asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the fact that the existing state of street naming and numbering is a factor in causing road accidents; and what steps he can take to bring about an improvement.

Yes, Sir. Unsatisfactory street naming and numbering may increase the risk of road accidents by distracting the attention of drivers. I have circulated to local authorities, on whom responsibility in this matter rests, the report of the Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs, 1944, which includes an important paragraph on this subject, and asked them to have regard to the recommendations made. I intend to issue a circular in the near future giving additional guidance on the design of street name plates.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he must show more imagination and drive in this matter? It has been hanging fire for seven years, and unless there is more effort than is now being made the present situation will probably continue for another four or five years.

Yes, but it is really a matter for the local authorities, and it is not always easy to get a general movement throughout the country.

Would the Minister try to bring about some uniformity so that motorists and others will know where to look if they want to find the name of a street or a number?

That was the purpose of the Departmental Committee, and the intention behind my reply is to give general guidance towards uniformity.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give an assurance that he will not assent to any further increase in railway passenger fares until this House has had the opportunity to consider them.

The British Transport Commission have not sought my authority for higher railway passenger fares. They have, however, submitted to the Transport Tribunal, for confirmation under Part V of the Transport Act, a draft scheme dealing with all passenger fares on London Transport and on British Railways. If confirmed by the Tribunal, who have invited representative bodies of users to submit their objections or other views on the scheme, it will be brought into force by an Order of the Tribunal and will not require to be approved by Parliament or by me.

Whatever the technical position may be, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a further increase in passenger fares, coming only a year after the last increase, would have such serious economic repercussions as to be of the greatest public importance? In those circumstances, should not the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will exercise his powers to prevent any such increase unless and until the House has approved it?

It is something much more than a technical matter.

No.

There is the constitutional position. Parliament laid this responsibility clearly on the Tribunal, and removed it from the jurisdiction of the Minister. Surely the hon. Member will appreciate that the procedure for investigation here is much more thorough and complete than that which exists respecting any rise that takes place in the cost of any other services or commodities.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the present machinery is so restrictive of railway operations that to add any further restriction would make the position almost intolerable for the adjustment of separate rates for railway fares?

I do not intend to impose any further restriction. This procedure was very thoroughly considered and debated, and I know of no other service or of any other business concern that is subject to such rigorous price investigation procedure as are the railways in respect of freights and fares.

On the constitutional point, having regard to the fact that virtually no questions—of any importance—about the conduct of transport can be asked in the House, and having regard to the recurring increases in fare and freight charges, is the right hon. Gentleman giving further consideration, which he promised, to the suggestion that there should be a full inquiry into the administration and economics of the railways before any further increases are made?

That is another matter. The question of an inquiry was debated fully here a few nights ago. I do not agree that Parliament does not have an opportunity to consider these things. During the last two or three years there have been many full dress debates on this subject.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that while, by statute, responsibility is laid upon the Tribunal to consider the commercial aspect of the fares, the question—an important question—of whether passenger fares should be subsidised by the State is a matter for consideration of the House?

I entirely agree, but that hardly arises now. If Parliament wishes at any time to deal with the matter it would not deal with it in the form suggested at the moment.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that his second supplementary answer indicates that railway fares are about the only charges which are not now controlled by Ministers responsible to the House?

What about the newspapers?

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will call upon local authorities to review the lengths of road under their control that are restricted to the 30 miles per hour speed limit in order that sections that are not built up or dangerous may be freed from the limit, thus increasing the respect of the motorist for the speed limit and reducing and easing the task of the police.

I have already brought to the notice of local authorities the importance which I attach to the observance of sound principles in the imposition and removal of speed limits and I have expressed the hope that they will periodically review all the roads in their areas.

Is it not a fact that many local authorities, out of zeal on behalf of their local inhabitants, impose limits on stretches of road which cannot conceivably be called "built-up," thereby severely prejudicing through-traffic? Will the Minister give this tricky subject a good deal of attention to try to reduce the number of stretches of such road in order that the regulations, as in the case of pedestrian crossings, may be more honoured?

Local authorities have not full power in this direction. I have to confirm the order, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that very great care is taken over every proposal.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while there may be certain places where de-restriction could take place without danger to local inhabitants, there are others where the present regulations make it impossible to impose a 30 mile-an-hour limit which is very much required, as at Burwash in East Sussex?

No, that is not the case. While we conform to the general conditions laid down in the Traffic Act, if there is sufficient evidence of the need for a speed restriction order outside the built-up area, then, provided I have the evidence of the police and local opinion, and the justification of road statistics, I do not hesitate to deal with exceptional instances.

Am I to understand from that reply that the Minister has discretion to define what is a built-up area, and that it does not necessarily mean that there are houses on both sides of the road?

No, I would not say that I have power to define what is a built-up area. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to the rule.

Will my right hon. Friend nevertheless leave as much discretion as possible to local authorities?

Certainly.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that a regulation made by his predecessor in 1933 makes no provision for property found on a London Transport vehicle or station and handed to an official to be returned to the finder if unclaimed; and whether, in view of the nationalisation of London Transport, he will alter the regulation so as to assimilate it with the rule of the Metropolitan Police that unclaimed property shall be returned to the finder.

These regulations relate to property accidentally left in any vehicle or premises belonging to the London Transport Executive as successors of the London Passenger Transport Board. On the point referred to they are on similar lines to those which apply generally to public service vehicles and to railways, and I see no reason to alter them in the manner suggested.

Does the Minister not realise that the public do not appreciate these subtle distinctions between nationalised transport and nationalised police? He has not really answered the question why there should be a difference. Would he take a little more time than I have allowed him in order to look into the matter?

It is not merely a question of nationalised transport. If the hon. Gentleman looks at my reply he will see that it applies to all public service vehicles.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman say that it refers to railways when he ought to know that for property lost on the railways the existing regulations allow no reward at all to the finder, and that anyone who loses anything on the nationalised railways is, therefore, very unlikely to get it back?

I was dealing not with the reward but with the return of the property to the finder.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that if the name and address of the owner are clearly ascertainable no steps are taken to get in touch with him?

No, that is not the point. The question is whether the property should be returned to the finder if the owner is not found.

asked the Minister of Transport when regulations requiring bicycles to be fitted with red reflectors and white mudguards are to be restored.

I am unable to forecast when it will be practicable to make the order bringing this requirement into force. At present, manufacturers are not in a position to meet the demand which it would create without detriment to their export and other essential commitments.

Does the Minister not agree that the restoration of this simple and relatively inexpensive device would greatly add to the safety of bicyclists at night, as their rear lights are frequently missing or otherwise ineffective?

Yes, I am inclined to agree with that. The hon. and gallant Gentleman should look at the further note to my reply.

Since the question of red reflectors and white rear mudguards is about the only aspect of transport policy for which the right hon. Gentleman accepts responsibility, will he leave no stone unturned and no avenue unexplored in order to reach a satisfactory conclusion of the matter?

That appears to me to be typical of the usual ineffective interventions of the hon. Gentleman.

Is not one of the troubles the right hon. Gentleman is suffering from that he has just lost his chief "red reflector"?

asked the Minister of Transport when regulations are to be introduced requiring motor vehicles subject to speed limit to be fitted with rear reflectors.

A requirement that motor vehicles should carry one or more reflectors in addition to a rear light could be imposed only by new legislation, and I cannot say at present if or when such legislation will be introduced.

Did the Minister not inform the House some years ago that a committee was examining this question? Have they come to any conclusion yet?

No more than I have just stated.

asked the Minister of Transport the powers of the Stopping Places Advisory Committee; who are the members; and what is the statutory authority for its existence.

The Stopping Places Advisory Committee is appointed informally by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee constituted under Section 1 of the London Traffic Act, 1924. It is composed of representatives of the licensing authority, the police, London Transport, the Transport and General Workers' Union and my Ministry. Its main function is to advise on the provision and siting of stopping places for the trams and buses of London Transport in the special area as defined in the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933. I will circulate the names of the present members in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the Minister aware that when it was recently desired to move a bus stop in Reigate a matter of 100 yards or so, his Ministry convened a meeting of this committee on the spot, involving the attendance of seven officials from London plus three local officials? Is not this matter best left to local authorities to deal with?

I am not aware of the circumstances of each case, but it is of great advantage to have a small expert committee of this kind to advise on the multitudinous arrangements for stopping places.

Does that mean that every time a bus stop is moved anywhere in the very large London Transport area, 10 officials have to come together to settle the matter?

How does this committee work if a local authority wants to alter a bus stop? When one writes to the London Passenger Transport Board one is told that it is not convenient and cannot be done. How does this Committee function? Where does it start from?

That is the type of conundrum that I should have to look at separately.