On the face of it, tonight's debate should be rather narrow in scope, because goods vehicle licensing regulations in the strict sense are concerned only with minor matters, such as the procedures and forms to be used in applying for carriers' licences, the fees to be paid, and so on. It has never been suggested, as far as I know, that the enforcement of these regulations set major problems. As I expected, the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers) is not really concerned with the procedural details but is concerned with the wider matters involving the enforcement of much of the Road Traffic Act and the subordinate regulations as they affect goods vehicles. I think that I can say that the theme of the hon. Member's speech was safety in the operation of commercial vehicles. I am glad that he has raised the matter tonight and given me the opportunity of saying something about it. It is a subject in which the public are considerably interested.

I admit at once that the enforcement of safety sets us difficult problems. This is at least partly because in matters of safety, where safety of life and limb is concerned, one can never be fully satisfied with anything less than the highest standards. Nevertheless, it is necessary to maintain a sense of proportion, and I should like to repeat, as has been pointed out on a number of previous occasions, that goods vehicles over 1½ tons in weight have less accidents per mile than any other class of vehicle on the road. Whatever, therefore, may be the defects of some goods vehicles, or the misbehaviour of some of their drivers, as a class they achieve better results, from the point of view of safety, than anyone else, even including private cars. Statistics show that the average heavy goods vehicle travels between 300,000 and 400,000 miles without being involved in an accident.

That is a good record, but it gives no ground for complacency. There are some owners who misuse their vehicles, and there are some drivers who exceed their hours. Our task must be to find out these people and make them adopt the high standard of the rest of the industry, and so improve the accident record still further. In this task, what is often forgotten is that there are agencies other than the licensing authorities which are doing a good job.

First and foremost, there are the police. They have the responsibility for enforcing, for example, the general traffic Laws, checking speeding and preventing dangerous driving—two of the most fertile causes of accidents. Then there are the highway authorities, which also have an important part to play in regulating the safe use of commercial vehicles. For, as the law is at present drafted, it is mainly their responsibility to check overloading. I know that the hon. Gentleman did not want to spend much time on that aspect, so I will not do so, either, but I must say that normally, the highway authorities appoint their inspectors of weights and measures to do this for them.

I should, perhaps, say that, contrary to the impression gained from an article in The Times of 5th November, 1963, it is wrong to suppose that a carrier can be convicted repeatedly for overloading and only suffer a nominal fine. Second offences—and I must say a word about fines in general—are subject to fines of up to £50, and a persistent offender could have his licence revoked under paragraph 1(b) of the Fourteenth Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1960, which is something that I am sure the licensing authorities and the highway authorities are alive to.

In some cases, indeed, if there is a conspiracy between an employer and his men, for example, to breach the hours requirements, penalties may be much higher and, for some offences, driving licences may be forfeited. The fines imposed by magistrates vary widely, according to the circumstances of the case, from a few shillings to hundreds or even thousands of £s, and it is difficult to give an average that would be meaningful, but, undoubtedly they are a satisfactory deterrent—