§ 11. Mr. Ormeasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further consultation he has now had with transport ministers of the Common Market regarding the proposed maximum permitted load per axle on lorries using British roads.
§ 27. Mr. Jayasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to accept the decision of the European Economic Community Ministers of Transport on the axle weight and maximum overall weight of lorries as affecting the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. PeytonConsultations on the EEC proposals specified in my Answer to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) on 24th May have now been formally requested, but have not yet taken place.—[Vol. 837, c. 390.]
§ Mr. OrmeWhen these negotiations take place, will the right hon. Gentleman press strongly against the introduction of these juggernaut lorries on British roads? Already, in Holland, they can be up to 50 tons and in Italy 44 tons. In a small, thickly populated country like the United Kingdom, they would make life unbearable—as they do in Holland. In consequence, will the Minister undertake not to permit these lorries to operate on our roads?
§ Mr. PeytonI am obliged to consult the Community at this stage. The proposal which they have put forward—it is only a proposal at the moment—is for 40 tons overall weight. I would personally rather see that slightly lower, but the hon. Gentleman must have in his mind the 1489 fact that the dimensions will not be greatly increased. The vital issue from our point of view, however, is that the axle loadings should not be unconscionably raised, because that would involve considerable expenditure on strengthening roads and bridges and would carry with it the risk of damage to buildings. With the growing volume of heavy traffic, which plays a large part in our transport economy, it is essential that we move as quickly as we can, with order, towards a policy of restricted routes.
§ Mr. JayBut are not these proposals totally unsuitable for British conditions and damaging to British interests? Why can the Minister not say plainly that he will in no circumstances accept them?
§ Mr. PeytonI do not like to be all that dogmatic at this stage. I have tried, in a calm and patient way, to make the views of the British Government well known on this subject. I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman my undertaking that I shall continue to do that.
§ Mr. FellWill my right hon. Friend take some heart from the fact that next time he argues this matter with Ministers of the Common Market and with the Commission, he can tell them that not only Ministers but the British Parliament feel strongly about this? Will he please tell them in no uncertain terms what he has told the House today?
§ Mr. PeytonI have a confession to make. I went so far as to call in aid the views of the British Parliament on the earlier occasion. I ventured to suggest that I was under heavy pressure in Parliament and that I was not a robust enough person to stand up to it.
§ Mr. MulleyI am sure that the Minister is aware that not only Parliament but wide sections of opinion outside view this matter with great concern, particularly, as he said, the problems of the axle weight and the fact that our road system is not as well developed as those of many other member countries of the Community. Although we obviously will not press him now for an assurance, will he make the proposals available so that we can study them? Will he also make it clear that this is a matter to which the House and the country attach great importance?
§ Mr. PeytonI will certainly consider the right hon. Gentleman's point about making the proposals clear, in so far as they are not already clear. I am very conscious of the strength of views held in this House and by the public. Of course, the new proposals will not come into force until 1980 in any event, by which time our roads system—particularly the coupling up of the ports and the motorways—will be more advanced.