asked the Minister of Transport what new instructions have been issued for the guidance of driving examiners resulting from the discussion between the Chairman of the Staff Side of the Departmental Whitley Council and the Principal Establishment Officer of the Ministry on the case of Mr. F. Wass, of Gainsborough, who was called upon to pass a driving test on his small motor mower; and under which Act the instructions were given for the test to take place.

No such discussion has taken place, but arrangements are being made to inform applicants in circumstances such as those of Mr. Wass that they do not need to take a test.

The test for which Mr. Wass applied was conducted in accordance with the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations, 1950, made under the Road Traffic Acts, 1930 to 1947.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the answer he gave in December is greatly resented by the driving examiner and his colleagues? Is he not further aware that the General Secretary of the Society of Civil Servants has made a categorical statement that the Principal Establishment Officer of his Department has stated that the test was carried out in accordance with the law, and that Mr. Ainsworth would have been in trouble with his superiors if he had not carried it out? Why does the hon. Gentleman talk about an Act introduced by a Tory Government? Why did he say that this officer should have used his discretion and not carried out the test?

On 15th December the hon. Gentleman and I were of one mind. He described this operation as "antics," and I said that it should be abandoned forthwith. I remain of the same opinion.

Why does the hon. Gentleman pillory an officer who is carrying out his duty? Why do not he and his right hon. Friends get rid of this antiquated system?

asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the practice of vehicles overtaking on the left-hand side is growing rapidly; and whether, in view of this, he will modify the Highway Code.

Paragraph 29 of the Highway Code refers to this point, but I will certainly see if we can improve on it in the revision of the Code which is now taking place.

Is it still illegal to overtake on the left-hand side, as distinct from what is said in the Highway Code, which is merely advisory?

It is not illegal, but paragraph 29 of the Highway Code does say overtaking should be only on the right except when the driver in front has signalled that he is going to turn right; and the rule does not necessarily apply at roundabouts or on one-way roads.

asked the Minister of Transport to amend the application form for the licensing of vehicles for purposes under the Road Traffic Acts to include a declaration that the vehicle for which a road licence is required is properly fitted with suppressors against interference with television reception.

My right hon. Friend has already included in the form questions relating to the fitting and licensing of radio sets and I do not consider that it would be desirable to add further questions which are not essential for the purposes of the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, and which have no bearing on revenue.

Could the Minister therefore adopt the suggestion that on the form there might be a statement drawing the attention of the car owner to the advisability of having a suppressor for the benefit of television users?

I will take note of that point.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects that the section of the Kennet and Avon Canal between Reading and Newbury will be open for traffic.

I am not able to give a firm date for the opening of this section; the British Transport Commission inform me that recent investigations have shown that some of the locks need more extensive repairs than had been supposed. I will ask the Commission to keep the hon. Member informed of progress.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but will he bear in mind that in May last he indicated to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) that he would provide the facilities required by the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive for doing this work? Since then, the Executive have indicated that the work has virtually been abandoned? Will he be good enough to reiterate that it is his intention to see that the work is carried out within a reasonable time?

Yes, Sir. I am rather surprised at the supplementary question, because my information from the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive is that they propose to carry out certain important work during the next few months. It is hoped to re-open for navigation the section from Reading to Sulhampstead Lock, some 7½ miles in length, before the summer, so I think matters are going forward.

asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to recent decisions in the courts that the speed limit is not applicable to lorries when empty; and whether he will deal with this point when taking steps to bring the present regulations with regard to the speed of goods vehicles up to date, in the light of developments during recent years in their design and construction.

The implications of the decisions referred to are being carefully studied, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the matter.

Does the Minister agree that, if the decisions are correct, the position is a very anomalous one, and must be taken in hand fairly quickly; and will he see that attention is given to the matter as speedily as possible?

That is a point which is being carefully studied.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) the estimate of the contribution that would be made by outside London passenger traffic towards the central charges of the British Transport Commission when he authorised increases in railway freight charges, as from 1st December, 1952; and by how much that contribution will be increased by the new charges scheme now proposed by the Commission;

(2) the estimate of the total contribution that would be made by London Transport and the railways within the London area to the central charges of the British Transport Commission when he authorised increases in the Commission's railway freight charges, as from 1st December last; and by how much that will be increased by the new charges scheme now proposed by the Commission.

In authorising the increase of 5 per cent. in freight charges last month, I accepted the advice of the permanent members of the Transport Tribunal acting as a consultative committee. As they observed in their memorandum, which I circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 18th November last, it would have been improper for them to prejudge in any way any issue determinable by them as a Tribunal.

The contribution to be made by the various services towards the central charges of the British Transport Commission is one of the matters for discussion before the Tribunal at the forthcoming hearing, and I cannot anticipate their findings.

I regret that the Minister has been unable to give the figures which were asked for, as he was able to give such figures on 23rd June last year. On the basis of those figures would he not agree that, to ask London to make a contribution of £6 million more in increased fares and the rest of the country a contribution of only £500,000, indicates that the lack of balance between London and the outside areas has not only been maintained but worsened in increasing disproportionately the cost of travelling to the people of London?

I was able to give the figures last year because the Tribunal had then reported. After they have reported this year I have no doubt I shall be able to give the House some information as to the justice or otherwise of what the hon. Gentleman said. There was a long interchange in the House on this subject on 14th July last, when I made the Government's position specifically plain in the matter.

Does the Minister mean that he only gets this information from the Tribunal and is not kept up to date direct by the Transport Commission?

The Commission repeatedly made plain to this Government and their predecessors the difficulty of allocating specific contributions from the various undertakings to central charges, but in response to requests from the Tribunal they offered to do their best to furnish them with information. I do not intend, at this stage, to anticipate the findings of the Tribunal.

Up to the present London has been able to make a contribution to central charges but outside London receipts have not made any such contribution. Is it not the fact that in 1952 total increases in fares and charges for outside London have been approximately the same as inside London whereas, of course, the quantity of traffic carried outside London is greater? Has not the position therefore worsened for London?

That is essentially a matter on which the Tribunal can express a view.

asked the Minister of Transport what proportion of local authorities' vehicles it is estimated will be exempted from the levy if the standard is raised from one to one and a half tons.

No statistics are available which would enable me to make such an estimate.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the case of one local authority of which I know only three vehicles out of a fleet of 50 are concerned, and would he consider some way of lessening the burdens that fall on local authorities in this matter?

As I have said, it is impossible to know how many vehicles are affected unless they happen to coincide with definite taxation classes. We believe that by raising the limit to 30 cwt. instead of one ton the original purpose of the relevant Clause of the Bill will be achieved, and, also, that there will be substantial aid for certain local authorities.

Is the Minister aware that in the case of my own local authority it will only apply to one vehicle and that the appropriate association of local authorities are still very much upset about this affair? Is it not disgusting that they should have to pay this levy, and will he not look again at this matter?

Is not the real way of getting rid of the burden on local authorities to get rid of the levy altogether, and to sell the assets at their proper price instead of selling them off cheaply?

asked the Minister of Transport on how many occasions since 1945 passenger fares have been increased in the London area; the average percentage increase in each case; and to what extent corresponding increases have been made outside London.

As the answer is long and contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

While regretting that the answer is so long that it has to be circulated, may I ask whether these figures confirm the widespread view that London is being unfairly penalised compared with the rest of the country? If so, how long is the victimisation of London traffic to continue?

The answer to the first part of that question is No.

asked the Minister of Transport when giving a directive, or otherwise, requesting the London Transport Executive to revise their proposed fare increases in 1952, what was his definition of hardship which the revised increases were to be designed to prevent.

Hardship was used in its ordinary sense as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary:

"The quality of being hard to bear, or, a condition which presses unusually hard upon one who has to endure it."

The Government intervention was directed to securing that in general the increases in sub-standard and concession fares were not proportionately greater than the increases in ordinary fares.

But this admirable definition applies equally to this other increase as to the new increases now proposed. Will the Minister say why he cannot apply that same definition to this proposed increase and ask the London Passenger Executive to think again?

I think the hon. Gentleman has that down as his next Question.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will direct the British Transport Commission, before the London Transport Executive operate any new fare increases, to observe in 1953 the same requirement which they were to observe in 1952 of preventing hardship.

I think we had better await the outcome of the inquiry now being conducted by the Transport Tribunal.

That is not good enough, because the last inquiry by the Tribunal was overruled by the present Government. They did not take any notice of the Tribunal. They applied the test of hardship, and I am now asking the Minister to apply the same test for this fresh increase. I want to know why he will not apply that test of hardship now?

The intervention on the last occasion by the Government —if I may call it so—was due to the use by the Commission of the discretion that had been left to them by the Tribunal. I think we had better wait and see whether this time any discretion is left.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister, when he returns, to keep his eye on this matter in order that there may be no further injustice to the travelling public of London?

Will my right hon. Friend inquire why privately-owned omnibus companies have raised their fares less than the publicly-owned omnibus companies?

Can the Minister give an assurance that if he is dissatisfied with the findings of the Tribunal following the forthcoming inquiry he will reserve to himself the right of overriding them as he did on the previous occasion?

That is quite hypothetical.

asked the Minister of Transport what reports he has received on the new traffic arrangements outside the Morden Underground Station; and if he will now make a statement.

The new arrangements came into force last October. So far they seem to have reduced accidents, but they are still being watched and it is too early to come to a final conclusion as to their efficiency.

While thanking my hon. Friend for his effective interest in this very congested area, may I ask him whether his Department will continue to keep a very careful watch on this question?

As my hon. and gallant Friend may be aware, a meeting took place on 8th January between representatives of the local authority, the Commissioner of Police, the London Transport Executive and this Department, when the general feeling was that the new arrangements have proved beneficial, though certain modifications of bus stops and adjustments of signals were desirable to increase efficiency and safety, and the matter is subject to a careful watch.

asked the Minister of Transport if he has now received a further report from the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee on traffic congestion in Central London; and if he will make a statement.

I have recently received a report on car parking in Central London from a working party appointed to follow up the Advisory Committee's recommendations on that subject in their report of 1951. This report will be published soon, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking and congratulating the authors for all the work they have put into it.

Can my right hon. Friend give us any idea what the report will contain?

The broad purpose of the report is the building of underground garages in certain selected London squares to be financed out of machines in nearby parking streets on the American principle. I think there is a great deal of value in this report. I have myself read it with the greatest interest, and I told Mr. Samuels, the Chairman, on the day he presented it that I felt sure the public also, on the understanding that we must move forward, would welcome it.

When the report is published, will the Minister convey to the House the views of the Government and, at the same time, what action he proposes to take on the report?

Certainly. I am not in any way anxious that the Government should not take a lead in this matter, but this is one of those things in which public opinion must first be educated, and I propose to start by educating my colleagues in the House and shortly to put certain designs in the Tea Room.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that, owing to the slippery state of the road, there have been a number of accidents in Bramham; that this matter was brought to the attention of the divisional road engineer in October; and whether he will now take steps to ensure that the road through Bramham is roughened without further delay.

Two accidents have been reported here during the last two years. The road will be resurfaced next summer, and in the meantime gritting is carried out when weather conditions require it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there appears to have been some hesitancy on the part of this divisional road engineer in dealing with this problem, which is more urgent than he appears to think, and that there have been four accidents on this stretch of road; and will he give me an assurance that an instruction will be issued to the divisional road engineer to give the matter his urgent attention?

This is being dealt with this summer. The question of priority is always difficult, and there are a number of spots where accidents are even more frequent than here.

Is my hon. Friend not aware that this is urgent in the winter months of the year, and will he give me an assurance that he will issue instructions that this portion of the road at least will be gritted during the next three or four months?

In my original answer I said that gritting is carried out when required.

Has the Parliamentary Secretary given any consideration to the German practice of having a warning sign at the beginning of a section of the road which is likely to be slippery in wet weather?

That is another question.

asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been drawn to the increased risk of accidents resulting from aircraft taking off and landing in the immediate vicinity of main roads; and, in view of the continued increase in the volume of air and road traffic, what steps are being taken to speed up the installation on and near to busy airports of warning lights directed both to the pilots of aircraft and to the drivers of road vehicles.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air and I are well aware of this problem. Experiments with light signals to control road traffic have already been made at military and civil airfields and others are now being prepared. I am not yet satisfied, however, that this method of control is as safe as others, such as barriers and pickets, which are in use at present where they are considered necessary.

In general, the control of aircraft is most effectively exercised by radio, which is in constant use at airfield traffic control centres. In addition, airfields in use for flying at night are already provided with approach lighting. By day, lighting would be ineffective.

Is the Minister not aware that this problem is not simply a matter of preventing an actual collision between an aircraft and a motor car, but that it arises principally because motorists tend to drive slowly or to stop altogether to watch aircraft? Will he see what can be done to keep traffic moving along these stretches of road?

I am quite conscious of that.

Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Minister of Civil Aviation on this matter?

Yes, and I had an excellent report.

asked the Minister of Transport what measures are being taken to improve the traffic conditions in the London area by means of circular roads, increased car parking facilities and road widening, &c.; and the annual expenditure on these improvements.

In present economic conditions road improvement schemes have had to be confined to accident spots. About 50 such schemes have been authorised in the London County Council area, eight being for road widenings and the rest mainly for refuges. The estimated cost of these is £93,000, most of which will be spent this year.

The car parking problem is being specially studied in the light of the report referred to in my right hon. Friend's answer of today to my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell).

In view of the ever-increasing cost of transport in the London area and the economic effects this has had, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the great importance of trying to reduce this traffic congestion? Does he not think that the sum of £93,000, which he has just mentioned, is very small compared with the fact that, quite apart from the sum paid in respect of private vehicles, the London Transport Executive alone is paying some £6,000,000 in taxation, and that a far greater effort should be made in this direction?

My right hon. Friend discussed many of these problems informally on Friday last with the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will be glad to learn that the experimental unilateral waiting scheme commences tomorrow.

Was it not determined by the London police, many years ago, that the annual cost of traffic congestion in London amounts to many million pounds a year, and is not an allocation of £93,000 really derisory in view of the problem?

Our predecessors were equally derisory in this respect.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will refuse permission, on grounds of loss of amenity, for the building of a new road between Lossiemouth and Hopeman, passing to the north of Lossiemouth Aerodrome and, in part, going through the Moray Golf Course; and the estimated cost of building this road;

(2) what organisations or individuals have lodged objections to the official proposal to build a new road between Lossiemouth and Hopeman, passing to the north of Lossiemouth Aerodrome and, in part, going through the Moray Golf Course; whether a public inquiry is to be held; and on what date.

Objections to the construction of this road have been lodged by the Lossiemouth and Branderburgh Town Council, the Moray Golf Club, the Scottish Tourist Board, the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, and 19 farmers and tenants of agricultural land in the Parishes of Drainie and Duffus.

A public inquiry is to be held at Lossiemouth on 2nd February to consider these objections. I cannot anticipate the decision my right hon. Friend may reach after considering the inspector's report. The estimated cost of building the road is about £45,000.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that to drive a road through and break up parts of this golf course would only be justified on grounds of supreme importance, such as national security? Could he give an assurance that at the inquiry to be held at Lossiemouth representatives of his Department and of other Ministries will be present, charged with the duty of answering questions and giving evidence, so that the inquiry may be as useful as possible?

The reply to the second part of the supplementary question is, of course, in the affirmative. As regards the first part, I cannot obviously, discuss the merits or demerits of the scheme pending the inquiry.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how this priority was decided? From my knowledge of Scotland, I can think of a large number of places where, both from the point of view of safety and economic necessity, there is a much greater need for a road than on this particular stretch of the Moray coast. Can he say what were the grounds of priority for this scheme, when there is so great a scarcity of roads elsewhere?

All this was most carefully examined. Priorities are a matter of great complexity, and it has been my invariable experience that any road which we choose for improvement is immediately described as unnecessary by right hon. and hon. Members who sit for other parts of Scotland.

Instead of making this road would the Minister consider putting roads across the Tay and the Forth, where they are badly needed?

The question of finance is somewhat difficult.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that, on several occasions during the current winter, highway authorities have not commenced to apply grit to icy roads or to remove snow until 9 or 10 a.m. following a fall of snow or icing conditions during the previous night; and whether, in view of the delay thus caused to essential road transport, he will take steps to ensure that remedial action is taken by highway authorities at an earlier hour.

I am well aware of the need to deal with snow and ice at the earliest moment, and I think that, on the whole, highway authorities take all practicable steps to this end. The question is under constant review between the authorities and this Department. Delays are sometimes unavoidable because resources are not unlimited.

Is the Minister aware that that is not an altogether satisfactory reply? Will he direct his attention to the fact that these incidents have occurred and to the desirability of their not recurring and give instruction accordingly?

Yes, Sir. We have been active in the matter. Arrangements have been made with the Meteorological Office to give early warning to local authorities of snow or icing conditions, and arrangements for supplying additional labour have been made with the Ministry of Labour, the War Office, the R.A.F. and the Air Ministry Works Directorate. My right hon. Friend maintains a number of snow ploughs at suitable places throughout the country to be made available as needed.

Is the Minister aware that the City of London Corporation have a magnificent method of clearing their streets within a matter of a few hours? Surely what they can do other boroughs could do.

Perhaps the hon. Member will convey to his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) the excellent record of this Conservative local authority.

Is my hon. Friend aware that no other country in the world sands and grits its roads as early as we do?

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects work on the Neath—Llanelly road to start; how many men will be employed when work is at its maximum; and how long the work will last.

I hope that some of the work will start this year. Several improvements are involved and the whole work is unlikely to be completed for six years or so. At the peak some 120 men are likely to be employed.

As the redundancy in that area to which the Minister referred amounts to 5,000, has the Minister any other such plans for additional road works that will absorb some of the other men who are being thrown out of work?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs made it clear recently that this scheme was undertaken to improve communications and trade between Wales, the Midlands and London.

Is the Minister not aware that this scheme was put forward not from that point of view at all, but with a view to absorbing the redundant tinplate workers, and can he tell us whether any plans have been considered for other schemes to absorb some of the redundant workers?

All schemes are promoted with that idea in view as well, but the Question relates to the Neath-Llanelly road and that is the one I have answered.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) what arrangements are in hand for the extension and standardisation of automatic train control and signalling on British Railways with a view to avoiding further collisions and accidents;

(2) whether he will now make a statement upon the causes of the Harrow train disaster in October, 1952; and what is the final casualty roll.

I am awaiting the report of the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways on the recent accident at Harrow. Until it is published I am unable to amplify the statement which he made in public on 16th October, 1952, that the accident was due primarily to the Perth express having passed two signals at danger. The final casualties, I regret to say, were 112 persons killed, 66 seriously injured and 274 slightly injured.

As I informed the House on 27th October last, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), the British Transport Commission are giving urgent consideration, in the light of experiments which have been going on for some time, to the initiation of a practical programme for the extension of automatic train control on British Railways. This question also will be fully reviewed in the Chief Inspecting Officer's report, and I cannot say anything further at this stage.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that this further consideration of automatic train control and signalling has now been going on since 1947, and that, in the meantime, we have had a number of very serious accidents? Would he bear in mind that only a very small number of the 19,000 steam locomotives in use on British railways are fitted with automatic equipment; and does not the matter call for much more urgent action than has been taken in the course of the last two or three years?

I am glad to say that I hope that by the end of the month about 50 engines will be fitted with improved magnetic type apparatus, and will be tried as a production type on the Barnet-Huntingdon line. I do not want the public to think that this is bound to lead almost overnight to the fitting of all engines with this apparatus. There must be long and exhaustive inquiries into the production model, but this is the first step and I hope that it will be very fruitful.

When the right hon. Gentleman says that this will have to be a long process, is he aware that more than 40 years ago the former Great Western Railway introduced their system which has proved to be the most effective of any? Why is it that more than 40 years have elapsed before any of the railway companies, and now the British Transport Commission, have introduced the system which has proved so effective on the Great Western Railway? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that it is practically impossible to devise a system which is 100 per cent. perfect in all circumstances, and would it not be far better to proceed with a system which has proved itself, and which gives the maximum degree of safety?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would agree, then, that it is a pity the identity of the Great Western Railway was dissolved. I am anxious that people should realise that there must be experiments. I do not mean experiments running into years, but with these production types there will probably have to be some six months or so of hard investigation as to how far they are proving effective. I am very hopeful that after that we shall be in the realm of definite achievement.

Is it not clear that, had it not been for the dissolution of the Great Western Railway and the formation of the Railway Executive, with powers over all the companies, the inter-company jealousy which has prevented the adoption of the system during the last 40 years would never have been got rid of?

Can my right hon. Friend say what progress has been made with the experimental use of radar equipment on railway engines as an additional standard safety precaution?

I think that this and other matters had better await the report of the Chief Inspecting Officer.

asked the Minister of Transport which railway accidents occurring in 1951–52 were adjudged by the inspecting officers of his Department to be attributable to faulty or negligent maintenance of steam locomotives; and what total numbers of fatal or other casualties resulted from such accidents, including the Blea Moor disaster.

In 1951, 13 accidents were reported which were adjudged to be caused by faulty or negligent maintenance of steam locomotives. These included the accidents at Weedon, in which there were 15 deaths and 36 injuries, and at Queen Street, Glasgow, in which seven persons were injured. In the remaining 11 cases three persons were injured.

The final figures for 1952 are not yet available, but the latest returns give 13 such accidents, in which there were 49 instances of injury and no fatalities. These included the derailment at Blea Moor, in which 36 persons were injured, and the accident at Crewkerne, in which there were eight injuries.

Is it not a fact that the present standards of uncleanliness of British Railways locomotives, demonstrating a good deal of slovenliness in maintenance, are primarily the cause of these accidents? Does not my right hon. Friend recall that, in pre-war days, steam locomotives were gleaming and clean, whereas today they generally resemble travelling soot bags? Until this matter is gone into and standards of morale are improved is it not impossible to prevent further accidents on account of maintenance?

I think that it would be a good thing if everything on the railways and elsewhere were a little smarter, but I am anxious to make sure that people realise that although there are certain places, as shown in the Inspecting Officer's Report, where these accidents were due to negligence, there is no general cause for alarm about the conditions of locomotives generally in our country.

Is not a more reasonable explanation of the difficulties which have arisen the fact that the locomotives are old and should be put out of commission, and that as a consequence of the starvation of the railways of capital investment it has not been possible to replace them?

That certainly plays its part.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the altered regulations as to the reporting by drivers of defects of railway engines are an improvement on the regulations that existed under the old railway system or not? Has he considered whether the variations are an improvement or the reverse?

There was an alteration in the basis of calculation in 1949, and I will discuss that point with the Chief Inspecting Officer.

asked the Minister of Supply what has been the effect on production of the Gannet aircraft of the complete change of its design; and what stages of production had been reached when this change was decided on.

It is difficult to assess precisely the extent of the delay caused by the changes made in the operational requirement and design of the Gannet aircraft; but it was certainly very considerable. The most radical of these changes, necessitating the construction of a new prototype, was decided upon between 1948 and 1950, before the production order was placed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is not the first type of aircraft to be affected in this way? Will he consider seriously adopting a new system which can enable aircraft to be put more quickly in service than they are at present? They are taking a great many years, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) knew when he was in office, before my right hon. Friend.

This is a matter which we have constantly in mind. There have been particularly disappointing results in the case of one or two naval aircraft, and I am examining the matter with my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is simply futile to produce aircraft which are already obsolete because a new idea has come along in the midst of their creation, that it is absolutely necessary that these changes should take place before anything is put into production, and that we should not waste money upon producing something which is out of date before it goes into production?

I do not think anybody could disagree with the principles enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Supply the results of his inquiry into the numbers and duplication of inspectors in Royal Ordnance factories.

In accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee on Estimates, my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty and I have set up a committee to report upon this problem. Mr. Hugh Rogers, who is a Director of the Imperial Tobacco Company and was, during the war, Deputy-Controller (Production) at the Admiralty, has kindly accepted our invitation to be chairman of this committee.