HC Deb 09 December 1969 vol 793 cc222-3
18. Sir G. Nabarro

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement upon the proposals made to him for 56-foot-long road, train-type, goods vehicles; and what representations he has received from motoring and pedestrian organisations against these proposals.

Mr. Mulley

I assume that the hon. Member means 56 tons, not 56 feet, since a lorry-trailer combination up to 18 metres—59 feet—is already permitted.

Sir G. Nabarro

On a point of order. I cannot be responsible for typographical errors.

Mr. Mulley

All aspects of these proposals are under examination. I have received objections from a number of organisations, including the Pedestrians Association for Road Safety.

Sir G. Nabarro

Does the Minister realise that if we are to consider vehicles of this size, which may be economical and practicable in future, the user ought to be confined to roadways of the motorway type alone, and that they could not possibly be allowed to travel on normal A or B type roads in this country? Would it not require legislation before any progress could be made here?

Mr. Mulley

I shall naturally have full consultations with the many interests involved before authorising any change of the present regulations. I can see an immediate difficulty in the hon. Member's proposal, because one of the points about road transport is that it enables unloading to take place at a place convenient to the user. We do not want to have factories and the like built along the side of the motorways. They must go from the motorways to some other point.

Mr. Bessell

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the alarming increase in the number of accidents involving heavy lorries, he will give an undertaking that he will resist any proposal for an increase in tonnage or length?

Mr. Mulley

It is very easy for hon. Members to ask for this kind of assurance. When responsible organisations make proposals, the least that I can do is examine them carefully. An examination of the kind involved here entails questions such as power-weight ratio, braking and many other questions, including amenities.

Mr. Ellis

Would my right hon. Friend agree that there are many different points of view on this? Whilst there are consultations going on elsewhere, will he see that before any firm decisions are made he consults Members of this House, who have various opinions on what is an important subject for our constituents? Does he realise that it is vitally necessary that we should take part in this discussion?

Mr. Mulley

It would be rather difficult to have a lengthy consultation with the House as a whole, but I would welcome any observations from any hon. Member on this or any other aspect of my work.