asked the Minister of Transport if he can now make a statement on the future use of the Kingsway tram subway.

Not yet, Sir, but my right hon. Friend hopes to have the report of the Technical Committee in a few weeks. The traffic, and especially the engineering, problems involved are complex and have occasioned much investigation and the preparation in detail of engineering estimates for various schemes. The engineering estimates are virtually complete, but the Committee will require a little more time to reach conclusions.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that reasonably rapid progress is being made, and that this most valuable subway will be preserved for some future traffic use?

Yes Sir, but when I tell the hon. Member that some 30 different suggestions have been placed before the Committee I think he will realise that a little more time is necessary to reach a definite conclusion. I am as anxious as he that there should be no unnecessary delay.

asked the Minister of Transport what proportion of the 10-year programme of highway development announced by the Minister of Transport in May, 1946, has now been completed; and how much of the 800 miles of proposed new motorways has either already been built or is now under construction.

Progress with this programme has been severely restricted by economic conditions. A few substantial works of major improvement have been completed or put in hand and plans have been prepared for others. A number of danger spots have been dealt with and further progress is being made in this matter in the current year. No motorways are under construction, although some preparatory planning is being carried out.

Is not the Minister aware that the whole of the country's economy has been seriously handicapped by the lack of a determined policy on behalf of previous Governments? Is not he further aware that road development offers a very high economic return, and will he see that it is not the Cinderella of Government capital projects?

I am so well aware that I detained the House for some 45 minutes last Friday.

Can my hon. Friend say how far back in the programme the Forth Road Bridge has been placed?

Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend would put that question on the Order Paper.

asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made by his Department in purchasing land in connection with the 63 miles of proposed new north-south motorway through Lancashire; and when he proposes to authorise a start on its construction.

The route is being surveyed, but no land has yet been bought for the road and I am afraid I cannot say when it will be constructed.

Is the Minister aware that many power stations in this area have difficulty in getting rid of their ashes and that, if he would only buy this land, considerable economy could be achieved in the eventual construction of these roads by allowing the power stations to put their ashes on the land now?

The Lancashire County Council are at present making a survey.

Will the Minister remember that the economy of the whole country also depends on good agricultural land remaining in food production?

Before the Minister sterilises any more good agricultural land will he consider the advantage of taking off the roads, and keeping them off, some of the 250,000 surplus road vehicles which are now being run?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be anticipating a debate which may take place later this Session.

asked the Minister of Transport why a two hour limit is placed on parking places.

A two hour limit is not always imposed. Where it is, its object is to prevent street car parks from being monopolised by long-term parking which should be done in car parks off the highway.

Has my hon. Friend considered the additional burden placed on the London traffic system by cars which are limited to two hours presumably having to be driven away to find other parking places?

A working party appointed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) during the reign of the late Government has not yet reported. I have no doubt that this is one of the points which they have had under consideration.

asked the Minister of Transport how long he has been considering the recommendations for unilateral parking in certain streets in the West End of London; what objections, other than interference with unloading, have been raised; and when he expects to reach a decision.

The recommendations were referred to my right hon. Friend's predecessor in March last. There have been objections on the grounds that the streets selected were too wide to justify restrictions, or were not congested, and that the restriction would seriously affect trade. My right hon. Friend hopes to reach a decision shortly.

Will not my hon. Friend come to some conclusion? Is not this a commonsense recommendation? If there is trouble between police and traders will he bang their heads together and get this experiment carried on?

I would suggest that my hon. Friend puts his Question down again for Monday next.

asked the Minister of Transport how many zebra crossings are permitted in Ayrshire; and what directions were given to the county council as to their location.

In the county council's scheme, 22. Certain burghs, of course, have their own schemes in addition. No special directions were given to the council, but Circular No. 668 issued from the Department in June, 1951, contained some general guidance. I will send the hon. and gallant Member a copy.

While not wishing to worry my hon. and right hon. Friends unduly, because I realise that they have plenty on their plates already, may I ask them to investigate the allocation to Ayrshire which permits of the small village of Monkton, lying astride the main Glasgow-Ayr Road at the very gate of Prestwick Airport, being denied a crossing?

We will bear these matters in mind. Ayrshire at first suggested a reduction to 26 crossings. In the end, 22 have been approved. If my hon. and gallant Friend will study Appendix 3 of the Circular to which I have referred he will find the procedure which should be followed.

asked the Minister of Transport if the reports up to date indicate that the zebra crossings are fulfilling their purpose satisfactorily; and that they are suitably located and adequately distributed.

The broad answer to both parts of the Question is "Yes," although finality has not been reached. Changes in location are made as necessary, in the light of experience.

Is my hon. Friend aware that what I did not gather from his statement last week, and have not gathered from his answer today, is whether the Minister has any direct responsibility for the number of zebra crossings allotted to local authorities and for their distribution? If so, what action does he take in the matter?

First, my hon. and gallant Friend will have seen from my lengthy statement on Friday last that my right hon. Friend is about to review the working of crossings in all areas by discussions with the local authorities. These matters are arranged by agreement between the Department, the local authority and the divisional road engineers, and, of course, my right hon. Friend possesses overriding powers.

May I ask the Minister if, when he undertakes the review, he will pay particular attention to the question of the abolition of pedestrian crossings in the vicinity of schools? May I give him notice that, on 2nd July, I shall raise on the Motion for the Adjournment the question of a private school at Lichfield, where the risks taken by his Ministry appear to most people in Lichfield to be entirely unjustified?

I do not want to repeat the lengthy remarks which I made on Friday on school crossings, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he is to raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

What has all this got to do with my Question? Surely it is only myself who can give notice that I will raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Order. Lichfield is a different location from that represented by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but there may be two separate problems in the two places.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us if, when this matter is under discussion, an attempt will be made to light these zebra crossings at night? What protection is there against the danger arising from a motorist not seeing a pedestrian on a crossing at night?

I had hoped that I had illuminated that point on Friday.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will authorise a zebra crossing at the junction of the roads, Trinity Road, Hampton Road and Earls-bury Gardens, Birchfields, Birmingham 6.

This junction is one of a number which are under discussion with the Birmingham City Council. It is within 120 yards of a cross-roads controlled by traffic lights, and I doubt whether a zebra crossing there is necessary.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this crossing, which was recently the scene of a serious accident, is on the route by which many children in the district go to school; and would he also bear in mind that Trinity Road is the major road leading from Hands-worth to the industrial centre at Witton?

As I said, this matter is still under discussion, and I shall be pleased to receive any representations from the hon. Gentleman which he wishes to make, or from any other hon. Gentleman.

Will the Minister expedite the discussions now going on between his Department and the local authority, because a number of zebra crossings have been taken away in Birmingham, many of them outside schools, and parents are very much concerned about the traffic that runs along the roads from which the crossings have been removed?

We shall try to come to a decision as soon as possible, but the hon. Member will remember that no zebra crossings have been taken away.

asked the Minister of Transport whether it is proposed to continue to maintain Belisha beacons, in view of the introduction of zebra crossings; and at what estimated annual cost.

Yes, Sir, and as I informed the House on Friday last we propose that they should be lighted. The present annual cost of maintenance is very small, but the cost of maintaining lights in the beacons may be between £300,000 and £350,000 a year.

Can my hon. Friend say whether the beacons not on zebra crossings will be removed?

We anticipate that they will be removed in due course, when all the crossings have been agreed.

Will my hon. Friend study the Continental practice in this matter where, for the last quarter of a century, every railway level crossing has been illuminated by twinkling lights of the very description which he proposes to have on crossings in this country?

Will the hon. Gentleman also contemplate how many cars meet with disaster in America on twinkling light crossings?

asked the Minister of Transport the number of members of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee; their average age; and the age of the chairman.

The Minister of Transport appoints four of the 40 members of this Committee. The rest are appointed by a large number of other authorities. I do not know the age of all the members, but the chairman is 46.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that this voluntary committee renders very good service, and will he not reward them in future by coming to more prompt decisions on their recommendations?

Yes, indeed. We value their work.

asked the Minister of Transport what approximate sums of money are now locked up in road and bridge improvement schemes, the completion of which has been postponed; and what steps are to be taken to complete these schemes in the near future.

About £6 million have been spent—mostly before the war—on grant-aided and trunk road schemes which have been postponed. It would cost more than £20 million to complete these schemes and capital expenditure of this order cannot be put in hand in present economic circumstances.

Is not the Minister aware that many of these improvements have been outstanding for a considerable time? Can he say why, when he has funds in hand for this type of purpose, he does not use them to fulfil the requirements of various districts where bridges and roads require repairing?

This, again, is a topic on which I was discursive on Friday last.

Not sufficiently discursive: that is the trouble.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the average daily traffic across Hammersmith Bridge.

According to the most recent traffic census, taken by the Metropolitan Police on 26th July, 1949, approximately 13,000 vehicles, including 2,700 pedal cycles, crossed Hammersmith Bridge between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.

asked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take in view of the proposed repairs to Hammersmith Bridge to prevent the inconvenience that will follow from closing the bridge.

I am afraid that the necessary closing of this bridge for repairs will inevitably cause inconvenience to the public. The London County Council will complete the work with all possible speed, and the police and the London Transport Executive will make known in good time arrangements for the re-routeing of buses and other vehicular traffic.

As there are 13,000 vehicles passing over this bridge every 12 hours, and as this is the only bridge between Putney and Hammersmith—a diversion would be something like 4½ miles—would not the Minister consider an alternative to the complete closing of the bridge, such as either half closing the bridge or giving the Royal Engineers some practice in building a Bailey bridge across the river, thus avoiding some of the inconvenience? Am I not right in assuming that the work is expected to take some three months?

All that is true, and, in fact, consideration was given to all those points, but my right hon. Friend's predecessor authorised the complete closure of the bridge because the repairs could not be delayed beyond this summer. It is hoped to complete them within two or three months, and pedestrians and cyclists will be able to use the bridge while the work is in progress.

Is it not possible to close half the bridge and use the other half, or alternatively, possibly, to throw a Bailey Bridge across?

These points were considered, but it was felt that to do the whole job at once while the hours of daylight are longest—in July, August and September—was the best solution.

asked the Minister of Transport what directions he has issued to the Railway Executive concerning the purchase of six-monthly season tickets after 30th April.

None, Sir. I understand that during the present "standstill" period three-monthly season tickets will be charged at the three-monthly rate or at one quarter of the annual rate, whichever is the less, in the case of those persons who, prior to 1st May, held season tickets for a period exceeding three months. Suitable adjustments will be made where such season tickets have already been issued on any different basis of charge.

Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say whether he has looked into a particular case which I submitted to him, and whether he has considered the apparently unnecessary inconvenience to which a constituent of mine was subjected?

I have looked very carefully at the letter addressed to me by the hon. Gentleman. I think it would be very unreasonable to have expected the British Transport Commission, during the standstill period, to issue season tickets for a very long period. I think they were plainly entitled to do what they did do and my answer, I think, would meet any case of general hardship.

asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been drawn to the recent fine imposed upon a motorist using a flashing turning indicator signal; how far his Department has considered the value of this type of indicator; and when he expects to reach a conclusion.

asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to a recent case in which a motorist was fined for using a traffic indicator comprising a flashing side lamp; and whether, in view of the fact that such traffic indicators have many advantages over the mechanical type, which frequently jam unknown to the driver, he will consider amending the existing regulations so as to permit the use of the more modern type.

I have seen reports of this case, but I cannot accept the implications of the last part of Question No. 13. On present evidence I see no sufficient grounds for the suggestion that direction indicators of the flashing light type are to be preferred to the semaphore type.

Will my hon. Friend say whether his Ministry have given consideration to this question from a scientific point of view, and whether they have reached the definite conclusion that the authorising of this form of indication would not be in the public interest?

Very thorough investigation has been made, and there are a large number of technical objections with which I shall not detain the House. But if my hon. Friend cares to see me afterwards I can tell him what are those objections.

Has my hon. Friend seen a newspaper report today to the effect that a certain police force is using flashing light signals, and are these illegal also?

I have not yet had time to study the newspapers today.

asked the Minister of Transport the sum of money owing, at 1st May, 1952, to former operators in the road haulage industry in respect of vehicles nationalised under the 1947 Act; and when this money will be paid.

It is estimated that some £16,500,000 is still owing to former operators of road haulage undertakings acquired by the British Transport Commission compulsorily or by agreement. In a number of cases where provisional ascertainments of compensation have recently been completed, payment will be made in the near future. The major part of the total outstanding relates to cases where final agreement cannot be reached until further information is supplied by the transferors or where the approval of the Transport Arbitration Tribunal has yet to be obtained.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a large number of the claimants are people who will wish to repurchase the operable units of transport, and that unless he provides them with the necessary funds to repurchase these operable units they will be financially embarrassed? Will he finalise the matter at the earliest possible moment?

I think that the transfer of money is proceeding quite smoothly. Sixty-one million pounds have already been paid out. A number of legal points exist now which complicate any speedy solution, but I will press on as fast as I can.

In view of the possibility of road hauliers purchasing back their businesses, in accordance with Government policy, would it not be advisable for payment to be suspended?

Let us have a standstill now.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will ensure that a thorough investigation is made into the condition of the Leeds and Liverpool Canal banks in the Borough of Keighley in order to prevent a repetition of the breach and subsequent flooding which occurred in the borough on 17th May.

I am informed by the British Transport Commission that a thorough investigation has been made into the condition of this stretch of canal and that remedial measures have been carried out which should prevent any further breach.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that there are leakages in the canal now in spite of the investigation which has taken place and that if a breach occurs there could be considerable risk of damage to life and property?

I understand that a special watch is being kept and that some men are still on duty there. I have no doubt that the comments of the hon. Gentleman will be studied by the Transport Commission, whose responsibility it is.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a full statement as to the circumstances under which, between the hours of 4.30 p.m. and 6 p.m. on Monday, 16th June, acting information officers of his Department informed Press representatives that elucidation of the new transport fares was a matter for the British Transport Commission; and why, during the same period, acting information officers of the Transport Commission referred all such representatives to his Department.

During these hours, a large number of general Press inquiries were dealt with by my Department; and the British Transport Commission also referred to us questions of general policy. When asked for specific examples of the affect of the modifications of the Charges Scheme, my Department advised an approach to the British Transport Commission. I am told that many such requests were fully met by the London Transport Executive on their behalf.

While appreciating the courtesy and thoroughness of that reply, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to tell us, in view of the fact that at that time, that is, Monday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—who is charged with the coordination of public information and who was, presumably, equally in charge of this matter—whether any consultations took place between the Minister and the right hon. Gentleman to avoid the quite anomalous and infuriating state of affairs which did take place during the hours mentioned in my Question?

This is a matter of domestic policy between the Minister and my right hon. Friend, and we are fully in touch with each other. The working out of the things involved—in the case of London the consideration of a million separate fares and rates—and the full effect will be best known by people when they find an improvement in the situation later in the year.

Can the Minister explain why it is that, while the Government, a short time ago, were boasting about the concessions that they would wring from the transport monopoly, they now seem most anxious to disclaim any responsibility for the changes?

I made it plain from the start that we conceived it to be our duty to iron out those disproportionate increases in the original statement of our intentions. That we have wholly discharged.

Was not this hide-and-seek business deliberate, to avoid disclosing to the public how little it all amounted to?

In what part of London are either Cardiff or Bilston situated?

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we in Cardiff are concerned because there will be a substantial increase in fares in September?

I might remind the hon. Gentleman that, if the matter bad been left to the late Administration, there would have been no alleviation of any difficulties.

The Minister, not unreasonably, has pointed out that the question of giving a detailed explanation of how the new scales would operate was, to some extent, the responsibility of the Commission, but would it be right to assume that none of the examples had been properly prepared by his Department before he was to make this statement?

It is not for my Department to prepare examples. The Department was in consultation with the Commission, and we laid down certain lines of policy, but the process of working out what the effect would be in individual cases was a matter for the Commission. A large number of queries have been answered, and a greater number still will be answered for the people in the London area by the improved situation later in the year.

asked the Minister of Transport why, contrary to normal procedure, no copies of the new transport fares made on Monday, 16th June, were made available to the majority of Press Gallery representatives within a reasonable time.

The usual arrangements were made to give the Press Gallery representatives copies of my statement on fares, but I regret that on this occasion there was a delay of half an hour or so, and I have taken steps to prevent a recurrence.

I am grateful for the Minister's perfectly frank statement, but is he suggesting that it is only coincidence that, on this important and controversial matter, not only does everything seem to have been delayed, but everything seems to have been thoroughly mixed up, even with a co-ordinator?

The hon. Gentleman has an unduly suspicious mind. If I might briefly explain to the House, I would say that I added a single statement to the answer. That statement was: "I am afraid that this is rather a complicated statement." The effect of that alteration upon a very proper and punctilious gentleman was that it might be regarded as a new statement, so steps were taken to see whether it ought to be retyped.

asked the Minister of Transport why the reductions in London Transport fares cannot be introduced at an earlier date than 31st August.

Thirty-first August is the earliest date by which it will be possible for the available qualified staff to complete the examination and adjustment of the fares and rates, numbering over one million, and for the very considerable amount of reprinting involved.

While appreciating the magnitude of this task, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is imperative that all these alterations should be produced on the same date? Is it not possible for some of the more urgent cases to be dealt with first?

I think that that would still further complicate the situation.

Seeing that when the fares were last increased the staff of London Transport were given a wage increase to compensate them for the trouble of learning the new fares, will the Minister now give them a further increase in wages so that they may learn the revised fares?

asked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated extra revenue which the Transport Commission will receive from the March fare increases in the London area after the most recent adjustments come into effect.

asked the Minister of Transport the total additional revenue it is estimated the British Transport Commission will receive in a full year as a result of the fare changes in the London area made on 2nd March as adjusted by the changes to be made on 31st August.

The amount is £11¼ million in a full year.

Will the Minister say, first, why he could not give this figure last week when asked; and, secondly, does he not agree that London is being asked to make an unfairly large contribution to the revenue of the Transport Commission?

I like to be quite certain of my figures before I give them to the House. The suggestion in the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is quite untrue, and when he reads what will be a Written answer to Question No. 24, which his hon. Friend was not in the House to ask, I do not think he will agree with the other part of his own supplementary.

When the Minister says that he likes to be certain of his figures, does that mean that he passed the statement last week without being certain of what figures were involved?

Will not the Minister reconsider his opinion that London is not bearing a disproportionate share of the burden, in view of the fact that the whole of the rest of the country is being asked to pay only £4,500,000 whereas London is being asked to pay £11 million?

The two territories, London and outside, started rather differently. As the hon. Gentlemen have pressed me for further information on this, I would point out that while, this year, London Passenger Transport receipts by road and rail will meet their necessary working expenses, they will fall short of their proper contribution to the central charges, reserves and the liquidation of past deficiencies by some £6 million.

Does not the Minister agree that a further examination of this matter might reveal that they are being asked to bear an unfairly large proportion of the central charges?

asked the Minister of Transport how much would have been saved by the London travelling public had the fares coming into effect on 31st August been charged from 2nd March last.

asked the Minister of Transport the additional revenue it is estimated the British Transport Commission will receive as a result of the increases made on 2nd March for the period 2nd March to 30th August; and by how much less that amount would have been if the reductions to be made on 31st August had been operative from 2nd March.

I will, with permission, answer Questions Nos. 30 and 37 together.

On a point of order. May I have my Question answered separately, Sir, because I do not want to be bogged down with a lot of other figures?

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman should listen to the answer. Then, if he wishes to ask something in supplementation, I will consider it.

The hon. and gallant Member will have only one more figure and I hope that his mind is capable of absorbing that as well.

Does not that answer mean that, compared with the provinces, London is still being grossly penalised to the extent of a very considerable sum which the right hon. Gentleman has not specified because he would not answer my Question separately? Is there to be no redress for this robbing of the purse of Londoners, which has earned for the right hon. Gentleman the description of the Tory Dick Turpin of 1952 from my constituents and many others in London?

If the hon. and gallant Member is not clear as to how untrue the implications in his Question are, I ask him to read the Written answer to Question No. 24, which was not asked because his hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) was not here to ask it.

Would it not simplify matters if the right hon. Gentleman just answered my Question and did not ask me to do rapid sums of arithmetic—additions or subtractions? How much is the figure in reply to Question No. 30?

The answer I have given is that the figure is £600,000.

Can we take it that the possible saving to over 10 million people in the greater London area is £600,000 and is not that a miserable saving after all the hullabaloo?

The hon. Member will realise that we are dealing with only a comparatively short period. [HON. MEMBERS: "Six months."] Six months, not the whole year. It was not the total sum involved but the disproportionate hardship on individuals that was the basis of my predecessor's action.

Will not some of the money about which the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) is grumbling go to members of the Transport and General Workers' Union?

Twice as much as was lost in the mail-bag robbery.

asked the Minister of Transport the total additional revenue it is estimated the British Transport Commission will receive in a full year as a result of the fare changes made outside of the London area on 1st January, 1st May and to be made on 1st September.

The final effect of these changes outside London is estimated to yield total additional revenue of £4 million in a full year.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how the Transport Commission expects to be able to meet the expense this year and how he is going to make up any possible deficit which may arise? Has any intimation been given to the Minister of a further application for increases in fares?

That is quite another matter.

asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received urging a general inquiry into the working of London Transport; and what consideration he is giving to this possibility.

Representations to this effect were made by the London Passengers' Association. I have carefully considered them, but I am satisfied that there is no good case to adopt their proposals.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that despite these assurances there is a widespread feeling that London is being made to pay more than its share towards the central charges fund, that there is no means by which the ordinary person can find out whether that is so or not and that there is a widespread desire for an inquiry of this kind?

I am quite ready to receive representatives from the London Passengers' Association if my hon. and gallant Friend likes, and explain the situation to them.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now received all outstanding reports from his inspecting officers in regard to the causes of several fires which have occurred on railway passenger trains during the last two years; what are the principal recommendations made by the inspecting officers; what further inquiries the Minister now proposes to make; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the report made by the inspector upon the train fire which occurred near. Huntingdon on 14th July, 1951; what recommendations he proposes to make to prevent a recurrence of such fires: and whether he will make a statement.

I have received Reports on these fires from the inspecting officers, who made a number of recommendations. These have been published and I am sending copies to the hon. Members. Many of the recommendations have been accepted and are being carried out by the Railway Executive; there have, however, been differences of view on certain matters—extra doors in sleeping cars and in open centre corridor coaches, and the training of railway staff in the elements of fire precautions and fire fighting.

In consideration of the fact that four major fire incidents on passenger trains have occurred in the last three years at Penmanshiel, Beattock, Huntingdon and Fordhouses, respectively, all arising from the use of inflammable varnishes used on the interior of railway coaches, can my right hon. Friend say how many of the 25,000 corridor coaches at present in use have had this inflammable varnish removed and how many are still in service with such inflammable varnish on their interior surfaces?

The answer is that 23,800 out of the 24,900 corridor coaches on British Railways have been examined; about 15,000 were found to be in order and about 8,000 contained these inflammable surfaces. Of these, 6,800 have been dealt with and about 1,600 are receiving or awaiting attention.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Huntingdon train no communication cord could be found inside the second coach, in which the fire started? Can he say whether there was any disagreement between his officers and the Railway Executive on the need for ensuring that there is always a communication cord available, and, if there was no such agreement, how the matter has been reconciled by him?

That is a matter to which attention is drawn in the report of this accident and one which my inspecting officers are now engaged in taking up with the Railway Executive.

Can my right hon. Friend say who was actually responsible for the most dangerous procedure of putting inflammable varnishes on the interiors of trains?

It is only comparatively recently that tests have revealed the possible danger of this material. I do not think that anyone can be blamed for its use in the past. The important thing is to see that it is not used in the future.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the present estimated capital value of goodwill in the profit-earning British Road Services undertaking; and how he proposes to recover the value of this national asset when selling the vehicles and equipment.

The total goodwill of British Road Services at 31st December, 1951, as shown by the Commission's Annual Accounts (statement V-4) was £33 million. As stated in the White Paper, the Government propose that the Commission should be compensated out of a levy on goods vehicles for any loss arising from the sale, including loss on the goodwill appropriate to the property sold.

Is it not obvious that any competent body of Conservative directors of a business undertaking would never proceed on lines like these as, otherwise, they would be removed from office? Is it not high time that in view of the avalanche of public criticism by all responsible quarters the Minister should drop this crazy scheme of selling valuable public assets at knock down prices to speculators?

I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the Bill which, if he approaches it fairly, will remove a great many of his doubts.

asked the Minister of Transport the sum of money paid, in aggregate, to former operating companies in respect of passenger road vehicles and businesses nationalised under the 1947 Act; the sum of money owing to former operating companies at 1st May, 1952; and whether he will now make a statement in regard to denationalisation of such passenger road vehicles as are currently in public ownership.

Under the 1947 Transport Act, the Commission could only compulsorily acquire road passenger undertakings as part of their area road passenger transport schemes. No such acquisitions have taken place and it is proposed to abolish these scheme-making powers in the forthcoming legislation. They have, however, by voluntary agreement, purchased shares in such companies at the cost of about £53 million. About £300,000 of this is still outstanding.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he proposes to take to stop the pollution of the Cornish bathing beaches by oil and oil refuse.

Although all the complaints which the Ministry have received of the pollution of the beaches of Cornwall have been investigated it has not been possible to obtain conclusive evidence of the source of the pollution. As I informed the House on 16th May, the Ministry is conducting a comprehensive review of the problem of oil pollution and we hope shortly to discuss the matter with representatives of the shipping industry with a view to seeing what further practical measures can be taken to deal with the matter.

In addition to considering what I understand is already proposed, the provision of oil separators in ports, will the Minister also make regulations that oil-burning ships coming to this country shall carry tanks into which this refuse can be discharged instead of into the sea?

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of this nuisance. Only recently I visited what I believe to be his own residence, Watergate Bay, in Cornwall, or near it, and other hon. Members from that part of the country have made representations about Fowey and similar places. There are wrecks in the vicinity which may be responsible for some of the trouble.

I have no residence in Cornwall, but I am interested in that part of the country. Would the Minister answer the last part of my question, which was whether he will consider introducing regulations to ensure that oil-burning vessels shall carry tanks into which they can pour this refuse instead of discharging it into the sea? There may be a residual value which could be recovered.

All these points will be examined.

Does my hon. Friend know that it has been suggested that tankers, leaving port light, do not like to fill their tanks at once because of the danger of getting sediment into them, that it is suggested that they keep the water circulating in their tanks for some time and that this may cause a certain amount of oil to lie on coastal waters?

I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for that information.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that distance lends no enchantment in this matter, that the sand on some of the beaches in Cornwall comes from as far away as the Sea of Saragossa and that it is no solution to say that this oil is being discharged into the middle of the sea? It should not be discharged into the sea at all.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the extreme urgency of this problem, not only in view of its effects upon invisible exports in tourist traffic but also upon the sea bird population and swans as well?

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that certain London omnibuses build up considerable electrical power in their bodies and that passengers taking hold of the hand-rail can receive a considerable electric shock; and whether, in the interests of public safety, he will revise his regulations so as to preclude the certificate of fitness remaining in force in respect of such omnibuses, until the necessary modifications have been made.

Motor vehicles generally are liable to build up charges of static electricity and a shock may result. London Transport have taken all possible steps to eliminate the possibility of such shocks and complaints from the public have practically ceased. The shocks are not dangerous and my right hon. Friend sees no ground for any action on his part.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the intensity of the shock is dependent to a large extent upon the frequency with which the vehicle has been picking up passengers, and that if the vehicle has not picked up passengers for some time a passenger boarding the bus receives a very considerable shock from earthing the static charge on the handrail? Is he aware that I received a shock recently, that on that bus there were four other passengers who were complaining, and that I believe that the shock which I received might have had very serious consequences to an elderly woman with a bad heart? I feel that the matter ought to be looked into further.

I am sure that the House will regret the hon. Member's unhappy experience, an account of which I will convey to the London Transport Executive.

Will my hon. Friend assure us that he will not re-introduce a regulation which, at one time, required a motor vehicle to carry a trailing chain?

asked the Minister of Transport when he anticipates sufficient supplies of reflectors and white mudguards becoming available for bicycles, to restore regulations requiring their use.

I regret that I cannot forecast when it will be possible to impose these requirements which would, I understand, involve at least 12 months' notice to the industry and the diversion of labour and materials from the industry's task of achieving maximum exports.

With a view to reducing road accidents at night, will the Minister see whether comparatively small supplies—of plastic and glass, mainly, neither of which, I think, are in short supply—could be made available for this purpose?

There are normally 6 million cyclists on the roads, rising to 10 million in the summer months, so it is a tall order.

Can my hon. Friend say what is to prevent cyclists from dabbing a little white paint on their rear mudguards? Is he aware that by that very small effort a very great increase in road safety could be achieved?

I am very glad to say that large numbers of cyclists do that.

asked the Minister of Transport to whom the proceeds of the sale of the road haulage undertakings will be credited.

The property belongs to the British Transport Commission, to whom the proceeds of the sale will therefore accrue.

In the light of that answer, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the statement that has appeared in the Press that the Transport Commission will be able to bid for road haulage vehicles to be put up for sale? Will he give an undertaking that there will be no restriction placed on the number or type of vehicles for which they can bid?

I must ask the hon. Member to await the forthcoming debate.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 44 minutes we have reached the forty-first of Questions to his Department, a number of which have not been asked, and will he suggest to the people who draft his replies that if they avoided expressions like "detailed examination," "careful consideration" and "exploring every avenue," and cut out verbosity and pomposity, we should make better progress?

That is an exceedingly ungenerous comment. If these important issues are put too briefly they are difficult for most hon. Members to understand. Perhaps today I have gone to the other extreme, although, I think, to general satisfaction.

Hon. Members should bear in mind that they have some responsibility for the protraction of our proceedings.

asked the Minister of Supply (1) why certain areas in Lancashire are specially zoned for his Department's contracts;

In order to save time, with the hon. Member's permission, I will answer these Questions together.

Also to save time, I will ask one supplementary to the answers to both Questions. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave disquiet in Oldham and that the situation has changed so greatly that manufacturers are being told that they will have no chance of being given a contract because special attention is being given to other areas? Oldham itself is very much a distressed area.

As I explained in my answer, areas which are severely affected by the recession in the textile industry are getting special treatment. I would not like to say, in answer to a supplementary question, which areas are most severely affected.

asked the Minister of Supply (1) what is the present target date for completion of the Rolls Royce factory at East Kilbride; and what postponement of the target date there has been;

The original completion date, February, 1953, has not been changed. The factory as planned is equally suitable for single or double-shift working and no alterations have been made on this account. Two hundred and seventeen skilled and 230 unskilled building operatives are at present employed on the site.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Chairman and the Manager of East Kilbride Development Corporation have successively told me that the target dates were the present month and also the month of September? Is he further aware that the Corporation has been pressed to subordinate every other activity in the new town to the task of completing this factory by September? Will he say whether that is true or not?

My hon. Friend has entirely different information from mine. I will certainly look into the matter.

asked the Minister of Supply which organisations other than the British Overseas Airways Corporation and his Department were responsible for Britain leading the world in jet airliners.

I assume that the hon. Member has not overlooked the British aircraft industry, to whom the lion's share of the credit is, of course, due.

asked the Minister of Supply if he is aware that a firm, about which he has been informed, has written to every supplier of hematite pig iron in the country and is still unable to secure an adequate supply; and what action he will take to enable this firm to maintain full production.

Yes, Sir. The licence issued to this firm authorises them to acquire pig iron of all qualities, but does not guarantee that supplies of any particular grade will be available. Action is being taken to help the firm, but in view of the shortage of pig iron, I cannot promise that their requirements will be met in full.

While thanking the Minister for the action that has been taken, so I am informed this morning, as a result of which the production of this firm is improving, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman why this action could not have been taken three months ago when I first wrote to him about this question? Was the Minister not aware of this situation until this firm wrote to every supplier in the country and forwarded letters to him?

I do not know whether the hon. Member wishes to suggest that action was first taken this morning, or whether he merely heard of it this morning. Action began as far back as April.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nothing materialised, as far as this firm is concerned, until last week? Is he further aware that the situation of this firm, which has been very bad for the past three months, has only improved last week, since the Question was put down?

A great deal of trouble has been taken to help this firm, but there are special circumstances which made it difficult, which I will explain to the hon. Member in greater detail some time if he wishes.

asked the Minister of Supply the cost of the road works on the road from Halstead Fort terminating at the "Polhill Arms": and what useful purpose they serve.

This road links the Ministry of Supply Establishments with the main London-Sevenoaks road. Repairs and improvements, costing about £22,000, have become necessary owing to the large increase in traffic. The fact that this road joins the main road at the "Polhill Arms" is without significance.

Is the Minister aware that there is a deep impression in the district that much too much money, manpower and materials are being devoted to works which are controlled by the Government or by nationalised industry, and that this crossing, which is for Government lorries, is the laughing stock of the district?

asked the Minister of Supply if he will make a statement on the inquiry he has made into the steel allocation to the Northern Region.

I have no knowledge of the inquiry referred to in the Question.

Has my right hon. Friend made any inquiries into the Press report that there had been a wrong allocation of steel to the North-East coast? Is he aware that when I rang up his Department I was told that an inquiry would be made, and has that information not yet reached my right hon. Friend? If I put down a Question next week will he be able to deny or confirm the Press report which has caused grave anxiety on the North-East coast?

I would not be in a position either to confirm or deny this statement for the simple reason that steel is allocated by industries and not by regions. I therefore think that the statement must be based on a misunderstanding of the position.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Admiralty is carrying out an investigation into the statement, and will he kindly ring up his right hon. Friend the First Lord and find out from him the true facts and the result of this inquiry?

I see that the hon. Lady has a Question down to the First Lord of the Admiralty later this week. Perhaps she will await his reply.

Is it not the case that the steel allocation scheme is not working satisfactorily? Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the statement by leading Midland manufacturers that in the actual allocation of steel there is a great deal of favouritism, and that the excellent scheme referred to by his own Ministry is not being put into practice?

I am not aware of any favouritism whatsoever. On the whole, the scheme is working far more smoothly than I expected. I warned the House some months ago that for some time there would continue to be difficulties in obtaining particular types of steel which might be required for particular industries.

asked the Minister of Supply if he is aware of the concern of Birmingham hand tool manufacturers that German manufacturers have been asked to tender for supplies of pliers, when tenders from Birmingham have been outstanding since December, 1951; and what action he is taking to protect Birmingham manufacturers against renewed German competition.

It is true that inquiries for pliers were made on the Continent during the second half of last year, but no orders for them have been, or will be placed by the Ministry of Supply abroad. All our requirements are being obtained from manufacturers in this country.

Is the Minister aware that this answer will give great satisfaction to hand tool manufacturers? There is in this country plenty of manufacturing capacity, especially since the closing of the Australian and other markets. Some of the hand tool manufacturers have already stood off some of their staff, and I am pleased to know that this country will not have to face German competition as we did in pre-war days.