agree that action should be taken, but often the lack of action by county councils and the lack of provision of suitable sites mean that it is only right to allow people to stay where they are.

When my hon. Friend looks at these local matters, will he differentiate in his value judgment between local authorities which have spent money on providing suitable facilities for itinerants and those which have sat on their bottoms and done nothing?

There is a vast discrepancy between local authorities which have provided a number of sites and those which have provided none or the minimum required by law. I am aware of the problem.

In order to clarify the position, can the hon. Gentleman explain the purpose of a layby?

As a matter of fact, the layby referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) is not a layby in the normal sense. It is a piece of road which has been superseded by a new road, and that is why the itinerants have been allowed to continue using it. Generally, I agree that where a layby performs its usual functions itinerants should not be allowed to stay there.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reform the bus licensing laws; and whether he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend's plans are fully set out in the White Paper on Transport Policy issued on 27th June and the consultation paper on bus licensing issued on 1st August, copies of which are available in the Library.

As the hon. Gentleman's Department drafted a clause in a Bill as long ago as 1973, has it not now had ample time to consider the matter and is it not time that we saw something in legislative form? Can the hon. Gentleman guarantee that when legislation appears it will bring badly needed help to smaller enterprises in rural areas?

The hon. Gentleman should know that we already have legislation in the Experimental Areas Bill, which will be useful in this respect. Any further legislation that we may be able to bring forward this Session will add to the general reforming tradition of successive Labour Governments in this respect, which contrasts markedly with the inaction of successive Conservative Governments.

The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that last remark. If these plans are now so essential, why did the Labour Government in 1974 scrap the reforms to help rural transport that they inherited from the previous Conservative Government? Is it not clear that the Government have wasted four years in respect of rural transport? What they are now proposing is too little and too late.

We scrapped the Conservative proposals because they were wrong and would have destroyed many essential bus services. Anyone who considers the respective records of the various Governments over the years must conclude that Labour has made practical and sensible reforms, whereas the Conservatives have simply talked about ideology and have achieved nothing.