asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further steps he proposes to take to reduce the number of road accidents.

The Government have a continuing programme of measures to reduce road accidents. As my right hon. Friend said in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East, (Mr. Anderson) on 15th March, he is arranging a major conference on road safety this summer.

As there is now no doubt that well over 1,000 lives would be saved and well over 10,000 people could avoid serious disablement every year, and that there are diminishing returns on increased expenditure or methods of persuasion, why does my hon. Friend not bring forward a Bill to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory, in order to end, once and for all, the massacre and maiming of innocents?

I very much regret that it has not been possible to introduce a Bill in this Session—and, of course, I cannot say anything about next Session. However, my right hon. Friend has said that we are convinced that legislation will ultimately be forthcoming to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory. In the meantime, we can do a great deal by voluntary persuasion. My hon. Friend will know that the wearing of seat belts increased from 17 per cent. to 31 per cent. as a result of successive advertising campaigns, and we shall do more of that.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the best ways of reducing road accidents would be to step up the road maintenance programme? Will he give a positive response to the pleas of Avon County Council and many others about the bad state of our roads and recognise that the present neglect is bound to lead to more loss of life and is penny wise and pound foolish?

I do not accept for one minute that there is neglect. I certainly accept that maintenance is an important part of any continuing programme of road safety, together with care for driving conditions and road surfaces in general. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that we instituted a national survey of road maintenance conditions in 1976, and this will ensure that objective evidence is available about the condition of roads.

As the effects of the breathalyser Act become less pronounced, there is a need to go beyond advertising campaigns and to step up the campaign against driving while under the influence of alcohol. Why has nothing been done about the recommendations of the Blennerhassett Committee?

My hon. Friend will be aware that legislation would be necessary to bring in all the measures recommended by the Blennerhassett Committee, and that has not been possible this Session. We are doing all that we can to introduce those parts of the recommendations that are not necessarily subject to legislation. For example, we shall have a major publicity campaign this year on drinking and driving.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the implementation of European Economic Community regulations on tachographs to date; and whether he will make a statement.

Together with my colleagues, I am still considering my response to the Commission's recent reasoned opinion on this.

When the Government have to start enforcing the regulations on 30th June this year, what will the right hon. Gentleman do to enable operators who have installed tachographs to use them?

The hon. Gentleman is confusing two aspects of Community policy. He referred to the alternative of using a tachograph instead of having two drivers in articulated vehicles for distances of more than 450 kilometres. I have made clear that there will be no enforcement until the end of the year because of the need for a running-in period. The larger issue of tachographs is a separate matter.

Is it not time that my right hon. Friend informed the EEC Commissioners that forcing Britain, an island country, to adopt tachographs for domestic road transport is unnecessary harmonisation for harmonisation's sake? Will he therefore inform the Commissioners that he will not accept their legislation on tachographs for domestic transport?

I think that our partners in the Community fully understand the point made by my hon. Friend, that there seems no good reason why tachographs should be used domestically. Nevertheless, there are procedures to be gone through and we are due now to respond to the reasoned opinion which the Commission has put to us in the light of our failure to implement tachographs.

Surely the Secretary of State recognises that the Government will have to take action at some time to help hauliers who want to operate legally, with regard to the new distance limits, with tachographs fitted in their cabs. Surely it is time that he started discussions with the industry and the unions concerned. Otherwise, there will be continued aggravation and only increased cost for freight movement.

There is no problem about using a tachograph if anybody wishes to do so. As the House knows, they are used on international journeys, and voluntary agreements can be reached for their use at home. I am very happy to see voluntary agreements. The whole question of tachographs, quite apart from our legal obligations, is one about which union and management can talk together.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total of: (a) capital, and (b) revenue support by Central Government for public transport in 1977; and what are the estimated figures for 1978.

In 1977, £50 million and £404 million respectively. The equivalent figures for 1978 are expected to be £62 million and £484 million. These figures take no account of rate support grant and transport supplementary grant, as these are block grants and cannot be attributed to individual items of expenditure.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have probably reached a stage in public transport policy at which revenue subsidies may be very much more important than subsidies for ambitious capital schemes? Will bear it in mind in calculating the overall subsidy to public transport in future departmental estimates?

Yes. I think that my my hon. Friend reflects the policy decision that was embodied in the transport policy White Paper published last June and elaborated on, in part, in the two White Papers that I published yesterday. It is clearly the case that support for public transport must have priority.

In regard to forward planning for transport, is the Secretary of State prepared to consider the Lucas Aerospace shop stewards' corporate plan, which includes provision for traffic systems which may assist us on transport generally?

I am not familar with the details of the plan, but I shall be very happy to consider it if my hon. Friend will let me see it, because he is quite right to make the point that effective schemes of traffic management are very relevant to the solution of transport problems.

If the Minister agrees that revenue is important, will he see that help is given to bring in a national concessionary fares scheme?

We have discussed the matter many times in the past. I was very glad to be able to issue a circular lately which made clear my view that there should be, as a minimum, half concessionary fares for all concerned throughout the country. I hope that those recalcitrant local authorities will now come into line.

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

The week after next.

When the Secretary of State meets the Chairman of British Rail, will he encourage him to redouble his efforts to increase British Rail's productivity and to stick to the target of 40,000 manning reductions by 1981, so that my hard-pressed constituents and many others throughout the country will have some prospect of alleviation on fares?

I think that the chairman is quite clear in his mind that the strong view of the House is that we want a cost-effective railway. Progress has been made in that direction in a very satisfactory manner. Obviously, this involves manpower questions, but, as the hon. Gentleman and the House know, there has been considerable progress on the railways towards higher productivity. I am sure that that momentum will be maintained.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the good return on the investment in the high-speed train on the Western Region? Does he agree that it is in the interests of railway transport and the economy to invest in high technology on the railways? Does he realise that we have every facility and the skills and staff in Swindon to do that?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The high-speed train has been a great success. I think that there will be a general welcome for its introduction on the line from London through Newcastle to Edinburgh on 8th May.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that one cannot travel from North to South Wales on British Rail because all the lines have been closed. Will he give an assurance to the people of Wales that the main line in Mid-Wales between Shrewsbury and Aberystwyth will not be closed? If this line is closed, it will be very difficult to entice industrialists to West Wales.

I am glad to say that no proposals of that kind are in front of me.

Will my right hon. Friend raise with the chairman the BR costs proposals to upgrade freight lines for passenger transport? Will he encourage him to discuss with Staffordshire County Council proposals to upgrade the Rugeley-Walsall railway line and also the Lichfield-Walsall railway line?

The question of railway costing and how we attribute cost is familiar to the House and is being pursued in Committee on the Transport Bill at present. I am glad to know that in many cases there is close co-operation between British Railways and the metropolitan counties. There is a future in reviving some of the lines which have not carried much, if any, passenger traffic in recent years.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Price Commission's report found that British Rail had discriminated unfairly against commuters travelling into London by charging them above-average fare increases?

I am sure that the chairman is aware of the general concern in the House and elsewhere about commuter fares in the London area. His problem is to balance an improvement in those services and the need to keep increases in fares down against the necessity which the House imposes upon him to keep within his budget. He has noted what the Price Commission has said, and the Government will be giving their response to the Price Commission's report very shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the report of the committee of inquiry into operators' licensing.

I understand that the committee hopes to present its report by late summer.

Bearing in mind the Foster Committee's obligation to work within the Government's policy of fair competition in the freight market, will my hon. Friend take other steps to assist fair competition? In particular, will he bring forward the recommendations for vehicle taxation at an early date so that we shall see the railway freight deficit disappear at the same time?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern that there should be fair competition between road and rail, and we are doing all that we can to ensure that. However, the precise timing of any changes in vehicle excise duty on lorries, for example, is partly a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer as well as for my right hon. Friend. We will have to wait and see whether, in successive Budgets, anything is done about that.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to receive the report of the inspector into the public inquiry into the proposed M63 motorway from Cheadle Heath to Portwood, Stockport.

Fairly shortly.

I thank the Minister for the reply. Will he make sure that "fairly shortly" is within a matter of days rather than months? Will he ensure that his Department processes the inspector's report quickly, in view of the overwhelming case that was made out for this short piece of road at the inquiry in Stockport? Will he see that construction starts before the end of the year, providing jobs in the Stockport area as well as a much-needed road?

I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is wholeheartedly in favour of this road. It is nice to have a road for which there is such tremendous support in the community as well as from himself. There will be no delay on our part in processing the inspector's report and coming to our conclusions about it. If the statutory processes and the remaining procedures are carried out reasonably expeditiously, we should be able to talk about opening the road in the early 1980s.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will now announce his decision in respect of the scheme to construct a flyover at Darrington on the Al trunk road.

I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend, in view of his long campaign for this improvement, that we have now authorised the preparation of tender documents for construction of the Darrington flyover.

On behalf of the many hundreds of my constituents who will greatly benefit from the scheme, may I thank my hon. Friend for his very good news? Will he give an indication of when construction of the flyover will begin?

I hope that it will be possible to start work on the flyover by the end of this year and that it will then take about two years to construct.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the Chairman of the Association of County Councils.

I have no present plans to meet her.

The Question is Number 9 on my Order Paper, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be a good idea for the Secretary of State to meet the Chairman of the County Councils Association so that he could reassure her that the Government accept that it is for local government to determine which parts of transport expenditure should have priority in the light of local needs? He could also assure her that the amount of transport supplementary grant given to any authority is in no way dependent on that authority handing out the money in conformity with what might be central Government policy.

I do not think that I can wholly accept the hon. Gentleman's rendering of this difficult issue and the balance between national policy and local option. In so far as I made some firm decisions about transport supplementary grant last autumn, however, which gave a plain priority to those counties which supported their buses, I have no regrets.

May I appeal to my right hon. Friend to meet the Chairman of the Association of County Councils? In my constituency and in the county of Avon generally there is considerable concern about the transport of dangerous chemicals and other substances. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will try to ensure that more of these substances go by rail, or that he will introduce regulations to ensure that the vehicles concerned are properly maintained? Will he also give the police authority to stop vehicles which do not meet the regulations that he introduces?

I should explain that I am very happy to meet the chairman of the association, and that I meet her from time to time. This, however, is not one of the issues that she has raised with me lately. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to some of the dangers of the carriage of goods by road, and I should like an increasing proportion of all kinds of freight to go by rail. I shall certainly look into the particular problems that he has mentioned.

I welcome the greater stability in the trunk road programme, but will the Secretary of State acknowledge the importance of county councils in the roads programme generally? Since many of the county councils carrying most of the responsibility for roads have been grievously squeezed by cuts in rate support grant, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that a greater share of the roads budget will be made over to those county councils?

There is a total allocation for spending on transport which is set out annually in the public expenditure White Paper and was set out in the White Paper on transport policy last June. Within that total for roads construction and maintenance, I am prepared to consider the need for flexibility. However, I must make it absolutely clear that capital works on building new roads must be balanced with proper measures of support for our buses.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the Chairman of the National Freight Corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the Chairman of the National Freight Corporation.

Shortly.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman, will he ask him what justification there was for the January management meeting of British Road Services to be held in Las Palmas, with wives in attendance, rather than in London, as is customary? Will he ask, too, in what way that was benefiting the overall financial structure of British Road Services?

I shall certainly ask the chairman that question, because I do not know the answer.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the considerable achievements of the National Freight Corporation are due mainly to its commercially aggressive—Las Palmas or no Las Palmas—private-enterprise style of management? Does he therefore agree that there is a considerable case for at least an interest in the NFC being passed back to the private sector so that the money that then becomes available can be used for something more useful than nationalisation, namely, hospitals and schools?

No. If the hon. Gentleman is right in his interesting but somewhat circuitous analysis of the success of the NFC, the logic is that it should be allowed to expand into a larger public sector.

If we are to follow the private sector in this regard as well, are we to have more management of British industry from abroad?

I could not be sure, but our public sector industries should certainly recruit the best management they can, and I am glad to pay tribute to the high quality of management in the NFC and elsewhere.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of cars using the roads he estimates to be unlicensed.

The results of a new survey will be available shortly. The last survey, in 1971, suggested a figure of 5 per cent. evasion of vehicle excise duty.

Why cannot the Minister tell us the figures now? He has had the result of the survey for several weeks. Surely, even if the figure is still as low as 5 per cent., it means that one car in 20 using the roads is unlicensed, with a loss of £30 million or £40 million of revenue a year. That is grossly unfair to the majority of law-abiding motorists who pay the £50 road tax. What will the Government do about this?

I have not had the survey yet, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures. I shall make the figures available when I get the full results of the survey. I have had only a preliminary indication so far of what the figures might be.

What is that?

I think that they may well amount to slightly more than 5 per cent., but I stress that the figures are only preliminary. I said on 7th February that a campaign of second reminders was being carried out to ensure that people paid their vehicle excise duty. We shall certainly look at the effectiveness of that as well as the survey.

Is not the obvious answer to this problem to scrap the system of taxation? My hon. Friend is pussyfooting around with campaigns. Since the revenue is not spent on the roads anyway, the real answer surely is to scrap the system and put the cost on petrol—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not here to give answers, but to ask questions.

I was asking a question, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman was giving an answer.

I think that my hon. Friend asked a very relevant question, but it is for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not for me, to answer it.

What thought has the Minister given to increasing the duties of traffic wardens to empower them to act aginst licence evaders?

That is a sensible suggestion, which we have explored, but there are problems regarding Civil Service recruitment and the need to keep down the number of civil servants.

If we are to have a system of licensing, why not give it teeth? Why not increase the penalties, with mandatory disqualification for one year where a motorist goes for more than four weeks without a licence?

I do not know what the House would think of that, but personally I think it might be a touch too Draconian.

Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr McNair-Wilson) correct? Is the Minister aware that because of Government policy there are now fewer than 1,500 traffic wardens in London, when the Commissioner puts the need at 4,000? Given that the Government are quite obviously now losing millions of pounds a year, does he not agree that there is an overwhelming case for strengthening the traffic warden system?

I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of increasing the number of public employees. This is yet another area where what the Conservatives say on one aspect of public policy conflicts with what they are saying generally. However, I shall look at all reasonable suggestions for saving public money in this area. Clearly, people who pay their excise duty in the lawful way, as the vast majority do, have the right to feel that the rest of the revenue should be collected as expeditiously as possible.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be of assistance to hon. Members if they are aware that there seem to be two versions of the Order Paper in circulation, in which Questions are differently numbered.

I am afraid that we are working under exceptional conditions. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) has the Old Testament version, and I am working from the New Testament.

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

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

Later today.

In view of the proposals in the Transport Bill to transfer certain powers of responsibility to the counties, will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the Chairman of the National Bus Company the possible advantages of opening to tender subsidised bus routes that at present are operated by the National Bus Company or its subsidiaries?

The question that the hon. Gentleman has raised goes far beyond the responsibilities of the Chairman of the National Bus Company, whose job it is to run the company according to the broad statutory rules laid down by the House. As the hon. Gentleman may know, we have been discussing in Committee the whole question of improving our public services in rural areas. I see no prospect of the hon. Gentleman's solution producing an improvement.

When my right hon. Friend meets the Chairman of the National Bus Company, will he refer to the enormous community investment in the bus and truck division of British Leyland and to the public support given to the bus operators, and remind him that in this circumstance it is imperative that it buys British at every opportunity?

Yes, I fully appreciate the important point that my hon. Friend makes. I think that it is in the mind of the Chairman of the National Bus Company, but I shall remind him of it.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the Chairman of the National Bus Company, will he ask him to explain why he has produced no concessionary fare scheme for pensioners and others travelling on his buses, and ask him at least to match at an early date the successful scheme introduced by British Rail?

It has been long understood that the responsibility for concessionary fares lies with our local authorities, and that has been made plain to them. As I said in answer to an earlier Question, many of them are still recalcitrant in this respect. I do not see why the National Bus Company should take on responsibilities that are properly those of elected local authorities that are falling down on their job.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Chairman of the National Bus Company, will he encourage him to get the subsidiary bus companies of the National Bus Company to experiment far more than at present—I think it is right to say that we have only two experiments currently in operation—with cut fares to see whether that will give greater encouragement to people to use the buses?

I entirely agree. In fact, there are three schemes operating at present. One scheme has been less than successful, but two have proved to be useful experiments. I should welcome any experiment undertaken by the National Bus Company that has the effect of reducing fares, where that can be done.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman has missed the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). My hon. Friend is asking for special fare concessions, as British Rail offers on the special ticket that is bought annually, so that fares may be paid at a special discount. It is that sort of scheme for which my hon. Friend is pressing, and which I support.

I should welcome any scheme that the National Bus Company sought to introduce within its requirement to operate within the revenue support available to it from the counties, but there is no point in passing responsibility to the NBC to offer concessionary fares for categories of passenger when that responsibility should fall on elected local authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects the commencement of the sections of M25 between the A13 and the A12 and the A12 and M11 respectively.

Subject to the outcome of the remaining stautory procedures and of a High Court action, the whole of the section of the M25 between the A12 and the A13 could be under construction by early 1979. Construction of the section between the M11 and the A12 could start later that year.

As the delay in starting the section from the A13 to the A12 is almost entirely due to an error on the part of the Department of Transport, should not the Minister be putting his full weight behind an endeavour to start both the sections to which the Question refers in late 1978 or early 1979, so that the whole section can be operational by the early 1980s?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern that both these sections of the M25 should be started and finished together as soon as possible. I undertake to do what I can to bring that about. We now have them being started in the same year, which is reasonably close. I shall endeavour to bring them even closer together than that.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents are glad of the protection that is to be given to Epping Forest, which we all cherish, in the design of the M25? Will he say when he expects the sections of the motorway mentioned in the Question to be completed?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the design of the scheme in the Epping Forest area. It is a most carefully thought out piece of work. As for the completion of these sections, we are talking about the early 1980s for the completion of these parts of the M25 and the mid-1980s for the whole of the M25 around London.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had from councils on the question of road maintenance.

Thirty-six county councils expressed concern about road maintenance in their transport policies and programmes last year. Five other councils have written on the subject this year.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that experienced road engineers are getting extremely worried about the lack of maintenance? Potholes are causing accidents, and the lack of tar coating is causing the weather to penetrate below the tarmacadam, which will lead to the break-up of roads in a frosty winter. Before his hon. Friends say "More expenditure", does he appreciate that we are saving money only to cause more money to be spent at a later date?

In response to an earlier question on the subject of maintenance, from the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), I mentioned our concern. I share the hon. Gentleman's feelings. We have started with the national road maintenance survey of 1976, the first results of which we communicated to county surveyors. We shall shortly make available to them the results of the second year of the survey, namely, 1977. That process will establish the objective criteria against which we can measure any decline that there may have been in the condition of the roads.

Will my hon. Friend be prepared to consider giving some assistance to local authorities, such as the London borough of Ealing, in whose area there is taking place a massive road reconstruction operation, running right through Perivale, Greenford and Northolt, involving the GLC? The problem that the local authorities face is maintaining safety devices to enable people to cross the main thoroughfare during the reconstruction. Will my hon. Friend consider how much help he can give both to the GLC and the London Borough of Ealing?

I shall certainly consider the point made by my hon. Friend. He has written to me often about the conditions in his borough and constituency, which at present are severe. I take his point on board.

On road maintenance, has the hon. Gentleman noticed that on minor roads there are large machines that lay levels of a sort of thick black Swiss roll, which go nearer and nearer to the verges, resulting in a reduction of the camber and, therefore, a great amount of standing water at the sides? Has he had any representations from local authorities? Has he had his own clean car splashed?

That was a very individual contribution to the whole debate on road maintenance. However, I think that it is a worthwhile contribution and I shall have it examined. The stuff that is put on the roads in the way described by the hon. Gentleman is called blacktop.

Will my hon. Friend say why his Department has persuaded the West Yorkshire County Council to undertake the second and third stages of a traffic experiment in a most attractive village in my constituency, especially as the local residents and myself are entirely satisfied with the effects of the first stage? We believe that the resources that are being spent on these stages could much more usefully be spent on road maintenance in the area.

I am surprised to hear that we have been able to persuade the West Yorkshire County Council of anything. It is an especially independent-minded local authority. I shall look into the question that my hon. Friend raises.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now take on board the widespread concern on this issue on both sides of the House. May we hope that he appreciates that money will have to be made available fairly shortly to save tremendous expense in future? Will he bear in mind that it is sensible expenditure and that good road maintenance reduces accidents and saves money? May we have an assurance that the Government are considering carefully future levels of transport supplementary grant to ensure that adequate sums are available to keep our roads in a well-maintained condition?

There has been a decline in spending on road maintenance over the past three or four years as a result of the general restraint on public expenditure. However, that decline has now stopped and the amount of money coming forward each year is roughly level. That indicates the priority that the Government attach to a considered and well-maintained road system.

Does the Minister's Department believe that the representations made about road maintenance are valid?

Some are and some are not. I could not vouch for the problem in Cornwall or in Devon, but I think that there is, generally, a great deal in what county surveyors say about the problems of road maintenance, and I would accept quite a lot of it. As I said, what we need is more objective evidence, and then we can put these matters to the full test.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards the representations made about current levels of rail investment expressed by the Central Transport Consultative Committee for Great Britain in its annual report; and if he will make a statement.

I am grateful for the committee's views. I am aware of the importance of investment to the future of the railways.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the Central Transport Consultative Committee expresses a deep anxiety felt by many organisations with a knowledge of the railways about the inadequate levels of investment within the industry? Will he further accept that decisions in favour of increased investment are urgently required to allow the industry to tool up so as to make possible the expansion that is needed at the end of the decade?

I know that there are anxieties about investment in the industry, and my hon. Friend and other right hon. and hon. Members have expressed them in the House previously. I hope very much that the more stable future that we have given to the railways and their developing business will justify higher levels of investment in the future. We shall have to see. Meanwhile, I am certainly prepared to consider the proposals which are brought before me by British Railways.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one significant investment that could be made in the expansion of the railway network is a commitment now to restart the Channel Tunnel? Will he confirm or deny the reports that appeared in The Times on Monday of this week that discussions are going on for a modified version of the tunnel?

I think that the prospect of a Channel Tunnel comes into a somewhat different category. I am certainly not taking part in any discussions of the kind that my hon. Friend mentions, but I recognise that a Channel Tunnel could be of importance, to railways both in this country and on the Continent, and might result in more freight being carried by rail.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government missed a great chance when they abandoned the Channel Tunnel as they could have blocked it at each end with a Concorde and killed two birds with one stone?

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is now satisfied that all classes of lorry are paying their full track costs.

A small proportion of lorries, mainly heavy long-distance lorries, still fail to meet their attributable road costs. It remains the Government's intention that all should eventually do so.

Is the Minister aware that it is constituents in towns such as Otley and Ripon, in my constituency, who keep asking this sort of question, because of the unbearable pressure of these heavy, long-distance juggernauts that these places must face? Will he make sure that they get out of the towns by giving priority to bypasses for historical and small towns such as these?

Yes, indeed. I think that the White Paper published yesterday made clear that we see a particular priority in the coming years, less for completing something that used to be called the strategic road network than looking at the environmental problems—though this sometimes cuts both ways—of small towns and villages which are damaged by heavy goods vehicles; although, of course, that is within a framework in which we hope that more freight will go by rail. We intend that all lorries should in due course pay their full costs.

What has become of the Leitch Committee's recommendations for comparison of road and rail schemes where direct alternatives arise?

I think that my hon. Friend will recall that I accepted the main principles of all the recommendations in the Leitch Report when it was published in January. They are, substantially, embodied in the White Paper publishecl yesterday. I am very anxious to judge any new major schemes for roads against the prospects of the railways meeting the same need.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to start on the Market Weighton bypass.

I am not yet able to make any definite announcement about the future of the Market Weighton bypass.

Does the Under-Secretary realise that since the Market Weighton bypass was first put on the trunk road scheme, many years ago now, the traffic, much of it heavy container traffic from the Hull docks, has so increased that the crowded town main street is now a continuous death trap? Does he also appreciate that since the opening up of the M62 not long ago, a fresh stream of traffic has come in, and in a year or two's time we shall have another stream coming in from the Humber Bridge? Does not the Minister think that now is the time to give this scheme first priority?

I certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman said. We are at present studying the likely traffic pattern of North Humberside following the opening of the Humber Bridge, which we expect to be some time next summer. We shall look at the situation then. Possibly by the end of the year this will allow us to look at the Market Weighton bypass again and see whether we can put it forward in good time.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the current organisation of the docks in relation to the operation of his transport policies.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the current organisation of the docks in relation to the operation of his transport policies.

Many of our ports—which is what I assume the hon. Members have in mind—are performing efficiently and well, but overall organisation is another matter.

Is the Minister aware that when practical questions affecting commercial decisions have been put to him on the Dock Work Regulation Scheme, his answers have been nothing less than waffle? Is it his intention to implement the Act, or will he get rid of what is an unworkable Act as soon as possible?

I must confess—this may be my shortcoming—that I was not aware that the Dock Work Regulation Act was within my ministerial responsibilities. I shall certainly look into this matter. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular anxiety, I shall have it explored.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that at the earliest possible moment, when we have a Labour Government with a good, handsome majority, we should bring the ports under public ownership, in accordance with the national ports policy as proposed by the Labour Party and by Labour Governments over the years? This is long outstanding in order to deal with the national ports problems that we have at present.

My hon. Friend is quite right to remind the House that this commitment remains. In the meantime, I am doing my very best in the circumstances to ensure that our ports are, as far as possible, efficient within the present organisation.

Was it not made absolutely clear in the case of Felixstowe that there was no demand, either in the industry or outside, for further ports nationalisation? Surely the overwhelming need is for stability. Given that, will the Secretary of State say precisely what advantages he sees from extending the public sector in this area?

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to generalise from the case of Felixstowe, I must tell him that I could very readily generalise from the cases of the Port of London and the Port of Liverpool, for example, where representations have been made to me quite recently about the need for a change of ownership.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total cost to date of repairs and maintenance on the elevated sections of the M6 motorway in the West Midlands.

Repairs and maintenance of the structure have so far cost about £300,000. In addition, about £150,000 a year is spent on day-to-day maintenance, for example, cleaning the roadway, drains and signs, and mending safety fences.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Has he made any investigation into the question why the elevated sections of newly-opened motorways—motorways opened within the last five years—have deteriorated so substantially, to the extent that many motorists consider that they are in a dangerous condition? Is there any come-back on the contractors for this massive amount of public expenditure that is now required to put their work right?

We are conducting a special survey of the raised sections, which are particularly extensive in the Midlands. We shall look carefully at the outcome. I do not think that it is a question of any come-back on the contractors. In one or two instances, there have been design faults, such as the question of buried joints, with which my hon. Friend will be familiar. This is something from which we shall have to learn for the future.

Is the Minister aware that the programme of repairs for the M6 motorway in the Midlands, and the M5 motorway, will produce traffic chaos during the coming months? Will he review this programme of repairs to see whether it can be staggered in some way to lessen the economic damage and frustrations that are bound to ensue?

I do not agree at all with the hon. Gentleman that the programme of repairs that we now have in hand on the M5 and M6 will produce traffic chaos. None the less, I accept his fundamental point that we must look carefully at the phasing of the repairs to these sections of road, and I undertake to do that.

Will my hon. Friend look at the crazy system concerning repairs on the M6 and, indeed, on many other motorways, where on any day of the week one or two lanes are cordoned off for many miles, well beyond the requirements of safety, causing congestion of traffic? Will he look into this matter to see whether something can be done to expedite the repairs?

There is a conflict between getting the repairs done as fast as possible and the convenience of the travelling public in the meantime. I take note of my hon. Friend's point, and I shall look into it.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether his impending White Paper on roads will contain proposals for bypasses and relief roads.

The White Paper, which was published yesterday, lists all my current proposals for trunk road schemes, including bypasses and relief roads.

Is the Minister aware that there will be much relief in Ross-on-Wye that the long-awaited, much-needed relief road is still shown in his White Paper to start in 1981–83? Can he give an assurance that the timetable in the White Paper will actually be met?

I hope that it will not slip. As the hon. Member knows, we have lengthy procedures now which have to be gone through before construction work begins. I should certainly like to keep to the timetable that was set out yesterday.

Is it not essential that these bypasses and relief roads be built as quickly as possible, because we are getting more and more juggernauts from Europe which are ruining our wads, not paying their full track costs and unfairly competing with the railways?

I agree that we should move as quickly as possible, but my hon. Friend will recognise that 10 or 20 years ago roads were built more rapidly because there was less resistance to them and less consultation. The present-day requirement for consultation at every stage—which I think the House recognises—inevitably lengthens the process of construction, irrespective of the cost and whether any unusual hazards are discovered.

May we have an assurance that the Secretary of State will reverse the iniquitous policy of his Department, which has doubled the number of vehicles that are required to travel on a road before that road can qualify as a dual carriageway? Does he agree that no account is taken of the length of these vehicles, as the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) said?

I should have thought that following the Leitch Report the tendency was for more and not less flexible decisions on standards. I have to judge, in the light of the traffic that the roads will have to bear, the cost of the roads, and environmental considerations, what the standards should be. Sometimes these standards might be lower standards—or might seem to be lower—than was hitherto intended. We have to strike a balance. I should have thought that that was what the House wanted.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the White Paper on roads.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, it was published yesterday.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his White Paper and the spirit in which he has attempted to meet some of the criticisms that have been made in the House. Can he be more explicit on the review procedure in the White Paper? How can the public or hon. Members participate in the review of priorities—for example, the proposal that the M42 Bromsgrove section should not be built until the M5 has been widened?

There is no problem in hon. Members' participating in any review of priorities. Hon. Members make frequent representations to me and my hon. Friend. We are always sympathetic towards these representations, given the context in which decisions have to be made.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the White Paper. May I ask him if the clear implication is that in future more stress will be placed on bypasses rather than old-style motorways and that this will imply, in the case of the Derby-Stoke link, greater attention to proposals for that kind of treatment for that route?

The answer is "Yes" to both parts of my hon. Friend's question.

I applaud the intention to give greater priority to bypasses of historic towns and villages. Will the Secretary of State give more attention to the South-West of England, for which there is little flesh in his White Paper, particularly in regard to bypasses in Somerset? Will he be open to further representations on this matter in the future

I shall certainly be open to representations on that question. It is not easy to decide priorities. We have to do this, not only within regions but between regions, according to the principles set out in the White Paper. The particular priority that we want to give to the ports and the outer London orbital road, for instance, has to be weighed against the background of our wish to protect the environment.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is yet in a position to announce the preferred route for the Stoke-Derby route.

We hope to announce this summer proposals for dealing with the most urgent sections of the Stoke-Derby route. As I told the House on 16th November, it will take some time to deal with the whole of the link.

Is the Minister aware that my constituents in Draycott, Tean and Checkley are becoming angry about the delay on this route? Is he aware that 16 months have elapsed since comments had to be submitted on the different schemes? Can he offer an earlier date than one during this summer?

No, I am afraid I cannot. A date during this summer is a reasonable one, in view of the difficulties of the scheme. The hon. Member knows that we have had to consider not only the question of the villages to which he has referred but the whole of the 42-mile link between Stoke and Derby, and whether we should do this by way of a series of bypasses or a full motorway system. We shall have to see. On page 47 of the White Paper we say that this scheme will be started between 1981 and 1983. I hope that we can deal with the more urgent sections more expeditiously.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Derby an inquiry is being conducted—it is now in its fourth week—on the question whether we should have an urban motorway through the town or take heavy lorry traffic to the south and east? This would include the proposed Derby-Stoke line. When will the Department declare its hand and allow a fair consideration of both these alternatives?

I hope that the Derby public inquiry, which is now in its fourth week, will give full and proper consideration to the Allestree link road.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how long on average it is taking the Swansea vehicle licensing centre to furnish details of driving convictions to courts of law that request them.

In February this year—the latest month for which figures are available—99 per cent. of police inquiries were dealt with by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre within 10 working days from receipt, and many in considerably less.

Will the Minister and his right hon. Friend firmly take on board the fact that this is one of the worst instances of the working of the Swansea Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre? Regardless of the figures that he has just given, is he aware that in many cases and in many courts it is taking up to five weeks after interrogation at the Swansea centre before criminal and driving convictions are received? Is he aware that the most serious aspect of this is that people often have to remain in custody as a result of the inadequacy of the Swansea centre? Will the Minister and his right hon. Friend do something about it?

I take note of what the hon. Member has said, but I think that he is exaggerating the position. The hon. Member may be aware that we are looking into the possibility of a telex link which will speed up inquiries.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the praise which has been lavished on the centre by a deputation of chief officers of police, who visited the centre last week? Will my hon. Friend arrange an early visit of hon. Members so that parliamentary critics who might go to scoff might be similarly impressed with the centre?

I think that the police might also have a conversation with the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) in order to sort out their conflicting views. I note what my hon. Friend said. It might also be a good idea if hon. Members could visit the centre and see how well it is performing. The number of inquiries to the centre has dropped by 25 per cent. in the past few months. The improvement is considerable.

What is the statutory authority for linking the Swansea computer, holding all the drivers' records, with the new police computer at Hendon?

That is something which we have looked at under the existing authority.

The Minister appears to be complacent about the inefficiency of the Swansea centre. Would not hon. Members be more impressed with the centre not by visiting it but by receiving fewer complaints about it from constituents?

I agree. Hon. Members are receiving fewer complaints, as my postbag shows. I have to answer the complaints that hon. Members send to me. My mailbag is down.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to attend a meeting of the European Economic Community Transport Ministers.

On 12th June.

Has there been any progress at all in any of the matters that the Commissioner for Transport has put to the Council of Ministers as priorities, and, if any, on which ones? Second, will my right hon. Friend consider putting in the Library a copy of the action programme so that hon. Members interested in transport may see the great amount of legislation in this important field which is threatened from Europe?

I shall certainly arrange to put a copy of the programme in the Library. I am very happy to do that. As for progress made, I think it only fair to say that progress has not been very fast, but I am sure that at our meeting on 12th June we shall have an assessment of this from the Commissioner.

When the Secretary of State meets his European colleagues, will he tell them loudly and clearly that he has no intention whatever of introducing kilometres on British roads, for at least two reasons—first, that one cannot export British roads, and, second, that boring harmonisation is unnecessary? Will he stand up for the principle of "Vive la différence"?

I shall certainly tell my colleagues in Brussels, when appropriate, exactly what I have said in the House on the whole question.