asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will reconsider the position of individuals who are prosecuted for failure to display vehicle excise licences even though they may have properly applied for such licences.

asked the Secretary or State for Transport what representations he has received concerning existing legislation that enables a motorist to be prosecuted for inadvertently failing to display a road fund tax disc on the windscreen of his vehicle; and what replies he has given.

Prosecution for non-display of a current vehicle excise licence is a matter for the discretion of chief constables. Where a licence has expired in the last 14 days, or prior application for a new licence has been made, account is normally taken of this. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that we intend to seek a legislation opportunity to provide for a statutory defence in these circumstances.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us will be delighted by his answer, which demonstrates his acceptance that while these prosecutions may be lawful they are not regarded as just? As bureaucracy tends to be imperfect and motor cars essential, one hopes that he will be able to take swift action.

I note what my hon. Friend says. I know that he has had difficulty in one or two cases in his constituency.

May I remind the Minister of one of my constituents who successfully and properly purchased a current licence and displayed it on her windscreen, after which, inadvertently, the disc fell to the floor of her car and she found herself having no defence against the prosecution that was successfully brought against her? Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his refusal to extend this welcome change of the law to enable a person to have a proper defence when he can prove that at the time of the alleged offence he had a valid tax disc?

It is difficult to draw a distinction in law between an accidental matter of the sort to which the hon. Gentleman referred and a deliberate infringement. We must have regard to the common sense and discretion of chief constables. It may be that the lady should have a licence holder with slightly stronger adhesive power.

Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that one of my constituents—I think that he knows about the case—went into his garage to get a new licence holder and came out to find a lady warden making a report that the tax disc was not visible? My constituent was taken to court and fined. He appealed against that decision, but it was upheld. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is ridiculous that such an incident took place? Is he able to do something to make the change retrospective?

I do not think that I could make it retrospective to meet my hon. Friend's constituency problem. However, we are moving in the general direction that I have indicated. Before very much longer we shall have the opportunity to give legislative back-up to what is now a long-standing administrative tradition.

Will the hon. Gentleman include in the proposed legislation a provision that where the Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea can clearly be shown to be at fault in not having sent a reminder, the motorist be not fined? Will he ensure that where traffic wardens and others put a notice on a car to the effect that the vehicle has been sighted without a disc, that notice is in fact attached to the vehicle, as that is not the case in the Metropolitan Police area?

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says, especially on the second point, and I shall bear that in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union concerning the transfer of freight from road to rail.

None, recently.

What is the present position at Didcot? How does the Secretary of State reconcile his alleged belief in freedom of choice for freight users with what has happened at Didcot in recent months?

I hope that the problem at Didcot, which has been a proper cause for concern in this House and elsewhere, has been resolved. That is certainly my present understanding.

Would it not help the transfer of freight from road to rail if heavy lorries were forced to pay the true cost of the wear that they impose on the roads? When will that happen?

Progress has been made in this direction. There is a Question on the Order Paper today about the matter. Some of the heaviest lorries do not pay their true cost yet, but I hope that they will do so. I agree with my hon. Friend that this is important.

Is the Secretary of State aware that we, too, welcome the agreement at Didcot? Will he also make clear, however, his absolute commitment to fair competition between freight carriers throughout Britain and give an assurance that he will use all his influence to defeat such strong-arm tactics if they ever arise again?

I do not think that that is the spirit in which we should now approach this problem. I want to see fair competition between road and rail. I have said so before in the House. Equally, I do not like strong-arm tactics by anyone, at any time, anywhere.

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

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

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

Tomorrow.

When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman, will he discuss with him the problems of investment in public transport, and especially the day-to-day investment in replacement, maintenance and improvements? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Railways Board has given figures which show that in 1977 there was a 5 per cent. level of improvement in railways compared with an 83 per cent. level of improvement in roads? Why is there this difference between investment for improving rail and that for improving roads?

Those comparisons are not entirely fair. On the whole I try to avoid them, and I like those most closely involved to avoid them, too. We have to consider the future of the railways. I want them to have a stable and central role. The chairman talks to me from time to time about this problem, which we have heard about often in the House.

When the right hon. Gentleman sees Mr. Parker tomorrow will he remind him that for the first time since time immemorial it is now no longer possible to travel directly by rail from Kings Cross to Cambridge? Is he aware that this is a matter of extreme irritation to my constituents, and even to the hon. Member for Cambridge? When will direct services be revived?

I know that the chairman of British Rail follows questions and answers in the House very closely. He will be aware of the problems that the hon. Member mentions. This is an inconvenience for a number of people. Quite a lot of people, however, are looking forward to the prospect of electrification the whole way.

The Government have accepted the main recommendations of the Leitch Report. What is being done about the recommendation that the railways should be helped where road and rail facilities exist?

It is most important that in making any decisions about major new trunk road schemes we should examine very carefully, in the light of what the Leitch Committee recommends, the alternative possibility of passengers and freight travelling by existing railway lines. A more sophisticated analysis is probably required than that available at present, but I understand the spirit of my hon. Friend's question.

Does the Secretary of State agree that too many railway lines were closed in Wales in the late 1950s and early 1960s? Will he now urge the chairman of British Rail to consider opening some of these lines, so that we may persuade industrialists to come to Mid-Wales and other parts of the Principality?

Many people would say that too many railway lines were closed in the 1950s and 1960s not only in Wales but elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That has caused problems since. I have made it clear that I do not want to see the present chairman, or any other, doing another Beeching to our railway system. I do not know whether it is realistic to expect a large number of lines to be reopened, but I am very pleased to know that a good deal of refurbishing is going on. I shall be going to the Midlands next Monday to open a refurbished urban railway line in the Birmingham area, which I hope will do a great deal for the city.

In view of the Secretary of State's interest in refurbishing, will he draw Mr. Parker's attention to, or remind him of, the potential value to British Rail and its operations of an improvement of communications between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, particularly through Stranraer, where there is room for reopening and refurbishment, and also at Holyhead?

I am sure that Mr. Parker is well aware of that and is most anxious that British Rail should get its fair share of growing freight traffic between this country and Northern Ireland.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the chairman of the Board is so busy that it takes a Back Bencher two months to get an appointment with him? When my right hon. Friend sees the chairman tomorrow, will he tell him that it is high time that his so-called experiment on the quality and price of buffet foods was made permanent and was developed on a national basis in all regions? Will he tell him also that the defeatist gloom which exudes from the management of Travellers' Fare might have been dispelled had appointments been made with individuals from outside British Rail who have a more objective and progressive attitude towards the dreary, poor quality and expensive food that is on offer?

I am sure that the chairman of British Rail will take note of what my hon. Friend said. Opinions can differ about the quality of food on British Railways. Most of us have had a disastrous meal from time to time, but I can say that I have had some very good meals. I was delighted that the House responded so well last week to the speech of my hon. Friend, who suggested that to hand over British Rail catering to the motorway service area companies could be a disaster.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets the chairman of British Rail, will he ask him when the electrification of Welsh railways will begin? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is not even one mile of electrified railway in Wales, whereas there are more than 2,000 miles of electrified rail in England?

I hope that the chairman will not take too narrow a view of the question where electrification should first take place. His job is to consider the whole interest of the nation and to make recommendations to me on the most cost-effective projects for investment. He should continue to proceed on that basis.

When he meets the chairman, will the right hon. Gentle- man remind him that last February the British Rail Pension Fund bought in Monte Carlo a clock for the sum of £87,448, no doubt much to the profit of Sotheby's, if not to the fund's pensioners? Will he remind him at the same time that there are many thousands of elderly employees and ex-employees who have no rights to widows' pensions? British Rail claims, through its chairman, that it is conducting an investigation into this. Will the Secretary of State undertake to speed up that investigation?

The House has previously discussed the question of the purchase of works of art by the British Rail Pension Fund. I do not think that we should make the connection that the hon. Gentleman suggests between the policy pursued by the trustees and the problem that individual pensioners may face. I shall, however, draw the matter to the attention of the chairman.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make recommendations to local authorities to improve facilities for cyclists.

We have already drawn the attention of local authorities to the desirability of making cycling safer and more convenient, both in the White Paper on transport policy and in a recent circular. We are providing extra finance for selected local authority schemes and, as my hon. Friend is aware, we recently accepted a proposal to widen the powers of local authorities to provide cycle racks.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the Friends of the Earth have recently published a bicycle planning book? Will he take steps to ensure that all local authorities read that book and take positive steps to help the cyclists? Will he stop the negative attitude of local authorities which on many occasions hinders cycling?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that advice and for providing me with a personal copy of the book in question. I am half-way through it.

Is the Minister satisfied that enough is being done to enhance the safety and well-being of cyclists? Is his Department looking sufficiently actively at what goes on on the Continent, where pedestrians and cyclists are generally grouped together, rather than that cyclists should have to contend with motor vehicles?

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we appointed someone with sole responsibility for cycling and cycling matters in the Department following publication of the transport policy White Paper. I am sure that he will take that point of view and evidence from the Continent as well as British experience into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on assisting those London Transport services which serve areas of the Home Counties and which are currently in deficit.

It is for the county councils concerned to decide whether to assist these services financially, though we have made it quite clear that, where they are not already doing so, we hope that they will. The Government support their expenditure with grant.

Where there is disagreement between London Transport or the GLC and the county council in whose area the service operates, as is the case with the Epping to Ongar section of the Central Line in my constituency, is it the policy of the Department of Transport either to provide funds itself or at least to try to bring the parties together with a view to meeting the deficit?

It is not the policy of the Department to provide funds in those circumstances. Other counties are shouldering their responsibilities—the GLC and Hertfordshire, for example. In the first instance, it is up to the local authorities and the operators concerned to get together, though obviously my right hon. Friend and I are prepared to consider any further action which may facilitate that process.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the deep sense of grievance that is building up in the minds of people living in North Weald and the villages around Ongar at the fact that their section of the Central Line is being deprived of funds which are being made available to support lines in Greater London and the Home Counties with similar problems? Will he intervene to ensure that people who are able to provide the funds get on with the job before the service dies a death of a thousand cuts?

I note the passion in the voice of my hon. Friend on this matter, and the matter is of great concern. Essex withdrew its grant for this line when the GLC took away its grant—rightly, because it is outside the GLC's territory. Hertfordshire has come back with some money. Tory-controlled Essex should take heart from that and go ahead and do something about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions are taking place on fresh proposals to construct a Channel Tunnel.

I am not aware of any such discussions. I am certainly involved in none.

Does the Minister agree that a direct Channel rail link could assist the viability not only of British Rail but of the Continental railway system and would therefore involve less public subsidy, apart from the longer-term energy conservation considerations? Will he give an assurance that if the EEC puts forward proposals for such a direct link, even if it is only a one-rail link, he will consider it seriously and put such proposals before the House for discussion?

It probably would be in the interests of British Rail and Continental railways for there to be a fixed link between this country and the Continent. I am sure that this is in the minds of those responsible at British Rail. On the other hand, as I have previously made clear to the House, the Government's position has not changed. We cannot contemplate such a large increase in public expenditure at present, but were there to be any proposals from the European Community or elsewhere I would be prepared to consider them. I am sure that the House would also want to discuss them.

Will my right hon. Friend use his position in the Cabinet to press for a share of the North Sea oil profits to go towards this very desirable infrastructure? Is he not aware that practically every trunk route survey which has taken place with regard to Europe and Britain has shown that whereas connections between the various Continental capitals are very good, we are separated from them by the sea? Will he fight more forcibly for the money to build this desirable piece of infrastructure?

Any expenditure on building a Channel Tunnel means that that money cannot be spent elsewhere. I could not argue that a Channel Tunnel should be at the top of the list of present priorities. However, I take my hon. Friend's point. I am sure that all those who have a direct interest in such a link will be doing research on how it can best be accomplished and will be making their views clearly known.

Will the Minister clarify the position regarding the machine which was designed to dig the Channel Tunnel? We understand that the machine was up for sale. Is it still for sale or has it been withdrawn from the market?

If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a bid for it, it will be acceptable for him to do so. The problem—it has been raised before in the House—is that were the construction of a Channel Tunnel to go ahead at some time, the best judgment is that that machine is not a piece of equipment which could then be used.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had on the White Paper "Policy For Roads: England 1978", Cmnd. Paper No. 7132.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had on the White Paper "Policy for Roads: England 1978", Cmnd. Paper No. 7132.

I have received two communications which might be called representations.

Will the Minister accept a welcome for the White Paper's reaffirmation of the need to give greater priority to the South-East and East Anglia and also the White Paper's recognition of the possible need for a switch from Government schemes to local authority schemes? When does he expect to translate these hopes into cash, particularly for the county of Essex?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the appendix to the White Paper set out about 400 schemes, which are being assessed or reassessed in terms of priorities. As he says, we believe that in the immediate future industrial routes and those to the ports will be very important. I am prepared to be flexible if it is shown that local authorities need more money for capital spending while, on balance, I may need less.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many people in my part of Greater London will welcome the fact that the first priority in the South-East, according to the White Paper, is to be given to the completion of the M23? Will he see to it that the next priority in that area is not to build the M23 north of Hooley?

There is a substantial measure of agreement on that.

The Secretary of State mentioned routes to the ports and similar installations. Will he take it from me that many people in my constituency want to urge him, as I do now, to try to ensure that more of the chemicals and dangerous substances go by rail and not by road? Where this is not possible, we should like there to be regulations which ensure that the tankers and other vehicles which carry dangerous substances are maintained effectively and inspected regularly.

My hon. Friend has raised this matter before in the House. I said previously and can say again that I broadly agree with him. We should use the railways as much as possible for freight, including dangerous freight. Equally, we should make sure that for the traffic which goes by road the safety regulations are strict and are properly enforced.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport, what representations he has had from motoring organisations concerning his plans in the Transport Bill to control privately operated public car parks.

Eight organisations commented on the consultation paper on additional parking controls issued by the Department last August.

Following the discussion of the Bill in the House, has the Minister had time to reflect and is he now in a position to drop this totally unnecessary control proposed on private off-street parking?

No, not at all. We have support from the Standing Committee, and we shall go ahead on the lines indicated. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Redditch new town there are about 2,000 off-street parking spaces which are all under the control of the local authorities. We wish them to exercise all that control in other circumstances which are not so propitious.

Does my hon. Friend agree that these controls are long overdue? New York was doing this in 1945.

Indeed. The sort of traffic measures that we have had over the last 10 or 15 years have contributed to a better quality of life in our towns and cities.

Would it not be better if the Minister considered London rather than New York? Is not the crucial point that in London, where these powers already exist, the scheme introduced by the old Labour-controlled GLC was overwhelmingly rejected by the public and was rightly scrapped by the incoming Conservative-controlled GLC? There is no justification for these extra powers, and the Government would get much more credit if they scrapped these proposals altogether.

Absolutely not. There is a party political difference over what hapened in London. The Labour Party put forward proposals which had more support than the hon. Gentleman indicates, and the Tories when they came in dropped those proposals. That by no means indicates that the Tories were right.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether, pursuant to his introducing the inquiry into standards in motorway service stations, he will take steps to review standards of catering on British Railways.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether, pursuant to his introducing the inquiry into standards in motorway service stations, he will take steps to review standards of catering on British Railways.

The Railways Board has already commissioned consultants to examine various aspects of train catering and it is currently introducing experimental changes in accordance with the consultants' initial findings.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but is he aware that, notwithstanding Mr. Peter Parker's statement that he lives with the realities of competition, if one travels from London to Liverpool it costs more than £5 to have dinner and 17p to have a cardboard cup of powdered coffee? How is it possible, with these prices, for British Rail to have made a loss of £2½ million on its catering last year? Does he not think that someone is being taken for a ride?

The hon. Gentleman will know from all the publicity that prices have been reduced on some items of British Rail catering, and that is probably very welcome. There are also changes in the menus and snacks that are available. I never have the £5 meal on British Rail, though I occasionally have a very good breakfast, which is rather expensive but of very good quality. If I want some lunch, I have a sandwich.

Will the Minister ask the consultants to look into two specific areas that need improvement—first, the provision of catering facilities on long-distance cross-country routes, as these are often absent, and, secondly, the absenteeism and other factors that conspire to the non-inclusion of catering facilities on inter-city trains? I am sure that he will agree that this is absolutely maddening, especially when one has scheduled one's day on the basis of having a meal on the train.

On the journey between London and Newcastle I have occasionally been in the same predicament as the hon. Gentleman has obviously been in from time to time. I note what he says with some feeling.

The Question is about standards of catering, and there is no restaurant in the country that could do anything to beat what British Rail does on the route between London-Euston and Glasgow.

My hon. Friend's wholehearted support for British Rail catering is well known and is taken very well in some parts of the House. I have had some of the best breakfasts of my life on British Rail.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) might have been obtained if the House had seen fit to accept my Bill last week? Can he explain why some price reductions are to be found only on short-distance lines? Is he aware that coffee that has been reduced in price from 17p to 15p is to be found only on Eastern Region, on the journey to Peterborough, where the Under-Secretary lives?

The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of these matters is clearly comprehensive. I would not go along with his solution, which is to denationalise the catering and hand it over to private enterprise and motorway caterers, such as Trust Houses Forte. Given what Egon Ronay has said about them, I do not believe that it would be an improvement.

Is it not an abuse of the monopoly power of British Rail catering that it is not now possible to drink tea in any British Rail buffet car, because it has been replaced by a highly-priced synthetic substitute?

I shall mention that to the chairman of British Rail.

Is my hon. Friend aware that while the staff is providing the gorgeous breakfast that he is talking about, they rarely have anyone to spare to serve the coffee and sandwiches to which he has also referred? Is he further aware that when one makes inquiries, the reply is "We do not have the staff to do it"? What is he going to do about that?

My hon. Friend might try getting coffee and sandwiches on the station beforehand.

If we can leave £5 menus and breakfasts for a moment, the Minister will be aware that it was recently announced that catering would command greater attention from the chairman himself, Mr. Peter Parker, and that, as a result, beef, chicken and salad would be added to the sandwich fillings. Has the Minister been into any snack bars on trains lately? If he has, he will know why more and more people are taking their own food on to trains.

I regularly use the snack bar at King's Cross Station, and I find it quite adequate.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will invite the chairman of the British Railways Board and the chairman of London Transport to meet him together.

If there is sufficient reason, yes.

Does my right hon. Friend regard it as sufficient reason to consider the situation where London Transport trains run on British Rail lines and through British Rail stations? Will he, in particular, draw the attention of the two chairmen to conditions at East Putney station, where this occurs, and to the fact that at the station the whole thing seems to be falling between two stools? Will he ask, in particular, for passenger-operated ticket machines to be installed, at long last, at East Putney station?

I am not familiar with that station, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the matter to my attention. The London Rail Advisory Committee is seeking to get a degree of co-ordination where there has, perhaps, been too little in the past, and I shall make sure that it is aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Will the Secretary of State encourage the two chairmen to make better arrangements for British Rail season ticket holders when the train service is cancelled, so that they can use London Transport where there is a bus or Tube link?

That is precisely the sort of joint arrangement that the advisory committee should be looking at. It makes good sense, and I shall draw it to the committee's attention.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the advisory committee has few powers and, to date, does not have a great reputation? If he sees the two chairmen together, will he point out to them that before 1947 the receipts from all rail, bus, tram and trolleybus services were pooled, and that without such a pooling system there is a clash between the revenue interests of British Rail and London Transport—a clash that is at the bottom of many of the problems that we have at present?

I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the powers of the advisory committee, but not his remarks about its reputation. It is a relatively new body and it has been working well. It seeks to achieve its objectives by agreement and influence, which is the only way, given the complex problems of the city. I take my hon. Friend's point about the experiences of some years ago. They have consequences which are difficult for passengers.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport, how much he estimates road haulage costs to have increased since February 1974; and whether he will make a statement.

By about 90 per cent.

Does the Minister realise the terrible effect that these massive increases have in certain areas, such as the South-West, particularly for the consumer, the farmer and the industrialist? Does he realise that the Government cannot avoid taking some responsibility for these massive increases? Will he see that road haulers are not further clobbered in future—by the black list, for example? May we have the report of the Price Commission as quickly as possible?

I pay tribute to the road haulage industry. It has been successful in offsetting higher costs with greater efficiency. I gave the figure of 90 per cent., but the figure for increased costs per tonne-kilometre is only 15 per cent. The industry has done well in coping with these rising costs.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if the juggernauts and other lorries paid a proper economic sum towards the maintenance of motorways and major roads, the costs would increase considerably? Last year it cost £80 million to maintain these roads. This is very unfair competition for the railways.

My hon. Friend will be aware that, overall, lorries are meeting their full wear and tear costs, with the exception of the very heaviest lorries. As he knows, we have a programme for dealing with that.

Is the Minister aware that one of the components of the costs of road hauliers is the inconvenient roads, with the long delays that can result? Is he now able to announce when the decision about the Stroud inner ring road, which I was promised earlier this month, will be made?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman would try to get that question in somewhere. I cannot give him a commitment offhand, but he will be aware of the priorities that we have given in the roads White Paper to work out suitable routes for lorries.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether, pursuant to his reply in the Official Report, 5th April 1978, column 420, he will now make a statement on British Road Services.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether, pursuant to his reply in the Official Report, Wednesday 5th April 1978, column 420, he will now make a statement on British Road Services.

I understand that the NFC agreed that this year's BRS management conference should be held in Las Palmas because it was a congenial place to go to, and good value for money.

Does the Secretary of State not consider that the Las Palmas trip to some degree tarnishes the reputation of a management board which has been very successful? Does not he further consider that on the rare occasions when a nationalised industry feels that it has something to celebrate, it should do so in the United Kingdom?

I do not agree. We have to enjoy ourselves sometime. If, as the hon. Member says, British Road Services is doing a good job of work, if it is earning a substantial profit, and if the management and workers are doing a first-class job, it is better that they should have a weekend in Las Palmas than in Cardiff, for example.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the efforts that are being made in the Government by various Cabinet Ministers and by people outside to initiate a campaign to buy British? Is it not a bad start for us to hear from the Secretary of State that it is all right to buy foreign?

I do not agree at all. I must be firm about this. Most of us travel abroad from time to time, for good reason. It does not mean that we do not like staying at home or buying British. Large numbers of people go abroad for holidays. Good luck to them. If this helps to motivate a nationalised industry, I see nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

Surely the Secretary of State is ignoring the fact that over the last few years taxpayers have given a great deal of money to the National Freight Corporation. Would it not be better if it had a more economical conference and sought to repay some of our money?

The hon. Member displays a pretty uptight attitude to this matter. If there is only a small difference in cost between going to Las Palmas and going to Cardiff, NorthWest—I know that there are other parts of Cardiff to which this consideration would not apply—I see no reason why the members of the management of BRS should not go there if, in their managerial judgment, it makes best sense.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest estimate of the cost of the Humber Bridge.

The latest estimate by the Humber Bridge Board is just under £61·5 million. This cost includes the immediate approach roads, but not capitalised interest.

Is the Minister aware of the concern, which almost amounts to despair, on the south bank of the Humber at the way in which millions of pounds have been hurled in to try to satisfy this white elephant, while at the same time no progress at all has been made in completing the M180 from Brigg to the ports of Immingham and Grimsby? Will he assure the House that the Government will undertake this most important job, because Immingham is the sixth largest port in the United Kingdom and has no decent road structure? Although it is too late to stop the Humber Bridge, should we not now build the necessary roads in order to look after these two most important ports?

I take note of the despair on the south bank of the Humber. The M180 is going ahead fast. Spurs to Immingham and Grimsby will be built from the trunk road at the end. That project is making excellent progress.

Is the Minister aware that the intemperate comments from the Opposition Back Bench are typical of the vendetta that is being waged by a small number of people on the south bank who still think in terms of East Yorkshire and Lincolnshire? Does he accept that the bridge will confer enormous benefits to those living on both sides of the estuary, not least people such as I, who will pay 80p to take their cars over to the old Lincolnshire—now South Humberside—thus saving 70 miles of journey via Goole? Is the Minister also aware of the invisible benefits in the form of tourism for this part of the world?

I agree that the Humber Bridge will be a major national asset. I hope that it will bring some harmony to the relationship between the north and south banks of the Humber.

Will the Under-Secretary of State bear in mind the effect that the new Humber Bridge traffic will have on the trunk roads north of the river and the consequential need for a Market Weighton bypass?

I note that point. The hon. Member will be aware from a previous Question Time that we are looking at this matter closely. We hope to come to some clear conclusions when the Humber Bridge is completed.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that until the bridge is opened the ferry service will continue? Is he aware that the "Lincolnshire Castle" has been laid off? Does he agree that it should be brought back into service? Is he aware that a clause in the Humber Bridge Act provides for the cost to be met in this situation? Should not this be done? My constituents should have some type of service until other decisions are taken after the bridge is opened.

This is a matter for British Rail. Before it can close down a ferry service it must meet objections. There might be a public inquiry, and my hon. Friend might have a say in it. He is well protected.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the reply I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity under Standing Order No. 1.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made on his consultations preparatory to a change-over from miles to kilometres.

None, Sir. As I have previously told the House, I am planning no such consultations in the near future.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Has he estimated the cost of changing speed limit and information signs? Has he taken into account the fact that although the ordinary motorist here understands what the sign "30" means, if there were to be a sign "50" the letters "km", at least, would have to be included? In view of that, would it not be best to leave the whole thing alone?

I am one of those who enjoy kilometres abroad and miles in the United Kingdom. That might be the view of the House. I am not looking into the detailed matters to which the hon. Mem- ber rightly refers because it would be unreasonable and unnecessary to do so, at least until after the consultation has taken place.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that millions of ordinary British people also enjoy kilometres abroad but prefer miles at home? Has he considered what effect such a change could have on the export of cars to Australia, the United States, New Zealand and many other parts of the world? Could not this have a deleterious effect? Does he agree that we should not sacrifice everything in response to every demand from the Common Market Commission?

We should adopt a reasonably relaxed approach to this matter. I have expressed my preference and I think that I know the preference of most hon. Members, but we must recognise that other people, particularly the younger generation, who are not as stuffy about such matters as some of us tend to be, may look at it differently. We can look at this in due course. There is no need to bother about it today.

Does the Secretary of State agree that those of us who were in favour of our entry to the European Community are, nevertheless, distressed that on many vital English matters we have to change our old names and go in for these new-fangled names from the Continent? Surely we want to keep our old English mile.

I know that many people want to keep our old English everything. That does not mean that we should never change. But we need not worry about it too much at the moment. The consultations have not begun, and at the end of the day Parliament will decide.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the latest position on tachographs.

I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 5th and 14th April.

If the European Court should rule that we should have tachographs and if we refuse to have them, what is the court's ultimate sanction? Shall we see a type of Euro-tipstaff coming here, like Cromwell, and arresting the right hon. Gentleman?

The hon. Member has put a fearful thought in my mind—a thought that was not previously there. But I do not think that we need form our final view of the state of affairs that will prevail until the European Court has pronounced. I have as yet received no firm indication that a reference has been made to the European Court by the Commission. I have seen Press reports to that effect, but this has not yet been confirmed.

Is the Secretary of State aware that even when one finds anyone who voted in favour of Britain's remaining a member of the Common Market, he is rapidly becoming sick to death with the meddling and interference of the Common Market in our milk supplies, in whether or not we keep the British passport, in drivers' hours, in miles, and in many other matters? Will he ensure that the "spy in the cab" is not achieved by the meddling bureaucrats of Brussels?

My hon. Friend uses harsh language. I think that inevitably the process of being members of the Community has brought problems and even surprises, including those of us who were very much in favour of Britain's joining the Community and remaining there. I can only say that, on the one hand, my own vision is not measured in axle weights, and, on the other hand, that I do not think that the long-term interests of this country will be affected by the sort of pinpricks which I know irritate us all when they come from Brussels from time to time.

Before the Secretary of State is hauled away in irons to the European Court, will he tell us, by way of a fond farewell, whether he will study what the Road Haulage Association had to say about the value of voluntary agreements? What will he do to encourage this very sensible way forward?

I shall certainly study that. I ought to make it quite clear that I am happy to see voluntary agreements about the use of tachographs. If both sides of the industry want to use them, why should they not do so if they believe that they are an aid to productivity? What is at issue is the compulsory use of tachographs, to which a number of people take strong exception.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport, in the light of recent fatalities, if he will now ensure that the Maple Cross-M40 section of the M25 motorway is constructed as soon as possible in order to alleviate the traffic conditions in Maple Cross; and if he will make a statement.

The recent White Paper "Policy for Roads" confirms that completion of the M25 remains a top priority. As I said in reply to the hon. Member on 24th April, construction of the whole of the section between Heathrow Airport Spur and Maple Cross is expected to start in the period 1981–83.

Will the Under-Secretary indicate whether he will look at the reprogramming of different sections of this north orbital route, particularly in view of the fact that the existing section of road is funnelling traffic into the Maple Cross area and there is an urgent need for remedial works to alleviate the suffering of the residents, who are likely to undergo it for some considerable time?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I thik that the objective in the case of the M25 is to get ahead with all sections as fast as possible, and we shall carry on doing that.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement of his policy concerning the operation of road transport by British Railways.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement of his policy concerning the operation of road transport by British Railways.

Our policy is that British Rail should be able to use the Freightliners collection and delivery vehicles after transfer, as they are used now by the National Freight Corporation. The other restrictions on the use of road transport by British Rail will continue.

Following the withdrawal of the Government's amendment in the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill, will the Under-Secretary give an undertaking that, following what he has just said, British Rail's road haulage activities will be confined to those Freightliners activities which involve delivery and collection?

Indeed; that is absolutely our objective.

Is the Minister aware that the road haulage industry is still highly suspicious of a Government and party that still have nationalisation in their programme? Therefore, will he be far more specific about the assurance that he has just given, because the industry feels that here is a move to switch traffic from the private sector of the haulage industry to an extended fleet owned under the nationalised sector?

I can be absolutely specific. It is no part of our intention to do what the hon. Member has just said. The intention is perfectly plain. It is to allow Freightliners to carry on in the future as it has in the past. That is all.

Is it not a fact that, apart from the Freightliners road vehicles and the express parcels road vehicles, British Rail has now no road vehicles for the collection of what used to be ordinary goods traffic? As these vehicles were transferred to National Carriers, which now uses rail depots near to the railway but does not always use railway vehicles, will my hon. Friend see Sir Daniel Pettit to ascertain whether it is possible to put back on rail a lot of the traffic that was lost when the changes were made?

I understand my hon. Friend's objective, which is to get more traffic on to rail, and we are attempting to do that in various ways.

Will the Under-Secretary remember the drubbing that he took in Standing Committee on this point? Before we get the Government's second thoughts on this matter, will he at least make sure that he and his right hon. Friend under- stand what their own civil servants are proposing in this respect?

I do not think that any of my hon. Friends who served on that Committee would agree that I got a drubbing there. Indeed, the drubbings that we managed to hand out to the Opposition from time to time in that Committee were far more numerous. There was only one vote, I think, during the entire proceedings. That was the first vote, and it was an accident. None the less. I think that we came through it very satisfactorily.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria he intends to adopt in his plans to extend public ownership in road haulage.

The public interest, as always.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House which sector of the road haulage industry he expects to be more profitable and to have better industrial relations under public ownership as compared with private ownership?

If this is the implication of the hon. Member's Question, I should not have thought that the private sector of road haulage has had an unimpaired reputation in industrial relations or in any other field. I am very glad to say that for the most part it has been a success and has been contributing usefully to the health of the country. The same is true of, for example, British Road Services—notorious for holidays in Las Palmas.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that successive Labour Party conferences have called for the nationalisation of road haulage companies with five or more vehicles specifically so that the drivers will work proper hours and the lorries will be properly serviced?

My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the very high standards which the public sector has set and to the extent to which it has been a pace-setter in good working practices, and I think that that is absolutely right. That is why I hope that we shall be able to build—my hon. Friend rightly draws my attention to our commitment in this direction—upon the part of the road haulage industry which is already nationalised.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the mechanical reliability and safety of heavy vehicles from Europe travelling on British roads; and whether checks for reliability of these vehicles are adequate.

Checks of foreign vehicles using British roads indicate that they are generally in a satisfactory mechanical condition. We are satisfied that within the manpower resources available the scope and frequency of checks are adequate.

Is the Minister aware that there is a general belief based on a certain amount of experience that many of the heavy vehicles coming in are overloaded? How can we deal with this problem in terms of taking action against their drivers and imposing fines? Does the Minister know about what happened in Northamptonshire recently, when several of them were stopped? May we have some quick method of getting them to the courts and getting action?

I know about what happened in Northamptonshire recently. It was a very useful exercise. Unfortunately, none of the lorries stopped for being overloaded or for any other fault was foreign, apart from one, which was from Eire, and none was from the Continent. Therefore, that example does not exactly back up the hon. Member's point. However, the answer to the hon. Member's first point about what we do to prevent overloaded foreign lorries from going about their business is that we have a system of stopping them for spot checks at ports, and this works pretty well on the whole.

Will my hon. Friend take on board the point that there is a problem here, in that lorry drivers and lorry owners picking up containers at ports have no way of knowing the weight of the containers? In these circumstances, would it not be more sensible to go to the docks and to check the weight of the containers? If a member of my union saw a notice saying "This container is overweight", he would not move it. To be prosecuted and to lose one's licence—with the same consideration applying to the owner of the vehicle—when there is no way of knowing the weight of what is in the container is manifestly unfair.

As my hon. Friend knows from the debate on the Transport Bill, this does not happen. There is no loss of licence if it is shown that a driver did not know what was in the container that he picked up. Rightly, the law protects the lorry driver in those circumstances. However, I take my hon. Friend's point, and that of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis), that we need to take a careful look at our checking facilities in ports.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had about the statement he issued jointly with the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection on commuters.

None, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that he has been milking the commuters in the South-East and London for a long time and that the service to Bedford has been deplorable, particularly for its state of disrepair? Is he prepared to make certain concessions, particularly in view of the report of the Price Commission? Is he also prepared to bear in mind that now that he is in the Cabinet he can get further concessions for commuters—for example, deductions against income tax for this purpose?

The hon. Gentleman has more to be pleased about than some hon. Members, considering the improvements in the services between St. Pancras and Bedford which he knows are taking place. As he rightly said, the Price Commission has looked at the whole problem of commuter fares and the difficulty of deciding how much should be raised in revenue, and therefore in fares, and how much should come, in effect, from the taxpayer. It has made some useful recommendations, and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection and I have welcomed its report. I am sure that British Rail is more anxious than ever before both to improve the comfort and convenience of commuter services and to explain why they cost a great deal of money.