Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the likely reduction of fatal accidents on the road as a result of the forthcoming introduction of the compulsory wearing of seat belts.

While seat belts undoubtedly save lives, I do not believe that it is possible to estimate what the effect of compulsory wearing would be. Too much depends not only on the level of wearing but on other factors such as the relative propensity to accidents of wearers and non-wearers.

When does the Minister expect the lifesaving measure, which will make front seat belt wearing compulsory, to come into effect? Who will be exempted? Will she consider extending the protection and rules to rear seat passengers?

I believe that it will be possible to consider regulations later in the year, I hope as quickly as possible, but I do not wish to give an exact date. I hope that that will be shortly after Easter. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about extending the use of belts to passengers in rear seats. Unbelted rear seat occupants can cause injury to those in the front. Therefore, the Government are keeping the question of rear seat belts under careful consideration. Most new cars are provided with rear seat anchorage points, and all cars manufactured after 1 October 1981 are required to provide them. Medical exemptions will be for the doctors to decide.

Is the hon. Lady aware how wise she was to avoid the error of her predecessors in that office when they gave exaggerated estimates of the reduction in casualties that would be consequent upon the compulsory wearing of crash helmets?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remark.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her new appointment, but is she yet aware that the medical commission has recommended so few exemptions on medical grounds that the public in Britain will be so infuriated that it is highly probable that those against compulsion will win when this matter is reconsidered in 1984? Will she give urgent reconsideration to an exemption for driving instructors while they are instructing?

I shall certainly consider my hon. and learned Friend's last point. I thank him for his kind remarks. I am aware of the guidelines that have been brought forward by the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention, but these are guidelines produced by doctors for doctors, and we must abide by that professional advice. I note carefully my hon. and learned Friend's comments and will watch what reactions come forward.

Is the Minister aware that the main body of opinion in the medical world is that exemptions should be very few, and that if someone is so ill as to be unable to wear a seat belt there is some question about whether he should be driving?

I understand that there are some diseases and temporary conditions, such as cracked ribs, which might mean that a person would be wiser to stay at home and recover before getting into a car. We have to achieve a balance in all these matters.

I hope that my hon. Friend will not be a promoter of the extension of the nanny Stale. I congratulate her most warmly on her change of position. Can she say how many people will be killed as a result of the decision of the House that people should be compelled to wear seat belts when travelling in the front seats of a car? Many people have been involved in accidents in which, if they had been wearing a seat belt, they would have been killed.

Prove it.

It happened to me.

I must tell my hon. Friend, despite his kind remarks, that I should not be here today but for the wearing of a seat belt. Only 18 per cent. of the fatalities are people wearing front seat belts. About 30 per cent. of passengers and drivers wear them voluntarily at the moment. I do not believe in nannying anyone, but measures taken in the futherance of safety and a reduction of accidents and deaths are, to me, an important preventive measure.

Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied that the current motorway network is adequate for the present level of traffic.

Yes, except in few places where additions or improvements are already planned.

Does my hon. Friend agree there has been a considerable increase in recent years in traffic on some parts of our major motorways? Is there not a strong case for building some new stretches of motorway to complement those busy parts so that hold-ups can be avoided?

I am well aware of the pressure on some of our motorways, and particularly on sections of the M6 and Ml. My hon. Friend will know that plans are afoot to extend the M62 and the M40. We shall do as much as is feasible. It is important to note that we have done more work for less money and will have spent 15 per cent. more in 1981–82 than we spent in 1980–81.

Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the urgent need to complete the M25? Does she appreciate that many of those in South-East London understand the legal delays, but think that there have been unnecessary administrative delays? Will my hon. Friend promise, here and now, to review the position, with a view to the speedy completion of that important motorway?

I assure my hon. Friend that I give top priority to the completion of the M25. As my hon. Friend knows, the estimated date for completion is 1985, and I have no reason to think that that date will be extended. I understand the great problem for those in the South-East, and that is why we have given completion top priority.

Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Railways to discuss investment in track and permanent way structures.

I meet the chairman frequently to discuss this and other matters of mutual interest.

No doubt the Secretary of State is aware that British Rail is very concerned that the lack of investment may be causing a deterioration in permanent way structures and track maintenance. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that an inquiry is conductd into the derailment of a freight train today at Leeds? That train was hauling a flask that usually contains nuclear waste, but which was, fortunately, empty. An inquiry must be held to ensure that no such accidents could arise from a deterioration in the standards of track maintenance due to lack of investment.

In the first case, such incidents are for British Rail to consider. Track renewal and maintenance has been put outside the investment ceiling to enable British Rail to spend the required amounts. However, British Rail must find the resources from within its overall budget. That must be its main commercial need and that is the way that it must organise its business.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the amount of investment in track and so on depends on the demand for the service? Is it not an unfortunate fact that British Rail will have to learn the lesson that British Steel learnt two years ago? Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that money spent must be spent on a service that others want to use?

Those are lessons that those working for British Rail, those managing it and British Rail travellers will bear in mind when considering the future of the British Rail system.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that over three months ago he agreed to the request of the Britih Railways Board for a thorough-going review of British Rail finances? Why has there been no appointment of a chairman or committee, and no mention of the terms of reference? When will the right hon. Gentleman give us that information and when will he set the review in motion?

I hope that that review will take place shortly. However, as a result of the severe disruption and the difficulties experienced in persuading ASLEF to recognise the importance of productivity to the future of the railway system, difficulties have arisen. However, I hope that the review will go ahead shortly.

Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to make a decision on the building of a Channel tunnel; and what the cost implications for his Department will be.

Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement of the Government's policy towards the Channel tunnel.

I expect to receive the report of the Anglo-French study group in the course of the next few weeks. I shall then wish to consider and discuss it with my French counterpart, but I do not expect a decision to be long delayed. The Government's intention is that the British share in any fixed Channel link which may be decided upon should be financed entirely by the private sector.

When my right hon. Friend announces his decision, will he designate the sponsor of the scheme? Will he also tell us how the additional funds are to be provided for British Rail if, as the Government have implied, they would like a 7-metre rather than a 6-metre tunnel?

If it is decided to have a fixed Channel link, the type of scheme decided upon will determine the promoting group that is best suited to providing such a scheme. If a scheme involves extra expenditure over the years by British Rail, that would have to be taken into consideration when fixing its investment ceilings, external financing limits, its overall pattern of finances and any other demands on its funds.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the old saying:

"Hope deferred maketh the heart sick"?

The hon. Gentleman should be more cheerful after a Budget that everyone recognises will be very good for industry and for industrial development. The Anglo-French studies have gone ahead quickly. Once the French became involved in the studies they moved quickly, and I am hopeful that we shall be able to keep to the timetable that I gave in response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).

Will my hon. Friend expand a little further on what he understands to be the private investment interest in the project in Britain? What is his understanding of the involvement of private French capital?

I understand that on this side of the Channel eight groups have put forward schemes as promoters for the fixed Channel link. They recognise the Government's requirement that there should be no recourse to public funds. They intend to propose schemes that will satisfy that criterion, although until the nature of the scheme is clearer none will be able to do so. On the French side of the Channel, too, there is a greater inclination to look at market sources of finance than at purely State resources, as was originally suggested.

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that an admirable Select Committee on Transport is currently hard at work and that it has recommended the 7-metre tunnel? In the exchanges that have taken place—I hope—across the Channel has the right hon. Gentleman discerned more enthusiasm among the French than among the British?

I had the honour of appearing before that Select Committee. It has done excellent work on the fixed Channel link. As I told the Select Committee, there is enthusiasm for a project, provided that the finances can be sensibly organised. The respective Governments have made it clear that they would like studies to be made so that a decision in principle can be reached.

Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about his timetable for implementing the main proposals contained in his White Paper on "Lorries, People and the Environment."

Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of his consultations with local authority associations on aspects of his White Paper, "Lorries, People and the Environment."

I have consulted widely on the proposals in the White Paper, "Lorries, People and the Environment". I hope to make a further announcement shortly. Consultations with the local authority associations have included discussions on the more effective use of their powers to control lorries and their routing. I am also consulting local authorities about the establishment of lorry action areas for the places worst affected by lorry traffic.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that yesterday's Budget changes in the rates of duty payable on heavy lorries will ensure that these vehicles pay their track costs? That is one of the main recommendations of the Armitage report. As more and more companies have made it clear that if the weight of lorries were increased there would be savings in both fuel and the number of vehicles used, are not the environmental and economic considerations in favour of my right hon. Friend's White Paper becoming more apparent?

It has always been clear that the substantial benefits from the proposed package are both industrial and environmental. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the proposals made yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He proposed that vehicle exise duty on the heavier lorries and vehicles should be substantially increased—by, I believe, about a quarter.

Would it not be improper for the House to consider a Finance Bill that made special provision for the taxation of lorries that could not be used legally on our roads? Will he therefore give an undertaking that before such a Finance Bill proposal is made the House will have an opportunity to decide on the construction and use regulations that the Secretary of State intends to bring forward in the light of the proposition in the White Paper on "Lorries, People and the Environment"?

I hope to make an announcement on these matters shortly.

In my right hon. Friend's timetable for the implementation of the White Paper, which will come first—the heavier lorries, their safety requirements, the bypasses, the motorways, the route control or the weighing machines that will be required to keep a check on these vehicles?

The package of controls on lorries which I believe is necessary to prevent what is at present a bad situation from getting worse, must go hand in hand with any changes in maximum weights or, indeed, maximum heights—where the proposal is that there should be a limit. All those things should go together as a package. At the same time, the Government have announced a substantial bypass programme, which has been speeded up, and that should also go forward. All in all, it is essential to tackle the environmental impact of what in many cases are extremely offensive vehicles. A competitive advantage can accrue to the freight industry if we combine that with a sensible package of lorry controls as a comprehensive whole. That is the Government's approach.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that whatever the Chancellor did yesterday about meeting the track cost of heavy lorries, that cost in no way comes near to putting the environmental costs right? Does he also agree that a vast number of people are absolutely against an increase in lorry weights? Will he give some assurance to the House that he has no intention of agreeing to those lorry weights coming into operation?

The hon. Gentleman should accept the point I made earlier—that the present situation is bad and getting worse. There is a strong case for a comprehensive package of controls on lorries, including safety, lorry routing and a number of other developments. Many people will be extremely concerned if these things are let slip yet again. That ought to go hand in hand with allowing a heavier maximum weight to allow the industry to compete and to find the cost of these extra controls. That is a sensible and balanced approach, which many people will appreciate.

Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the various interested parties, affected organisations, and the public in general on his Department's draft circular of 18 February on lorry controls.

None as yet. The purpose of this circular is to encourage a more vigorous approach to the introduction of planned lorry controls, which is one of the most worthwhile ways of improving the environment locally. We have asked for comments by 18 March.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he undertake to oblige local authorities to use the 1967 and 1973 Acts properly to ensure full-scale environmental controls for the heaviest lorries if there is an increase in weights that is not yet acceptable, bearing in mind that the full details of the package are yet to be seen?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. About 850 lorry control schemes have been introduced on amenity grounds since my hon. Friend promoted the 1973 Act, known as the Dyke's Act. Many authorities have used their powers effectively, but there is still plenty of scope for more—hence this circular.

Does not the fact that there is scope for further controls indicate that there is already widespread apprehension about the use of lorries? The package proposed by the Secretary of State is widely regarded with suspicion because many people think it is part of a public relations exercise to get heavier lorries on our roads, to which the vast majority of people are deeply opposed.

The circular urges local authorities to make full use of their powers to restrict lorries to roads most suitable for them and to keep them away from the most sensitive areas. I ask the hon. Gentleman to pay regard to the great virtues of the comprehensive package described by my right hon. Friend in reply to the previous question.

Secretary of State for Transport whether, pursuant to the answer by the Prime Minister on 15 February, Official Report, c. 1, he has now given further consideration to the issues raised by the proposal to moor permanently a 60,000-ton tanker full of liquefied petroleum gas in the Solent.

My right hon. Friend is urgently considering with colleagues whether changes in existing arrangements for dealing with proposals of this kind may be required.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this particular proposal—now dead, we hope because Mobil is not prepared to go ahead with it—raises a much wider issue, which is the inadequacy of the present legal control over the mooring of vessels with potentially hazardous cargoes anywhere within our territorial waters?

I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's anxieties and those of my hon. Friends who represent nearby constituencies. I am glad to say that the Solent proposal is unlikely to go ahead, as my hon. Friend said. The Government are considering whether and, if so, what, new controls are needed.

Is not the Minister aware that arguments relating to the Solent are the same as the arguments used about the control of the mackerel factory boats in Cornwall? The Government then said that they were looking into the matter and would do something about it. That was five years ago, and they have done nothing.

I know that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to judge this Government on the basis of malfunctions on the part of the previous Administration. There are no similar gas tanker proposals elsewhere in the United Kingdom, but our first priority must be to ensure that we have appropriate powers and procedures for dealing with any development of this kind in the future. That is the purpose of the working party reported upon yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the framework of common law and statute law enables the Government to control such projects for reasons of transport and trade, but that there is no provision for the broader environmental issues to be considered? Therefore, the people of South Hampshire, who were considering this project, would like the Government to have the capacity to call for a public inquiry and to consider the broader environmental issues.

My hon. Friend will be happy to know that the working party to which I have referred includes representatives from the Departments of Energy, Trade, Transport and the Environment. My hon. Friend has emphasised an important aspect of the working party's inquiry. I sympathise with the suggestion that there should be a public inquiry, but I ask my hon. Friend to await the working party's conclusion, because I hope that out of that we shall be able to arrive at a satisfactory solution.

Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of freight traffic is now carried by rail; and what was the comparable figure in each of the last five years.

The latest figures are for 1980 when about 14 per cent. in terms of tonne-miles was carried. Figures for earlier years are conveniently given in "Transport Statistics 1970–1980" and for the five years from 1975 to 1980 show a variation between 14·3 per cent. and 15·8 per cent.

Will my hon. Friend note the pleasure of Conservative Members at his appearance at the Dispatch Box today? Does he agree that the scope for translating freight business back to the railways is enormous, but that industry will not do so until the unions streamline their working practices, increase productivity and guarantee that goods will be delivered on time?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. He is right to say that the scope for freight that could be transferred is large. My hon. Friend made powerful points by emphasising, as did my right hon. Friend earlier, the vital importance of productivity to the future of the railway system.

In addition to productivity increases, the Minister will be aware that investment is of crucial importance when talking about translating freight from road to rail. Is he also aware that the Armitage report recommended an increase in section 8 grants to provide private rail sidings? Is he also aware that one of the impediments to achieving that is the peculiar and inhibiting planning conditions that apply to section 8 grants? Will he look at this problem with a view to introducing legislation aimed at making those planning conditions more amenable to the freight trade?

I appreciate the importance of the hon. Gentleman's points about section 8 grants, which were referred to in the Armitage report. I emphasise that we understand the importance of that aspect. We shall consider the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Does not my hon. Friend's reply point to the declining importance of the railways in our transport system and to the fact that the consumer is increasingly choosing to carry his freight by road? Does not that demonstrate the importance of greater roads expenditure?

Unfortunately, my hon. Friend is right. The figures show a slight decline in percentage terms over the years in the amount of freight carried by the railways. That in itself emphasises the tremendous importance of the railways achieving a competitive position and attracting as soon as possible extra business as a result of its competitive virtue.

The Minister and his hon. Friends seem to be enthusiastic about the transfer of heavy freight to the roads, but is the Minister satisfied about the maintenance of the roads, which are also used by vehicles that do not carry heavy freight? Is he prepared to make representations so that he can offset some of the collapses of the roads and of the sewers in many of our cities?

The hon. Gentleman has entirely misunderstood what I have been describing. It is clear that there is scope for the railways to attract more freight business. The Government want them to do that, but it must be done on the basis of a competitive attraction of that business. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the importance of the announcement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday about the contribution that heavy lorries will make to the covering of track costs.

Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards the future of Sealink.

It is the agreed policy of the Government and the British Railways Board that Sealink UK Limited should be transferred to the private sector at the earliest suitable opportunity.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that that reply will be appreciated by Conservative Members, many of whom would like to see Sealink sold lock, stock and barrel, as it is inefficient and overmanned. Is my hon. Friend aware that the head office staff of Sealink is approximately five times as large as the head office staff of European Ferries, which is no smaller than Sealink?

The British Railways Board is in the lead with regard to privatisation. The Government await its proposals. The board has had to take account of the fact that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission decided that Sealink should not be transferred to European Ferries. Therefore, we know that the board is giving urgent consideration to further proposals in that respect.

Having failed to peddle Sealink's assets to Townsend Thoresen, despite the blandishments of the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden), will the Minister bear in mind and make it a condition of any future sale that a prospective buyer should not only pay British income tax but sail British-built ships?

I shall bear in mind the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I emphasise that at present Sealink is not valuable to British Rail. It is a net drain on the board's resources.

I welcome my hon. Friend to his new post. Is he aware that passenger traffic in Holyhead is at a standstill owing to the damaging dispute over the introduction of a B & I Line ship into the port of Holyhead? Will he keep a close watch on events? Is he further aware that the dispute could have a damaging effect on the long-term future of the port? If at any stage this becomes a matter of negotiation between the British and Irish Governments, will my hon. Friend ensure that everything possible is done to enable Holyhead to continue as a viable port?

I know that my hon. Friend has made great efforts to bring together the parties in this sad dispute. I emphasise that Sealink must conduct its own industrial relations. It is not possible for the Government to intervene in any way.

Does the Minister accept that if he goes ahead with the sale of Sealink he will be exporting jobs from the shipyards? Will he confirm that heither P & O nor European Ferries has bought a British vessel in the last decade?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can justify that assumption. If Sealink were transferred to the private sector, it would have access to private investment, which would be desirable for its future.

How many vessels?

In the public sector there would be the great advantage that British Rail would not have the problem of finding funds for Sealink. Therefore, British Rail could concentrate on the investment needs of the railways.

Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive British Railway's proposals for main line electrification; and if he will make a statement.

I hope to do so shortly, but the board will first need to reassess the financial prospects of the inter-city and freight businesses in the light of the recent ASLEF strikes.

Will the Secretary of State not use the recent dispute as an excuse for delay in electrification? Does he accept that it is essential to go ahead with the electrification scheme if we are to have a modern railway system? What is the cause of the delay? When will the important East Coast main line electrification start and be completed?

We are looking for progress on the railways, particularly on productivity, not for excuses. The East Coast main line railway is one of the projects that will be at the top of the list when electrification proposals come forward. However, those proposals always assume certain traffic forecasts and progress on productivity. The recent strikes mean that the traffic forecasts will have to be revised. Regrettably, progress on productivity remains outstanding.

Will my right hon. Friend continue to bear in mind that English companies operating in the valuable overseas market of railway electrification find it difficult to continue to compete without an adequate home base?

I am concerned to see that the suppliers to the railway industry have a good home base and make progress in overseas markets. However, the electrification investment, which is large, must stand or fall on its viability and common sense in the United Kingdom context.

The Secretary of State cannot be allowed to get away with that. He has had British Rail's electrification proposals for more than two years. In those two years massive productivity gains have been provided by the unions. People in the industry are fed up with the Government using every excuse to prevent investment in British Rail. The right hon. Gentleman must show some commitment if he expects co-operation from workers in the industry.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is misrepresenting the situation. The Government were expecting British Rail's proposals for electrification and there was some hope that they would reach us before Christmas—certainly after Christmas. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain to members of ASLEF that they are putting a veto on productivity increases in the railway system and therefore on a good, well-invested future for the railways. He may also get a better understanding of what has been achieved so far. Productivity is the key to progress.

Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Railways to discuss future development of the railway system.

I meet the chairman frequently to discuss matters of mutual interest.

At his next meeting with the chairman of British Rail, will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to deny that the Government have any plans to sell British Rail Engineering Ltd.?

The policy of privatisation and of bringing in private capital is based on a clear agreement between the British Railways Board and my predecessor. That policy will be pursued vigorously. It is in the best interests of the railway system that funds are found for the much needed investment that all hon. Members recognise is required.

Will my right hon. Friend emphasise to the chairman of British Rail that if British Rail is to hold, let alone expand, its volume of passenger and freight business, it is necessary that the service provided should be of a comparable quality to the alternatives? That is a matter not just of price, but of reliability and of providing reasonably clean carriages on commuter lines.

These are important points, which I have emphasised and shall continue to emphasise to the British Railways Board. I think that the board recognises them.

When the right hon. Gentleman has discussions with the chairman of British Rail, will he take up again the question of electrification? Does he accept that there has been an intolerable delay in proceeding with electrification under both him and his predecessor? When does he expect to be able to give a timetable for the electrification of the Colchester to Norwich route, which is at the head of British Rail's list?

The board is bound to look again at its traffic forecasts, which were previously based on assumptions that are now in question as a result of the pointless, senseless and self-destructive ASLEF strike and resistance to higher productivity. That means that it must re-examine the calculations, and that is bound to mean some delay.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the burning resentment in south-east London at the outcome of the McCarthy inquiry? Will he make it clear once and for all that the Government in no way leant on the chairman of British Rail to accept the findings of that inquiry? Is he further aware that on the Conservative Benches there is nothing but complete support for him when he insists on greater efficiency in British Rail?

I make it clear, as I always have done, that the chairman and board of British Rail have pursued their policy of seeking productivity increases. The arbitration is not by any means over, nor is the outcome decided. There is a further procedure to go through. ASLEF has undertaken not to exclude from its consideration any questions, including flexible rostering and the 8-hour day. I expect it to be as good as its word and to meet the needs of the railway system—needs that are fully recognised by all the other unions and all those working in it.

When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of British Rail, will he explain to him why he is so grossly misrepresenting the position on main line electrification and why, when he knows full well that his predecessor took a decision against picking up any of the five main line electrification options before there was any question of a dispute, he now suggests that the decision not to invest in electrification arises from the dispute?

I suggest no such thing. My predecessor and the Government made quite clear their commitment in principle to a 10-year rolling programme on proper conditions, such as that the inter-city and freight businesses should be run commercially. Plans were required to show how that could be done. Those plans were ready before Christmas. Unfortunately, the ASLEF strike has produced the need for new traffic forecasts. If the right hon. Gentleman feels so strongly on this matter, perhaps a little more speed by himself and his colleagues in condemning the ASLEF strike would have been in place before the damage was done.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many Conservative Members regard the electrification programme as essential for the creation of a modern railway, but that it depends on modern attitudes from all the unions involved? Does he also agree that more damage has been done to the investment prospects of British Rail by the recent ASLEF dispute than by any other factor in recent years? Is it not essential that, if we are to secure the investment programme that is needed, we have an agreement on flexible rostering and commitments to single manning when we have electrification on these crucial lines?

I agree with my hon. Friend, who puts these matters with his usual clarity.

Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on construction of and access works for the M27.

The motorway is open from Cadnam to Chilworth, and from Hedge End to Portsbridge. Main construction of the section between Chilworth and Hedge End, with a connection to the A33 at Bassett, started at the beginning of this year. A further contract will be let shortly, and I hope that the whole motorway will be completed in 1984.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and am pleased to see her in her new post. The initiative taken by the Government for the construction of the M27 and the M3 in Hampshire is particularly welcome, because the motorway box is essential for communication in Hampshire. Will my hon. Friend encourage the Hampshire county council to continue the new initiative and to improve the particularly bad stretch of road between Gosport and Fareham on the A32?

I take my hon. Friend's point. I shall see what more can be done to help.

Does the Minister envisage that there will be another public inquiry before the Swaythling link is proceeded with?

I must be honest and tell the hon. Gentleman that I cannot answer his question at the moment. From what I have heard, I do not think that there will be a need for an inquiry, but if there are many objections, presumably there will have to be one.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the report by the chief constable of Hampshire which points out that the road accident figures on the uncompleted portion of the M3 have reached horrifying levels? Surely the well-meaning people who delayed the building of the M3 should be publicly named by the Department and those deaths brought to their notice.

I shall certainly read the report that my hon. Friend has mentioned. I regret that so far I have not had time to do so, but I shall consider it.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that if there are sufficient objections to the final section of the route for bypasses, which are an essential part of the M27 link, public inquiries will be held? If she has problems on this matter, perhaps she will write to me.

There is no problem. If there are objections to the proposed route, the public inquiry procedure will take place.

Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of trunk road are under construction; and how this compares with the figure 12 months ago.

A total of 169 miles of trunk road are now under construction in England compared with 143 miles 12 months ago.

Does the Minister agree that the Government have no moral right to introduce heavier lorries on to our roads, particularly when insufficient impetus has been given to the provision of new trunk road schemes? Does she also agree that a crash programme would be invaluable in this respect, because it would not only improve the environment but have a beneficial effect in that it would put some people back to work?

In no way will I condone the present situation on heavy lorries. The hon. Gentleman should await the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. However, I remind him that we are spending 15 per cent. more in this financial year than we did in the previous one. We want to improve the existing system as rapidly as possible.

Has my hon. Friend's Department received any representations from private contractors or private consortiums about the construction of trunk roads from private funds initially, with the co-operation of the Department of Transport, as have been received by the Department in respect of motorways?

Yes, we have received representations, and we are studying them sympathetically.

Will the hon. Lady take the opportunity to improve these deplorable figures by making an immediate start on the city of Newcastle upon Tyne's western bypass?

I shall take a special interest in the western bypass, together with all the others that have been brought to my attention in the last three days.

Does my hon. Friend find it curious that the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) should put the question on lorries in the way that he did when it is clear that the increase in mileage on trunk roads, to which the Government have committed themselves, shows that they are determined to solve the problem of heavy lorries?

Yes, it is slightly curious, because the Government are continuing the programme of repairs as the older motorways reach the end of their lives and of renewing about 50 miles of motorway a year. We are doing all that we can, and we are examining all the necessary improvements to be made in the corning years.

Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received in favour of his introduction of legislation allowing the Greater London Council to continue its present low fares policy; and how many representations he has received that he should not do so.

Not surprisingly, the GLC's £250,000 publicity campaign providing Londoners with coupons and pre-paid postcards has produced several hundred items of post for me. Since the campaign has concealed the fact that the low fares policy would mean pouring an extra £1,200 million into London Transport, and since it neither explains to old-age pensioners and others that this sum would come out of their pockets nor provides them with coupons to give me their views about this aspect, it is also not surprising that I have not received many representations against low fares.

Is the Minister aware that his reply is insulting to the intelligence and common sense of the people of London? Is not the overwhelming view of the people of London in support of the continuation of the GLC's "Fares Fair" policy? Is it not time that he took note of the wishes of the people of London?

It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman talks in terms of insult. If there is any insult to anyone's intelligence, it is the putting forward of a programme of low fares without facing the question "Who pays?" When the question of "Who pays?" is examined, it transpires that an additional heavy burden falls on ratepayers, combined with a heavy deterrent to jobs and employment in central London and an additional burden on pensioners. I cannot believe that it is sensible that the people of London should be asked to view only half the problem.