asked the Minister of Transport why Messrs. Abingdon Coaches have been ordered to discontinue the private motor-coach service provided by them for naval personnel stationed at Royal Naval Air Station, Culham, proceeding on week-end leave to London; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Transport on what grounds men of the Royal Naval Air Station, Culham, Berkshire, were prevented from travelling on week-end leave by motor-coach by his withdrawal of their coach, and so obliged to travel by train.

Acting under his general instructions to secure all reasonable economy in the consumption of motor fuel, especially where empty running is involved, the Regional Transport Commissioner arranged with the coach company not to use their fuel ration for the service in question. It is in the public interest that the best use should be made of the limited amount of fuel available to operators and that it should not be spent unnecessarily on journeys for which, as in this instance, there are reasonable alternative facilities.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only the firm mentioned in the Question, but also four other firms were advised by his Department that unless they stopped this service their allocation of petrol would be cut off completely? Does he and his Department approve of this sort of blackmail?

I should like to look into the question of whether there was an instruction or not. This is a common practice with regional transport commissioners and operators throughout the country. It is to avoid empty running. I am not aware that in this case there was an instruction. My information is that it was a case of the usual practice of co-operation between operators and the regional transport commissioner.

Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Admiralty in this matter? If so, what are their reactions?

No, Sir. It is not a matter for the Minister. There are general instructions to regional transport commissioners, as I have indicated, to save fuel. At this stage it is a matter for the commissioner and not for overriding decision by the Minister.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this sort of thing is happening in other parts of the country, and that it causes difficulty, especially for men going home on week-end leave who have no train facilities available? It cuts down their leave. It hits them very hard.

I quite appreciate the need for every consideration to be given to such circumstances. On the other hand, it is essential, in furtherance of general national policy, that these journeys should not be unduly expensive in fuel consumption. In this case additional facilities were provided which largely met the circumstances.

The right hon. Gentleman says that these are matters for regional decision. Will he not agree that the final responsibility is his and, therefore, Parliament's? Will he look at this again to see, if he does not agree with the regional authorities, what other steps he can take?

Yes; but while I do not dispute for a moment that the final decision rests with the Minister, in this case it would mean withdrawing the general instruction about the need to save fuel, which, of course, is a Government one.

Can the right hon. Gentleman really say that this decision was taken to save fuel? Is he sure it was not to drive traffic somewhere else?

I can give the assurance that this decision was not taken for the purpose of driving traffic to any other form of transport. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Had there been a scheduled bus service in this case the same decision would have applied. It is in line with the decisions being operated all over the country, to avoid empty running. In this case it would have meant empty running on both the outward and return journeys.

Is the Minister aware that in the case of one city, which is on the main line, and where there is a barracks within a quarter of a mile of the station, a similar order has been introduced? Surely, that cannot save very much petrol.

I beg to give notice that in view of the gravity of the matter and the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I shall raise the question again at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to accept or reject the advice now tendered to him by the permanent members of the Transport Tribunal acting as an advisory committee under Section 82 of the Transport Act, 1947.

This matter is still under consideration.

How long does the right hon. Gentleman propose to delay this important decision? Is he aware—are the Cabinet aware—of the very great hardships and difficulties which are being imposed on private enterprise by the fact that people are incapable of fixing their prices until they know what the costs of transport are to be?

I was under the impression that in a recent Debate the hon. Member himself was urging the importance of the effects of such a decision. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] At the moment, I have nothing to add to the statement I have made.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement before we adjourn for Easter?

I do not know that I shall be in a position to do so; I cannot say definitely at the moment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the inter-Departmental inquiry discussing transport rates in Scotland can discuss the subject intelligently when they do not know on what to base their costs?

Answer.

I can only repeat that I am not able to make any further statement now.

asked the Minister of Transport when he proposes to set up area users consultative committees throughout the country.

The Central Transport Consultative Committee has been in existence since December, 1948. Committees for Scotland and Wales are operating, and I recently set up the Area Transport Users Consultative Committee for London. My view is that until the British Transport Commission has had a reasonable time in which to make progress in the consolidation of their undertakings, it is not desirable to set up the local committees provided for in the Act. I had also hoped that I could take into consideration the needs of area road passenger schemes in deciding the areas of these consultative committees, but progress in this direction has not been as rapid as I would have wished and, consequently, I propose to reconsider the establishment of these area transport users consultative committees.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if those bodies were set up the relationships between Transport Commission and the users of transport would be very much better than they are at present?

As I have already said, I am proposing to consider that matter now.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman's answer show that this method of safeguarding consumers is now a demonstrable farce? He says he has set up the London area one, but is he not aware that he set it up only four weeks ago, that no recommendations have come from it, and that despite that the Transport Commission are now trying to screw another £3½ million out of the travelling public in London?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many rural areas, very inadequately served by buses and trains, whose problems can only be solved in consultation with the people on the spot, the people who live there; and does his answer today mean that he is not going to set up consultative committees to cover such areas as Essex and East Anglia?

No, certainly not. If my hon. Friend will read my reply he will see that it is the intention now to review this situation and to proceed.

Is it a fact that the consultative committee for Wales has met on only one occasion since it was set up?

I am not aware of that.

The Minister based his explanation on the delay in the setting up of an area scheme. Is he taking any action to speed up the progress of the area scheme?

It would certainly have been an advantage if one could have taken that problem into consideration. As I have pointed out, I cannot wait any longer.

In view of the fact that the restrictions placed on Members of the House were related to the existence of these advisory committees, if the advisory committees are not to be appointed will the right hon. Gentleman consult with his colleague the Lord President to revise the rights of Members in asking questions about transport problems.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot properly have digested my reply. I have not indicated that it is not the intention. I have explained the reason why they have not been appointed, and have said that it is the intention to review this matter.

On a point of Order. Is not the question of the right of Members to ask questions a matter to be determined by you, Mr. Speaker, and not by the Minister?

It is a matter of the custom of the House, which I have to interpret.

Is it not a fact that not one recommendation affecting fares in London has come to the right hon. Gentleman from the whole of this machinery to date? Does not that mean, as my right hon. and learned Friend says, that the whole machinery for looking after the consumer has completely broken down in this connection?

I entirely disagree with that view. As I explained during one of our Debates, the procedure is for these bodies to make their representations to the Minister. It does not follow that they will not, but I am not able to say whether they will or not; they have the opportunity.

asked the Minister of Transport which Governments have now ratified the March, 1948, Convention on the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation; and what progress is now being made with this organisation.

So far, the United Kingdom, Canada and the Netherlands have accepted the Convention to which my hon. Friend refers. It does not, however, come into operation until it has been accepted by 21 countries, including seven with not less than one million gross tons of shipping. Preparations for the setting up of the organisation have been carried as far as possible in these circumstances.

Can the Minister not give us any further information as to the prospects of this organisation being established, and as to when these other ratifications are likely to come about? In the meantime, what is happening about discriminatory practices, which are the main reason for setting up this organisation?

All I can say is that the Foreign Office are doing all they possibly can to influence other countries to sign this Convention.

asked the Minister of Transport whether any date has yet been fixed for the abandonment of the South London trams and their substitution by buses; whether this is to take place gradually; and whether he will publish the proposed time-table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

It is expected that the conversion of the South London trams to bus operations will start in the autumn of this year, and that the programme will be completed in 1952.

asked the Minister of Transport on what grounds he has now decided that a pedestrian has the right to cross the road at a controlled crossing when the lights are green to the motorist, which is contrary to his previous decision.

I am sorry if there appears to have been any inconsistency in my statements on this matter, but it is by no means a simple one. The existing regulations give priority to the pedestrian who has started to cross on a controlled crossing before traffic has been permitted by a signal to proceed over the crossing. This would be straightforward if it was not necessary to take into account turning traffic and traffic at complex junctions. I had hoped by revising the existing regulations to define precisely the respective rights and obligations of pedestrians and motorists at controlled crossings in all circumstances in clear and simple language, but this has not proved practicable. For this reason, as I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester. North-West (Mr. Janner), on 27th March, I may have to deal with the problem by giving guidance on the subject in the Highway Code.

Will the Minister do his best to expedite these regulations, because the public do not know where they stand? Is he aware that on 15th November, 1948, in reply to Vice-Admiral Taylor, he said:

"No, Sir, the pedestrian has not that right when the lights are against him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 3.]

I have already explained that so far my legal advisers and the police cannot agree on simple and clear language that would make the position plain to the public. That is why it is probable that this will have to be dealt with in the Highway Code.

Does that imply that when it is dealt with in the Highway Code the language will be neither sensible, simple, nor clear?

It is quite possible to give general guidance without a legal definition. After all, the Highway Code is taken into consideration by the courts, and yet they are not bound by definite legal language.

When the Minister reviews the present arrangements about pedestrian crossings where there are lights, will he also try to make clear what is the position where there are pedestrian crossing and no lights, as there is still a great deal of confusion?

In that case the position is plain: the pedestrian has the right.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received the report which, in February, 1949, he asked the Transport Commission to submit on the question of occupational level crossings; what steps he proposes to take to bring the legal position of people using such crossings into line with modern practice; and whether he will make a statement.

No, Sir, but I am informed that considerable progress has been made in the study of the legal and practical problems involved, and that the British Transport Commission expect to be able to send to me in the course of the next few weeks the report which the Railway Executive are preparing.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer which he has just given is only a slight elaboration of the answer he gave over a year ago; and will he say whether it is the policy of the Commission to allow their decisions to mature as long as possible in the hope that they will improve?