asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents there were on roads and railways, respectively, involving injury for the latest year for which figures are available.

In 1977, there were about 266,000 road accidents involving injury, compared with 2,400 similar rail accidents.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this should be an added reason for seeking to pursue a policy for getting traffic off the over-congested roads and on to the under-used railways? Does he further agree that we need to encourage the use of the railways, as there are good economic, financial, social, energy and industrial reasons for doing so?

Unless we hurry we shall miss every train.

I note what my hon. Friend said in his comprehensive supplementary question. He will be aware of what we are doing in regard to rail investments, where my right hon. Friend and I are making considerable support available to the British Railways Board, and also in terms of general revenue support for railways. I entirely take my hon. Friend's point that safety is a factor to be taken into account.

Does the Minister accept that one of the causes of road accidents is driver fatigue and frustration? What assurances will he give the millions of motorists who have experienced endless delays during the last weekends as a result of road repairs that they will not face similar delays during the rest of the summer period? Cannot this work be scheduled during that part of the year when the roads are not most used by motorists?

Indeed, that is precisely what we are doing. We have reviewed very carefully the road maintenance programme during the next few summer months to avoid the sort of problem which would otherwise occur. We are able to schedule much of the work during the less frequently used periods of the year, such as the autumn. Where we can, we try to preserve two lanes in use in either direction on the motorways. We try to avoid peak periods. For example, we shall not be doing any maintenance work on the Midlands motorway links during the Motor Show in October.

Is it not also a fact that over the past two calendar years there have been no fatal accidents affecting passengers on our railway network? In the general road-rail debate, should not the contrast between this record of safety and the frightful carnage on our roads be a major factor in our policy decisions?

It is certainly a very important and weighty factor, and I fully take account of my hon. Friend's point. In fairness, however, one should also take into account the fact that the railway system is a closed system, whereas the road system is not. Of course, a far greater amount of mileage is done on the roads than on the railways. One should take that into account in keeping a perspective. None the less, my hon. Friend's point is generally valid.

I recognise the splendid record of British Rail in regard to safety, but does the Minister agree that the number of people travelling by road is so vastly greater than the number travelling by rail that any numerical comparison is both misleading and irrelevant?

That is why I made the point that I did in reply to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). It is important to keep this in perspective. A crude comparison of figures does not give the true picture. We have to take account of the fact that much more mileage is done on the roads than on the railways. Even so, I think that the picture is generally more favourable for railways.

Cannot my hon. Friend give us precise figures? It is comparatively easy to extrapolate figures for injuries per passenger mile on road and rail. The available figures certainly show that rail is undoubtedely very much the less accident prone of the two modes of transport. Will my hon. Friend take note that the remarkable safety record of the rail system gives the Government considerable reason for encouraging people to travel by rail rather than road wherever possible?

I would not wish to give precise figures to my hon. Friend, although I understand his reasons for asking for them. There are genuine differences in the reporting of accidents on rail and road. Almost all rail accidents, even very trivial ones, are reported, whereas some road accidents are totally unreported. This can make a difference in drawing comparisons between the two modes of transport. But the general point that my hon. Friend is making is valid.

Did the Minister read the recent statement of Mr. James Tye, the director-general of the British Safety Council, who said that

"the general deterioration of road surfaces has already caused unnecessary accidents and the situation can only get worse"?

There is no evidence of the sort of deterioration mentioned by the hon. Member. I know what Mr. Tye has said, but I take leave to dispute it. The general picture that he has put forward is not as valid as he likes to make out. I might also point out that precisely because we do not know enough about the situation we have launched a series of comprehensive annual reviews of motorway maintenance to determine exactly the sort of level of spending which is right. Until we get the facts, we are not in a position to say what level of spending is right. None the less, I am sure that the generalised remarks which the hon. Member attributed to Mr. Tye are incorrect.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards the substitution of rail by bus services.

I have no firm or exclusive view.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that past attempts at bus substitution have failed lamentably, and will be guarantee that his Department will not undertake this type of policy in the future?

I agree with my hon. Friend that for the most part attempts in the past have been unsuccessful and the dividends that were expected to be gained have not been there. But I do not rule out the possibility that bus substitution might make sense. Our objective must be to meet the needs of the public in the most cost-effective way, and that could be by bus rather than by rail. However, that is a matter about which I have an open mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the proposed increase in vehicle taxation for very heavy lorries.

We have received eight representations on the taxation of heavy lorries. These covered assessment of social, environmental and road costs, and the timing of any changes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this year's Finance Bill contains no proposals to increase taxation for these very heavy vehicles? When does he expect the aims of his own White Paper to eliminate subsidies for these very heavy vehicles to be achieved?

I should not expect my hon. Friend to see an increase in road haulage taxation every year. There were increases in previous Budgets, which did something to bring revenue and costs into balance, which is the objective of Government policy. As for when we expect ultimately to get a fully equal system, I might say that we hope to bring in the proper taxation of laden weight and axle configuration in about 1979–80.

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

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

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

I met him this morning and I expect to meet him again tomorrow.

Does my right hon. Friend share the concern expressed by Sir Peter Parker in British Rail's annual report about how the views of the Price Commission on the fares of South-Eastern commuters can be reconciled with the financial objectives placed by the Government on the British Railways Board? When my right hon. Friend next meets Sir Peter Parker, what view will he express to the chairman about the way in which the two can be reconciled?

I appreciate the concern which my hon. Friend has shown consistently about the problem of commuter fares, and I think that Sir Peter Parker comments on this very fairly in his annual report. It is for the Board to find a solution to the problem. The House has agreed the level which its subsidy should represent, and it must work within that total. If it does not increase fares in one area, it will have to recoup them in some other.

As Sir Peter Parker has described the road versus rail argument as "sterile", would not the Minister expect Sir Peter not to allow British Rail to go in for anti-heavy commercial vehicle advertising, which it is now doing, in view of the employment provided in that industry and the exports gained by it?

There is a later Question on advertising. However, I have often said—and I repeat—that I do not think that there is any advantage in "knocking" copy in the transport industry or parts of the industry. Both the public sector and the private sector have a part to play, and I think that it is best for everyone to get on with it.

Does the Minister accept that hard-pressed commuters from my constituency and others in the South-East contribute valuable services to our capital city, especially those working in the City of London, and wish to know what the future holds for them? Which of the chairman's three options, which are not wholly a matter for the Board alone, does the Minister himself support? Is it to be a special grant, extra high fares, or deteriorating services?

Certainly it cannot be additional financial help for the railways, and I am surprised to hear the hon. Member suggest that that might be the course to follow. British Rail must operate within the ceiling that has been set for it and earn the revenue where it can by the fares that it charges. It is not an easy problem. But there is a very similar problem facing other commercial enterprises in both the private and public sectors.

When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Rail, will he ask him what measures his Board is taking to attract more passengers to areas such as North-East Lancashire, especially where the rolling stock is badly in need of renewal?

I was very glad that the chairman reported in his annual report that there was an increase in the volume of passengers carried in 1977 over 1976. That will be welcomed on all sides of the House. As it is possible for British Rail to renew its stock, I think that travelling by rail will become more attractive and meet my hon. Friend's needs.

Has the Secretary of State discussed with the chairman the attitude of the rail unions towards political expulsions from the unions? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he agrees with the Prime Minister that no one's political views, however objectionable, should be used as an excuse for depriving a man of his job? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman support Sir Peter Parker in whatever management decisions he may feel it necessary to take on this difficult issue?

I agree with the hon. Member that it is a difficult issue, but I am sure that it is clear in the mind of Mr. Sidney Weighell, for example, that it would be wrong to expel anyone or make him lose his job for political reasons. Equally, I think that the railway unions have been very concerned—and rightly so—with the danger of racialism on the railways. There is a great measure of racial harmony, and I think that we want to keep it that way.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage the implementation of the EEC regulations on drivers' hours (543/69).

I am in close touch with both sides of the industry about the phased implementation now taking place.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any plans, before the implementation of the EEC regulations on drivers' hours, to repeal those parts of the 1968 Transport Act which are causing such chaos and confusion in the transport industry?

There are no such plans. There are problems with introducing regulation No. 543. I have allowed a honeymoon or phasing-in period and, of course, discussions are continuing about questions of derogation and harmonisation. These are difficult issues, but I shall keep closely in touch with both sides of the industry about them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread anxiety in the road transport industry, both passenger and freight, about the introduction of these regulations? Is this not yet another example of interference by the EEC Commission in an area in which our own legislation is perfectly adequate? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the longer he can continue the honeymoon period to which he has referred the more popular he will be in the industry?

I am not sure about that.

I am grateful for that hint. We were able to negotiate a phasing-in period of three years for these regulations which was in a sense a bonus on top of the period of delay which had occurred. I shall do all that I can to make life easier for both the passenger and the freight industries, since the latter is facing some increases in costs as a result of this.

Will the Minister assure the livestock hauliers of the North of Scotland that he will continue a derogation on drivers' hours to all those who have to operate on such inadequate roads? Will the Minister take the opportunity, some time during the summer, of having a motoring holiday in the North of Scotland so that he can see for himself the situation which pertains where heavy lorries have to operate on such narrow roads with very heavy loads of livestock?

I am attracted by the hon. Member's final suggestion, but I am not sure that it will be possible. I take his word that there are very special problems in North-East Scotland as a result of the regulations. I shall continue to do what I can by way of derogation.

As my right hon. Friend said in the June issue of Socialist Commentary, his view is that long-standing domestic regulations can be quite as effective as harmonised ones from the EEC without risk to commercial competition. Does he not think that this controversial regulation No. 543 comes within that circumstance, and would he not wish therefore to restore the power of this House to throw it out?

I have to accept realistically all the problems that result from membership of the EEC, which I supported and have no regrets about doing so. However, I certainly believe that there are a number of respects in which the Commission's passion for harmonisation does not make good sense. Whereas it is desirable to have rules affecting international journeys, quite often we can be left alone to continue the working arrangements that we have built up over a long period of years.

Surely the Secretary of State will recall that up until January this year his Department's impression was that those sections of the Transport Act 1968 relating to the driving day would be superseded by the EEC regulations. All that he has done since then, having misled the industry, is to suggest a vague kind of harmonisation. Does he realise that he will have to do something concrete, otherwise the extra costs that the industry will incur will come through in prices to the public?

I do not think that I misled the industry and I do not think that the industry believes that either. There were very difficult problems of interpretation—I will not deny that—and the position was not wholly clear until after 1st January, when regulation No. 543 applied. I shall continue to do all I can to help, but I cannot mislead the House or the industry into believing that we shall have a change of policy on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what discussion he has had with the chairman of the British Railways Board about the operation of the closed shop in British Railways.

None, Sir.

Is it a matter of approval, indifference or regret to the Secretary of State that 42 former employees of British Rail, some of whom had more than 35 years' service, should have been dismissed without compensation? Does he agree with the Prime Minister's statement on 4th April that it would be wholly intolerable for a person to lose his job because of his political views?

I have always regretted it when people lose jobs that they would prefer to do. It is a harsh experience, which many people have shared over a period of years, for all sorts of reasons. I know the hon. Member's concern, and he has already indicated his anxiety to raise the matter on the Adjournment. Perhaps it can be discussed fully then.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this decision was taken democratically by the unions concerned? It was a closed shop decision and the only people who are complaining about it are the very small minority who are too mean to pay their dues.

There are many things that could be added about the closed shop—for example, that it is increasing in the private sector and is widely regarded as one of the guarantees of good industrial relations. I recognise that there are special situations in the railways, but I think that on the whole the matter has been handled wisely and well.

As British Rail has a monopoly, is it the Government's policy that anyone who does not wish to join a union should be denied employment?

It is not a question of Government policy; it is the existing position under legislation. Two of those people who have been affected in this way have indicated their intention to take the matter to the European Court. I am sure that these issues will continue to be discussed. They are not new issues in this House, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not just a matter of one's political views, because it makes good sense to be a member of a trade union?

Yes, that is so. The complication is that, if a view were taken that because of political views a man should not remain a member of a union, there would be difficulties arising, in view of the closed shop.

Is the Secretary of State aware that on the Opposition Benches we believe in the freedom to belong to a trade union and in the freedom not to belong to a trade union? We believe that this freedom is indivisible. Does the Secretary of State share that view?

I am very glad to hear a plain assertion that it is the entitlement of every man to belong to a trade union, because that is not always the view that is expressed from the Conservative Benches. We have discussed these matters over many years, and the view is very substantiallly taken, not only by the trade unions but by some employers, that a closed shop can make good sense. All the evidence is that it makes good sense on the railways.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what contribution his Department is making towards the cost of repairs to the Birmingham Inner Ring Road.

Assistance from the Department is provided through the transport supplementary grant for this and other items of transport expenditure by the West Midlands County Council, which is responsible for this road. Because the TSG is a block grant, it is not possible to say how much of it relates to this one item of expenditure.

Will the Minister confirm that there will be extra money over and above that which would ordinarily go to the West Midlands County Council for this job? Will he bear in mind that 20 years ago the Ministry of Transport paid three-quarters of the cost of this road, and that the Tory Government at that time allowed the methods of construction that have subsequently proved inadequate? Why should the Birmingham ratepayers have to foot the bill for the actions of a Tory Government 20 years ago?

I cannot confirm that there will be extra expenditure as a result of the events that have taken place, but there will be expenditure, roughly estimated by the West Midlands County Council at £440,000, on general maintenance between 1977 and 1981 on this stretch of road. There may be one or two items on top of that. That is what we shall finance in the normal way as part of the TSG.

Will the Minister bear in mind the amount of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money that is invested in new roads such as the Birmingham Inner Ring Road, taking account of the fact that we have had major structural defects very early on in these roads? Does he agree that it is time to consider checking with the people who constructed those roads to see whether they are responsible, and should compensate us, rather than the taxpayer and the ratepayer having to pay?

This is something which we have gone into very thoroughly. Where there have been clear design mistakes and inappropriate methods have been used, we have looked at it very carefully. The important thing is to get the changes made as quickly as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the operation of the traffic commissioner system.

No, Sir.

Does the Minister agree that the traffic commissioners' system is totally undemocratic, and its revision is needed to strengthen the views of the passengers and the taxpayers, who are so frequently ignored totally?

The hon. Member will be aware that the Transport Bill, which has completed its stages in this House, is going through another place. In that Bill we have revised the role of the traffic commissioners, and, in fact, we have suggested that they should take account of the policies and plans of the county councils which represent the taxpayers, as well as the consumers. Therefore, we are meeting the sort of point that the hon. Member has in mind.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that Bill does not go far enough? Will he come to Leicester to see for himself the problems that have been created and that are being preserved by the system that he is defending?

The problem of Leicester, of which I am well aware because my hon. Friend has ventilated it, quite rightly, on a number of occasions, would be solved more directly by proper arrangements between the municipal operators and the National Bus Company. This is the heart of the matter. To go further and to give more power to the county councils over the traffic commissioners would be very bad for bus services—certainly in other parts of the country.

In the context of what the Minister has just said, clearly there is an intention of the Government that responsibility shall lie with the county councils. If that is accepted Government policy, to what extent should the traffic commissioners be allowed to have power to override the county councils? Is the Minister in a position to give an assurance to the House that the traffic commissioners are not discriminating in favour of the National Bus Company on scheduled and other routes?

The commissioners are certainly not discriminating in favour of the company. They operate an independent check on what the county councils are doing. In view of what some Conservative-controlled county councils have done to bus services in the past two or three years, I am delighted that the traffic commissioners will continue in being.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to meet his colleagues in other EEC countries.

I met my EEC colleagues at the Council meeting of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport on 31st May and 1st June at Brussels and I look forward to seeing them again at the Council of Transport Ministers of the EEC on 12th June at Luxembourg.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets his European colleagues, will he discuss, especially with his Benelux colleagues, the system of tax concessions that exist for those who travel to work by rail in those countries? Is that not a possible way out of the dilemma of London and South-East commuters, who now have serious problems? Is it not something that he should discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a high priority to be considered when tax cuts are being considered for the future?

I shall inform myself of the practice that is followed in the Benelux countries, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. We must recognise that any concession of the sort that he has mentioned would, in effect, be the same as tax cuts, as he plainly says, or an increase in public expenditure. In the circumstances, we could not possibly make such a conces- sion apply only to those living in London and the South-East, however strong their feelings may be.

When my right hon. Friend meets his European colleagues, will he obtain from them an assurance that they will not insist that Great Britain has to introduce the tachograph for domestic journeys? Will he point out to his colleagues that British lorry drivers accept that tachographs should be fitted for international journeys but that there is no need for them to be fitted for domestic journeys?

The view of Her Majesty's Government on tachographs is well understood by our partners in the Nine, but not entirely sympathetically.

Will the right hon. Gentleman have consultations with his European colleagues about the possibility of reopening the Channel Tunnel project, especially using European money?

No. I am not proposing to have such discussions at present.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the direct elections come about—they were supposedly due to take place in June although I now believe that November is being discussed as a possible date, and they may be even later than that—any resistance that he has displayed already on tachographs will mean nothing as compared with the power that will be handed over from nation States and Ministers to the directly-elected European Parliament? Therefore, why does my right hon. Friend support the idea of a directly-elected Assembly?

I do not accept the conclusion that my hon. Friend reaches. I should put it the other way. If there is a strong case for the United Kingdom on the tachograph, or on regulation No. 543, and that view is shared by hon. Members, I see no reason for our representatives in the European Parliament, speaking with a loud voice, not persuading some other Members of that Parliament that we are right.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made towards the provision of rural transport.

The Government are providing for more than £15 million extra to be spent on public transport in rural areas by the end of the decade, and first indications are that a number of counties are responding well. The Transport Bill will encourage further development of community buses and social car schemes and provide a new framework for planning. Our programme of rural transport experiments is well under way and the first interim report, on the Exe Valley market bus, is expected shortly.

Given that the Government are doing a considerable amount to encourage rural transport, will the Department do more to encourage initiatives between local community groups and public transport authorities to improve rural transport facilities, especially in areas such as Hebden Bridge, in my constituency?

In the Transport Bill we have relaxed provisions, for example, in respect of car sharing and encouraging communities to set up their own minibus services, which should help in that direction. We shall be implementing these schemes and following them up with further publicity that will bring to the attention of local community groups what is possible under the Bill.

Will the traffic commissioners be able to grant to parish councils the right to run minibuses between villages to link up with trunk routes run by the nationalised industry?

If a parish council, a community group or anybody in the community can justify a case for a minibus service, the commissioners will have the power to grant that right by a speedy procedure.

Will my hon. Friend encourage the various member companies of the National Bus Company to undertake their own experiments and not continue to wait for others to carry out experiments, especially in rural areas, where it is the poor who are being squeezed by rising fares? It often seems that that is happening with no impact upon those who are running the companies.

I accept that the National Bus Company, which is by far the largest bus group in Britain, should undertake as many experiments as possible. It has originated a number of experiments but it may be that they have not yet reached Derbyshire. None the less, a great deal of work is being done by the NBC throughout the country and it is participating in some of the Government-sponsored experiments.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the criticism of the innovative virtues of the National Bus Company that has been mentioned is shared by a number of others? Is he satisfied that not only local authorities but community groups and associations throughout the country are aware of the opportunities that exist under the NBC's community bus scheme? Will he consider inviting the NBC to enlist the active support of hon. Members, most of whom, if not all, are actively in touch with the community leaders in their constituencies? It is clear from my constituency that much of the information that is of interest and use to small rural communities is not known and is not available at that level.

The hon. Gentleman is correct. Those on the ground floor, as it were, have not yet caught up with what we are doing in the Transport Bill and with what the National Bus Company is doing in its way. I shall ensure that our plans to publicise these matters as widely as possible are taken seriously.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department will undertake a study of the effect of increased fares on public transport.

Not unless I can be persuaded that there is something new to be learnt.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent 15 per cent. increase in Scottish bus fares means that in some cases it is cheaper to travel by car rather than by bus, so that the bus fare increases cause a reduction in the number of passengers, which in turn causes either cuts in the bus services or further fare increases? Is it not about time the Government took action to stop this vicious circle, which is threatening to cripple public transport in many parts of the country?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the hardship that can be caused by rising fares. He knows that it is a matter that has been very much in the Government's mind during the whole of the counter-inflation policy. I am glad to say that the railways are proof against rises in fares. However, we must do our best to ensure that the sort of increases to which, perhaps, we have become accustomed do not become the pattern in the years ahead. We must try to keep fares down.

May we have a study of the effect of reduced fares on public transport in some areas, because a fare cut might increase revenue and mileage?

Indeed it might. There is no simple answer, but it is true that on the buses—and it is certainly true on the railways—there has not been a loss of passengers. It is equally true that where British Rail has been able to experiment—this applies to bus companies as well—with lower and concessionary fares it has often found them popular and has earned additional revenue.

Will my right hon. Friend carry out a study in a number of urban areas with a view to suggesting that there should be free fares in certain urban areas to reduce the number of individual cars being used and increasing the use of public transport? Will he consider that approach? There are many of us who have believed for a long time that that is part of the solution to the transport problem.

I have always made it clear that I am much in favour of experiments of the sort that my hon. Friend suggests, provided that those who are responsible for them recognise the risks that are involved and are prepared to cover the loss of revenue that might occur. As he knows, buses are often operated by municipal bus authorities, which are entitled to undertake the sort of experiment that my hon. Friend has described if they so wish.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set up an inquiry to assess the effects of advertising on choice of method of travel.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set up an inquiry to assess the effects of advertising on choice of travel methods.

Not in the absence of good cause.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British Rail is now boasting of its great successes, at a cost of several hundred thousand pounds a year in advertising? What use is that to those who are compelled to travel by British Rail and suffer its growing inefficiency, as are commuters in the South-East?

I disagree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says. The efficiency of British Rail is improving. I believe that is widely recognised on both sides of the House. It is set out clearly in British Rail's most recent annual report. That being so, I see no reason for British Rail's not bringing to the attention of its passengers the facilities that it offers. I am glad to say, for example, that the advertising associated with the introduction of the HST on many new routes has been a great success. The high speed trains are now carrying up to 30 per cent. more passengers than the trains that were previously running.

Is it not a fact that the more we have special offers the more complicated they become and the greater the advertising and administrative costs involved? Would it not be better if British Rail reduced normal fares and kept the price to the ordinary passenger within limits? It would then still get the increased numbers, without having to spend so much on advertising.

The hon. Gentleman may feel that he can run British Rail better than the present chairman. I think that these are largely management decisions, which ought to be made by those who are professionally qualified to make them. It seems that reduced fares, which hon. Members on both sides of the House generally want to see, must go with advertising so that people will know that they are available.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the advertisement which seems to make a virtue out of the comparison between British Rail and other Western European countries with regard to the degree of subsidy received by British Rail? Does he agree with British Rail's assessment of the situation?

I am not familiar with the poster. There can be a great deal of argument about exactly how subsidies here compare with those in other countries. The point of substance is that British Rail is providing an increasingly efficient service within rules and a subsidy agreed by the House. I think that it deserves the encouragement and good will of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to alleviate traffic problems in Quorn and Mountsorrel, Leicestershire, along the A6 road; and whether he has any new plans for a bypass round those villages.

Following a recent assessment of the A6 through Quorn and Mountsorrel, we propose to carry out a series of improvements to the existing road. Four of these will be completed by April 1979. There are no new plans for a bypass of either village.

Is the Minister aware that the serious and growing problems of these communities through traffic can be solved not by minor improvements but only by a new bypass? Will he discuss this matter urgently with the Leicestershire County Council, as it is currently reviewing its transport policy programme?

I cannot undertake to discuss the matter urgently. The kind of improvements which we are now about to implement will answer some of the problems which the hon. Gentleman legitimately raises. Certainly there have been far too many accidents, for example, in the two villages. The kind of improvements that we are about to make to junctions are designed to reduce the number of accidents, which have mainly taken place at junctions.

While he is about it, will my hon. Friend look into the question of possible road congestion between this House and Epsom, because, according to the attendance today, many hon. Members must be making their way there?

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the White Paper, "Policy for Roads: England 1978" (Command Paper No. 7132).

It is early days to add significantly to what the White Paper said.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be a good idea to have a debate as soon as possible on the White Paper, because many hon. Members on both sides are worried about the state of our roads? We appreciate that limited funds are available for extra maintenance, but we would like to discuss the allocations of those funds.

I should certainly be happy to have a debate on that subject. I think that it would be a very good idea.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the urgent need to complete the M25 motorway in outer London, to which he referred in the White Paper? Is he aware that in parts of outer London, such as Hampton, there is intolerable congestion which cannot be relieved until this new orbital road is completed? What is he doing to speed matters?

I think that there is wide agreement that the M25 should stand at the top of priorities for new roads. Good progress is being made, but the planning procedures are very long. That is inevitable, given the need to consult widely and to give everyone a fair opportunity to raise doubts.

Given the demands which have come from the Opposition this afternoon for increases in public expenditure, at the end of Question Time will my right hon. Friend get one of his colleagues to calculate how much increased public expenditure has been demanded and then send me a letter giving the amount?

I should be happy to help my right hon. Friend in the way that he suggests, but it might be an unfruitful use of Civil Service time. I think that it is apparent to all hon. Members, at least on the Government side, that there are great contradictions on the Opposition Benches between the cuts in public expenditure for which they ask part of the time and the increases which they put forward for the rest.

Does the Secretary of State agree that expenditure on road maintenance could save lives whereas spending money on school milk does not necessarily save anybody's life.

I think that the hon. Gentleman should have thought twice about that. Apart from the totally unproven assumption that there is neglect of maintenance which has led to dangers in terms of road safety, I should think that many right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches believe that school milk is important and relevant to the health of the nation.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the Government's intentions towards implementing the EEC directive on tachographs, in view of the action being taken by the European Court.

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 my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) on 24th May.

The Secretary of State is soon to meet the European Court. Is he going to say that the wishes of Her Majesty's Government are to await the permission of the Transport and General Workers Union before this EEC directive is implemented? Is he aware that the Transport and General Workers Union is now insisting that even tachograph-fitted vehicles from the Continent shall be approved by it before operating in the West Midlands?

We must see what the timetable for proceedings in the European Court may be. It has been made clear that we are to be referred to the Court, but I do not think that the reference has yet taken place. I have made my position on this matter plain on a number of occasions. I am happy to see voluntary agreements for the use of the tachograph. It is wholly understood that the tachograph must be used for international journeys. The only question at issue is whether there should be compulsory fitting of the tachograph at home. I have also made my view clear on that aspect.

Has the Secretary of State now found out the answer that he could not give me last time—namely, if we disobey the ruling of the European Court, who is imprisoned? Is it he?

On the second point, I recognise that there have been problems. This is a totally different issue, because it is a question of the law of the land in other countries. If it is logical to argue that tachographs ought not to be compulsory here because the law of this Parliament should prevail in that respect, it is equally logical to recognise that the rules of other countries may be different. I have certainly made my view known about this issue. I am sorry if it causes hardship and inconvenience.

What increase in industrial costs and in the cost of living would flow from the full implementation of the EEC regulations on tachographs and drivers' hours?

It is difficult to put both together. The assumption about the compulsory fitment of tachographs is that it would cost about £100 million overall, with recurring annual costs of about £40 million. What no one has been able to put a precise figure on is what resultant savings there might be in productivity. Certainly there would be a substantial initial cost. I should make it plain that it is a cost which many employers do not want to have imposed upon them.

I refer the Secretary of State to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I return to the question of the T and GWU in Birmingham, which, without any foundation in law, is interfering in lawful trading operations. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about this matter? It is causing considerable dislocation to transport in the Midlands. Is it not time that he stood up to the union—or is he frightened of offending Mr. Alan Law and his bullies in the Midlands?

I am prepared to stand up to anybody whose blandishments, including those of the hon. Gentleman in this respect, I feel I must resist. If the law of the land is being broken, action should be taken in the courts. If it is not a question of the law of the land, we must recognise the real problems and resistance to the use of the tachograph, which are not simply based upon bloody-mindedness. We must hope to find a satisfactory and peaceful resolution of this matter in the end.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House why drivers, who are expected to live, eat and sleep in lorry cabs in the interests of big business, ought not to be consulted about any modification that goes into those cabs, whether it be in the shape of the seats or the mechanical instruments?

It is right that there should be consultation. The issue is whether we are obliged to implement the tachograph directive in the United Kingdom under the Treaty of Accession, given that there was no renegotiation. Of course the lorry driver is entitled to a point of view on a matter of this kind.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has received proposing a modified version of the Channel Tunnel project.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has had further discussions with British Railways on new proposals for a direct rail link across the English Channel.

I have received no proposals for a modified version of the Channel Tunnel project, nor have I had discussions with British Railways on new proposals for a direct rail link across the English Channel.

That reply might explain my right hon. Friend's rather lugubrious view of this exciting subject. But is he prepared to consider ideas which are current in Brussels for sharing the cost of a Channel Tunnel between railway and electricity authorities, since there must be a link built in the near future between Britain and the Continental grid which could utilise a tunnel rather than having the cables laid on the sea bed?

That is a fascinating proposal, of which I had not heard. I am ready to examine it. I am not ruling out the argument that there are many people who believe that a Channel Tunnel might make good sense, particularly for the railways in this country and on the Continent, not only in France. For that reason, I fully understand the wish of many to look at this more closely. No proposals have been made to me. The Government's position has not changed since the statement at the time when the previous tunnel was abandoned.

Will the Secretary of State make it clear now that he will not contemplate any scheme which, like the last one, provides for trains travelling at 150 m.p.h. every four minutes only 50ft. from houses in built-up areas?

The last proposal threatened considerable environmental damage in Kent. The present proposal which is being considered and informally discussed would avoid that danger.

Whatever my right hon. Friend says about the desirability of a Channel Tunnel, will he make it clear that he will have nothing to do with the idea of a roll-on-roll-off motorway which was involved in the last project and which would have caused immense environmental damage in Kent?

I confirm what my hon. Friend said, but I must not allow the nature of his supplementary question to lead him to believe that I am likely to make a decision. I am not considering the possibility and I do not think that this is the proper time.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the unavailability of Section 8 grants for private sidings to British Railways in relation to their operation of Freightliners.

The chairman of British Rail has inquired about this, but we have received no other representations.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the absence of this grant will impose a difficulty on the railways when pursuing the policy which the Government advise, namely, bringing more goods on to the railways?

Overwhelmingly, Freightliners and British Rail customers have taken advantage of this grant. It is not available to British Rail or to Freightliners now that it is to become part of British Rail. Freightliners has not made much use of it in the past. Since its customers can use it, the main purpose of the grant is achieved.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the third annual road maintenance survey to be completed.

The survey should be completed in July and the results should he available by the end of the year.

Does the Minister agree that the cuts in expenditure on road maintenance imposed by the Government are false economies? Will it not eventually cost more to bring the roads up to standard than had the cuts not been made? Is this not yet another example of the Government's passing the buck to the next Conservative Government?

Perhaps we should take the extra money for road maintenance out of the £500 million which the Opposition lopped off the Finance Bill. The Opposition are being totally hypocritical about public expenditure by demanding general cuts but making further specific demands for expenditure.

Is the Minister aware that the word "hypocritcal" lies ill in his mouth? The Opposition's views on public expenditure involve priorities. We would rather see money spent, as it should be, on road maintenance than, for instance on giving unlimited funds to the National Enterprise Board. Is the Minister aware that the cracked surfaces, the potholes and the general deterioration in the standard of our roads are a fitting monument to four years of Labour Government?

The hon. Member's philippic is wholly unjustified. The situation has not deteriorated. We have maintained a reasonable level of road maintenance expenditure in the light of the cuts that we have had to make. I understood that the Opposition wanted us to go even further.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a statement on the study he has made of recent serious coach accidents; and if, in view of these accidents, he will now speed up provision for improving coach safety by increasing roof strengths and improving braking arrangements.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to make a statement on progress in improving coach safety.

Notwithstanding recent tragic accidents, records show that coaches are by far the safest form of travel on the roads. Nevertheless, various measures are in hand to improve coach safety. In particular, we are now considering the adoption of new requirements on roof strengths without waiting for international agreement on the related test procedures. New requirements on braking are also being drafted. However, this is no substitute for operators properly maintaining their vehicles under the existing requirements of the law.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now nearly two years since he outlined to me the additional regulations to improve braking and increase roof strengths? Does he agree that in this long period we have had a series of tragic accidents? Is it not time that something was done quickly to try to reduce this toll?

I am well aware of the urgency of the situation. That is why we have taken specific measures without waiting for international testing, which might have been wise in many respects. We wish to move ahead as fast as possible.

Does the Minister agree that the installation of tachographs in the cabs of coaches will ensure that coach drivers are not asked to work excessive hours and are thus always fresh for driving?

The safety implications of the tachograph are debatable.

Is it a requirement that coaches be fitted with a dual braking system? If it is not, does the Minister think that it should be?

I am grateful for that suggestion. It is not a requirement at present. Perhaps the hon. Member is thinking of a retarder which works as a supplementary brake in certain situations. We are considering the suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what communications he has received from the EEC about metrication.

None, Sir.

I am grateful for that brief reply. Is the Minister aware that the future of the EEC has nothing to do with changing from miles per hour to kilometres per hour and changing our mile signs to kilometre signs? What would be the cost of changing over to the metric system on our highways? Is the Minister aware that the British people are proud of their identity and do not wish to change?

We have been round this particular course on several occasions at recent Question Times. I have made clear that my own rather simple view is that I like kilometres abroad and miles at home. The only obligation on the United Kingdom is to review the matter. That will be time enough to discover how much it would cost. I do not know the cost now.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on the Government Benches are absolutely delighted at the Government's attitude to metrication? Will he explain to the Leader of the Opposition, who is not in the Chamber—

She is at the Derby.

that the Conservative Party was not responsible for metrication being scuttled? There was a vast phalanx on this side of the House which was totally opposed to the concept of metrication. Does he agree that our attitude basically was responsible for sinking this issue, I hope, once and for all?

Fortunately, I am not responsible for metrication as a whole. It would be wise for me to limit my answers to questions relating to miles and kilometres. My view is that the question of miles and kilometres is in some respects an unusual one. It is difficult to see what benefits would come from a change.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of his or any of his colleagues receiving many representations for the restoration of duodecimal currency? When did he last hear a plea for the restoration of the sixpence?

If the representations had been made, they would not have been received by me. However, the hon. Member is making a wider point. I might not dissent from his view on that matter, but the subject of miles and kilometres is somewhat different.