asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will have a survey made of the transport needs within South-East Lancashire.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will have an urgent comprehensive survey made of the transport facilities required for the movement of population and industrial goods within the area of Stoke-on-Trent, Stafford, Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Leeds, in view of the fact that this area has the greatest density of population in the country.

As I have explained on previous occasions to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), I have no evidence that such a survey is wanted or would yield useful practical results if made.

Will the Minister reconsider his decision and have a look particularly at the problem arising in the Walkden, Farnworth and Little Hulton areas? Will he pay special regard to the movement of population there consequent on the overspill housing problem, and also have regard to the fact that the closing of branch railway lines in this area means that more transport is being thrown on to the roads, making them overcrowded and dangerous?

In regard to Lancashire, we have the advantage of a very admirable survey by Mr. James Drake, the county surveyor, and the road plan for Lancashire, to which I referred in the debate last December. I gave a fairly broad hint in an answer in October that the initiative in a matter of this kind must rest with the local authorities, and I really have nothing to add to the answer I then gave.

I take it that the Minister is repeating that broad hint?

Yes.

Is the Minister aware of the shocking condition of the A.6 trunk road passing through my part of Lancashire, in the Westhoughton division in particular, which requires not only attention to the surface in many places, but also the absence of lighting on the Blackrod by-pass section, which is the scene of many serious accidents? The local authority is too poor, a 1d. rate producing only £52. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that?

I will, but perhaps the hon. Member will put down another Question.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will recommend the setting up of a Royal Commission to investigate all transport problems and make a report and recommendations on the need for a comprehensive policy, the modernisation of all forms of transport, methods of reducing costs and the schemes and localities that should be given priority.

I see no reason to adopt this suggestion at the present time.

Does the Minister agree with the constant appeals made to industry to modernise itself to produce the maximum efficiency? If so, should not the same apply to transport?

We have a great deal of information on this most important subject. If we had a review along the lines which the hon. Member suggests, we should find it very difficult to get very busy people to take any part, and time would be needed to carry out what the report proposed.

Would not the same purpose be served if the Minister scrapped the 1953 Act?

Would it not be possible for a Royal Commission to discover why it is that no railway locomotive has been cleaned since it was nationalised.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what matters have been referred to him by the chairman of the Road Haulage Disposal Board under Section 2 (8) of the Transport Act, 1953; and what directions he has thought fit to give the Board in regard thereto.

None, Sir.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that honest reply, may I ask him whether this fact that there has been no dispute indicates that the prices which have been fixed by the Commission and the Disposal Board are not too high but that the would-be purchasers are unwilling to pay reasonable prices to obtain these national assets?

Not at all. The fact that there have been no disputes between the members of the Board shows that they are working as a team. I am grateful to Lord Rusholme, the Commission's nominee, for his co-operation.

Does not the fact that the percentage which has been sold is comparatively small indicate that the tenderers are not willing to pay what is considered a reasonable price?

The hon. Gentleman had better wait for other Questions on those facts.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that, owing to the operation of Clause 3 of the Transport Act, 1953, purchasers of transport units will be unable to claim substitution in their special A licences of 1953 model vehicles of the same manufacture because such vehicles are of a slightly heavier weight unladen; and whether he will introduce legislation to amend Clause 6 of Part I of the First Schedule to the Act so as to give the licensing authority some reasonable latitude.

I do not think this is a sufficient reason to justify amending the provisions at present embodied in the Act.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this anomaly will create great hardship for the small men re-entering the transport business? On the grounds of hardship, does he not think that some reasonable marginal latitude should be given to the licensing authority?

On reflection, I think it would have been a good thing if some such latitude had been given in the Act, but I do not think the grievance is sufficient to justify an amendment. It is open to a purchaser to apply to have his vehicle replaced by a heavier vehicle through the ordinary machinery, and if he makes out a case that it is in substitution for a vehicle bought under the Act, I think he would have a strong case to put before the licensing authority.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will introduce legislation amending the Transport Act, 1953, so that it shall be obligatory upon the British Transport Commission and the Road Haulage Disposal Board to require in all future forms of tender information as to whether or not the persons making the tenders have previously been engaged in the road haulage industry.

No, Sir. Much as I welcome the return of former hauliers to the industry, I do not think this would be a practicable way of helping towards that end.

May I ask if my right hon. Friend recalls that the Act lays emphasis upon the desire of persons to re-enter the industry? Would it not therefore be sensible for the forms of tender to give the information whether or not the person making the tender was engaged in the road haulage industry?

Is the Minister's reluctance to seek this information due to the fact that he is frightened that it will show that few small road hauliers have come back?

Not at all. There is nothing whatever to stop anyone putting in his application that he was previously in the business, but that is quite a different matter from making it an obligation.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will introduce legislation amending the Transport Act, 1953, so that it shall be obligatory upon the British Transport Commission and the Road Haulage Disposal Board to invite fresh tenders from persons making the highest offers before re-offering transport units in reject lists.

No, Sir. I do not think such an arrangement would be right or fair.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that what I am suggesting is an ordinary business-like procedure? Would it not save a great deal of time and money to do away with all these numerous reject lists which are unnecessary and a waste of time?

The Act itself provides that the tender for transport units must be by public notice, and I am neither able nor anxious to alter that. Any information of this kind would help the tenderer to keep his bid as low as possible and might even lead to the rigging of the market of which this matter has been so happily free.

Is it not the case that in the final analysis the chief people seeking to re-enter the industry are not ex-road hauliers dispossessed under nationalisation but moneylenders?

Not at all. If one had to give an off-the-cuff answer, one would say that the chief people taking advantage are those who have provided transport throughout the period of nationalisation—often under crippling conditions—and who are now anxious to expand their services.

Will the Minister give us the figures showing how many have re-entered the industry who were in it before and how many have increased their fleets who operated during the period of nationalisation?

If the Disposal Board had a staff able to cope with questions of that kind, they would outdo even the Socialist bureaucracy.

In view of the fact that the intention of the Act was to bring back into the industry small road hauliers who have been dispossessed, why is the Minister satisfied with a situation which has merely resulted in existing road hauliers getting extra licences?

I did not say that no old road hauliers are coming back. If one had to name a general group taking advantage of the provision to the utmost extent, it would probably be existing hauliers who are expanding their businesses. I claim that in that way the public interest is being served.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many vehicles have been disposed of under Part I of the Transport Act, 1953; and what percentage this represents of the vehicles held by the Commission for the purposes of its existing road haulage undertaking as at 6th May, 1953.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what percentage of the total number of lorries so far offered for sale under the Transport Act, 1953, has been sold.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the figures to the latest available date of the total number of lorries offered for sale in the British Transport Commission's Lists Nos. 1, 2 and 3; the total number of vehicles sold to the same date; and the number still remaining to be offered for sale.

With permission, I will answer Questions Nos. 21, 39 and 43 together.

On a point of order. I would sooner have Question No. 39 answered separately.

I am afraid that I shall have to give exactly the same answer twice.

Further to that point of order. Question No. 39 asks for a simple percentage which can be given as one figure. That is all I want.

The hon. Gentleman had better wait to see if he gets his figure.

Ten thousand and forty-eight vehicles were offered for sale in the first three lists, of which 2,532 have so far been sold, or 63 per cent. of those offered without premises and about 10 per cent, of those offered with premises. The number so far sold represents about 7 per cent, of the Commission's road haulage fleet at 6th May, 1953, and leaves about 30,000 vehicles still to be disposed of to independent operators.

Since this Act was on the Statute Book on 6th May and of the vehicles actually offered for sale the percentage purchased is under 25 per cent., does not this contradict the Minister's claim first, that the existing hauliers are substantially increasing their fleets; secondly, that former road hauliers are coming back into the business; and, thirdly, that sales are proceeding satisfactorily?

It is far too early in what is a long process—there are a great many other opportunities and only a small proportion have so far been offered to purchasers—to draw this sort of quick conclusion. I draw attention to the fact that in this List 3 up to 26th March last 74 per cent, of vehicles without premises and 11 per cent, of vehicles with premises had been sold. The proportion is increasing as the lists go along, and I think that buyers are now coming along in a satisfactory way.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we realise why he wanted to answer Question No. 39 with the others? Can I ask him what is the total percentage of vehicles that have been offered that have been sold? It is only a one figure answer that I want.

Certainly. Lists Nos. 1 to 3, of units sold, 25 per cent., units without premises, 63 per cent., units with premises, 10 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman is anxious for facts, I am always ready to give them. If he wants to draw an inference from them, I think that I ought to tell the story as a whole.

As only 25 per cent, of the lorries sold are of types wrapped up in every sort of unit, may I ask the Minister what epithet he thinks that I should have applied to his statement of a week ago?

As the hon. Gentleman has once more repeated a rather strong charge that he made, I would say that I then gave the number of units without premises in the third list. For this I said that tenders had been accepted in decided cases of 86 per cent. That figure at that moment was absolutely true. Since then there has been a consideration of a few outstanding cases, and the figures today represent the most up-to-date information that I can give the House.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that all this shows how very much easier it is to do mischief than to undo it?

The right hon. Gentleman has again repeated the misstatement which he made to the House last week. What he said, according to the OFFICIAL REPORT at column 1223, was that 86 per cent, of the assets offered had been disposed of. How does he square that with his statement this afternoon?

I was dealing with vehicles without premises. I made that perfectly plain, as anybody in the House at the time would agree. There is no disparity whatever between anything I said then and anything I say now. In reference to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), I could not agree more. The task of driving out of business private operators is clearly more simple than the complicated one of unscrambling the mischief done by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

On a point of order. The Minister has again misled the House. What he said last week, as stated in column 1223 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, was—

The hon. Member does not appear to be raising a point of order but a point of debate about disputed facts. That is not a matter for me.

Might I ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that the statement he made in column 1223, to which my hon. Friend has referred, stated specifically that the last list showed that 86 per cent, of the assets offered had been sold? There is no reference to whether those assets are with premises or without premises. Therefore, the Minister gave the impression to the House that of the last units offered 86 per cent, had been sold. There had not been 86 per cent, sold, but far less than that percentage.

I am always anxious to do justice to all hon. Members, and especially to an hon. Gentleman like the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), who is always fair in controversy. If hon. Members will look at my statement of 24th March, I think it will be clear from the context of the later supplementaries that it represented the number of units without premises in the third list, for which tenders had been accepted at that time as a percentage of the total number of units for which tenders had been received and on which a decision had been reached. I would say that I could face the most searching examination on this subject with an entirely clear conscience.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable confidence on this side of the House that, after the preliminaries which he has explained, which are inseparable from the system of sales by tender, a very active market will ensue with very satisfactory financial results for all concerned?

Cannot the Minister answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies)? Did the Minister or did he not in his original answer make it clear that the 86 per cent, referred to the units with premises?

If I did not at that moment I did very quickly afterwards, as the whole House knows. I left no one in any doubt during that interchange to what it was that I was referring. I can leave my honour in this field safely in the hands of my colleagues.

We really must get on.

Later —

On a point of order. May I have an answer to Question No. 39?

That Question was answered with Question No. 21.

In that case, may I ask a supplementary question?

The hon. Gentleman cannot ask a supplementary question on No. 39. Question No. 40, Mr. Callaghan.

On a point of order. What is the position when an hon. Member has asked for his Question to be answered separately and has been refused?

Further to that point of order. Has not the hon. Gentleman, in fact, already asked his supplementary question when Question No. 21 was answered?

It is true that, when Questions are answered together, it is usual for the hon. Member who put down the later Question to ask a supplementary if he wishes to do so, and I rather think that is what the hon. Gentleman did.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of vehicles disposed of without premises under the Transport Act, 1953; the number of separate purchasers; the average number of vehicles, per unit, sold; and the number of purchasers of five or less vehicles.

One thousand eight hundred and forty-two vehicles without premises have so far been disposed of in units averaging from two to three vehicles. There were about 550 separate purchasers of these vehicles of whom about 470 were purchasers of five or less vehicles.

As the only large number of sales out of the lists offered which have taken place have been of a very few vehicles per purchaser and without premises, does not that indicate that the industry is reverting to the bad conditions prevailing before nationalisation and before the war when operators were operating one or two vehicles without premises, without proper accounting and without proper statistics?

I think that the House knows, and the hon. Gentleman should, that the emphasis in the earlier list has been on smaller units in order to give the small man a chance to come in first.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will express, in percentage, the number of transport units listed in List 3, which have been disposed of, to the latest available date.

At 26th March tenders for 80 per cent, of the units without premises, and for 13 per cent, of the units with premises, offered in List No. 3, had been accepted. There were then 30 cases still to be decided.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now agree, in the light of the answer which he has given this afternoon, that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was justified in describing his statement in column 1223 of the OFFICIAL REPORT last week as dishonest?

No, Sir. I will certainly not agree—

The Minister cannot agree to that. I said that it was unparliamentary and out of order.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what estimate he has made of the loss of goodwill that will arise from his authorisation to sell lorries and premises separately, instead of as going concerns.

At the request of the Commission, and after consulting the Disposal Board, I have given my consent under Section 6 (1) of the Transport Act to the sale otherwise than as transport units of premises which have been offered for sale as part of transport units and have failed to attract acceptable bids. The Commission consider it impracticable or inexpedient to re-offer many of these premises as part of transport units, and the results of disposal up to date indicate that the prices to be obtained if they are sold separately are likely to be little, if any, less.

Is it not a remarkable confession of failure that a Section of the Act which was included in order to dispose of the residue of the lorries should be used when only 2,000 out of 30,000 have been sold?

The hon. Gentleman is giving a wholly misleading picture. One purpose of that Section was to deal with this particular situation, and I would remind him that quite a number of the premises so far offered have been inactive ones, which the Commission was anxious to get rid of, anyhow.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what request has been made to him for permission to sell the 3,000 vehicles of the Parcels Division of British Road Services as one lot.

None, Sir

My supplementary question to No. 39 is this: In view of the fact—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, my supplementary to Question No. 40—

The hon. Gentleman should ask a supplementary on Question No. 40.

The supplementary to Question No. 40 is this. Will the Minister explain why, in view of the fact that the lists have been devised in order to attract the small road hauliers, so few of them have come in?

A man would be a very curious small road haulier to want to buy 3,000 vehicles.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what information or directive he has given to the Transport Commission about the disposal of vehicles not disposed of in published Lists Nos. 1 and 2 of the sales of transport units.

I have given no such information or directive. The Commission, in conjunction with the Disposal Board, is re-offering such units (not necessarily in the same shape) for sale in further lists.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not use the provisions of Section 6 (1) of the 1953 Act in order to dispose of vehicles as chattels until a reasonable opportunity has been given to the small man who he is so anxious should come back into the industry?

Of course.

Since the vehicles are now being sold a second time, how can the Minister be so complacent about the disposal of these vehicles?

A number of people often offer themselves a second time for re-election.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when the report of the Committee inquiring into London Transport will be published.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress is being made with the Committee inquiring into London Transport; and when it is likely to report.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he expects to receive the report of the Committee inquiring into London Transport.

The Committee of Inquiry into London Transport is making good progress, but it is a big job and I do not think I shall get their report till towards the end of this year.

Does that mean that the report will not be in time to stop any further increases in London Transport fares?

The report clearly must await its time. In the meanwhile, the British Transport Commission has its statutory duties and it will deal with them in a proper constitutional way.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable interest in the outcome of this report? Is there anything which he can do to speed up its presentation to him?

I am more concerned with its reliability than with the speed of its publication.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the sudden frosting of windscreens, complaints about which have been made in Biddulph and other parts of the Midlands and whether, in view of the unnerving and dangerous experience that motorists thereby suffer, he will take steps to see that it is made illegal to use types of glass in windscreens that are liable to sudden frosting.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 19th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Robson-Brown).

Is the Minister aware that I am more concerned with a practical approach to this type of glass? Is he further aware that in America and in France the type of glass that will frost is banned? Has his Department aproached the manufacturers to see if they will put in modern glass that will not frost? Finally, is he aware that responsible citizens in North Staffordshire and other parts of Britain are overwhelming Members of Parliament with correspondence on this problem of frosted glass?

This whole question of the present specification for toughened glass issued by the Government to manufacturers is under consideration by the Committee on Safety Glass of the British Standards Institution, and my Department is represented on that Committee.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what standards of competence are required by the examiners in driving tests employed by his Department which would not already have been attained by a man authorised to drive 1,000-gallon petrol tankers in the Royal Air Force, and holding Royal Air Force Form 1629.

The standard of competence as set out in Regulation 6 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations, 1950, is the same for all applicants for driving licences whether civilians or Service men. Form 1629 is not a certificate of competence to drive.

Does not my hon. Friend think it rather curious that a man who is allowed to drive 1,000-gallon tankers in the Royal Air Force has to undergo a further test to allow him to drive a small car as a civilian?

The Air Council is authorised to conduct driving tests of R.A.F. personnel. The tests are exactly the same as those which are conducted on behalf of the Minister. When a degree of proficiency has been reached, R.A.F. Form 362 is issued and not R.A.F. Form 1629.

asked tie Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what use he has decided to make of the Kingsway Tunnel.

After considering the report of the technical committee which in 1952 examined the possibility of using the Kingsway Subway for traffic I reached the conclusion, as I informed the House at the time, that the likely advantages of any adaptation of the subway for this purpose were not commensurate with the cost.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman thought of some other use for the tunnel, such as for car parking or storage purposes, or is he going to sell it to the road hauliers or keep it as a hide-out for himself? What is he going to do about it?

Its future can best be left with the British Transport Commission, who own it.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the amounts of approved capital expenditure during the next few years that will be spent on the modernisation of railway transport; the amounts allocated for each region, respectively; and the form in which the expenditure will be made.

The British Transport Commission tells me that it has in hand a number of schemes for the modernisation of the railways, which will come to fruition within the next few years. The Commission is making a fresh review of the whole question of modernisation, and of its requirements for capital expenditure under this head, but I have not as yet received any details.

Does the Minister consider it is his duty to take an over-all view of the proposals of the Transport Commission? If so, will he bear in mind that it is time that this great area was given preference above the London area, which has had so much preference in the past?

I can take an overall view without expressing any preference. I am in constant touch with Sir Brian Robertson on the question of modernisation of the railways. He and I have great faith in their future and great confidence that they have an important part to play in future transport. I will look sympathetically at proposals put forward for real, imaginative improvements.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in the modernisation plans the great importance of electrification measures, notably in the interests of coal conservation, abatement of "smog" and operating efficiency?

Certainly.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a further statement upon progress with automatic train control arrangements on British Railways, to the latest convenient date, having special regard to the report of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Railways following the Harrow train disaster in October, 1952.

The British Transport Commission is making vigorous efforts to develop the apparatus to the necessary standard of reliability, and large-scale trials are now in progress, but it may still be some time before the Commission and my Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways are satisfied that the necessary standard has been achieved.

Is the Minister aware that it is now well over a year and a half since the report of the Inspector of Railways was made, and that great anxiety exists because progress has been so very slow?

I am very well aware of that. I said that my Chief Inspector of Accidents holds the same view: he is the officer who wrote that report. He and I are very anxious that in this field the best should not become the enemy of the good, and we are very keen that action should be taken. It is, however, essential that the machinery devised should be felt to be reliable by the enginemen concerned, and there have unfortunately been too many breakdowns up to now to justify my going full speed ahead.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the new experimental system of A.T.C. is cheaper to install than the old Great Western system? If not, what advantage has the new system over the old?

These were fully ventilated in the Chief Inspector's report recently on the Harrow accident. There has not been an installation of the new system on a large enough scale for there to be worth while comparative figures.

Does the Minister agree that there are large stretches of the main lines in this country where the Great Western A.T.C. is not suitable?

That is certainly borne out in Colonel Wilson's report.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement on his discussions with the British Transport Commission regarding a survey of the canals and inland waterways of Great Britain with a view to their more effective utilisation.

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made during the debate on Wednesday, 17th March, on the Motions to annul the transport charges Regulations.

Could not the right hon. Gentleman be a little more informative? Will he say whether the Transport Commission will have placed at its disposal the Departmental surveys which were made during the war, and which contained much valuable information? Can the right hon. Gentleman also say whether the Commission has ever been asked to produce a proper development plan?

The responsibility for this inquiry is the Commission's. I am closely associated with Sir Brian Robertson, although this is the Commission's responsibility, and everything we have in the Department that is of the slightest use we shall, as I told a right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite last week, gladly put at the disposal of this inquiry.

Does not this assume that the B.T.C. is financially responsible for the repair of almost irreparable waterways throughout the country?

The Commission is responsible for its own waterways. I think the hon. Member has in mind a number of tragic accidents that have occurred. By no means all of those have occurred on the Commission's own canals; other owners are responsible for maintenance there. This is quite a different matter.

Will the Minister bear in mind the immense traffic on Continental canals and the useful part they play in the European economy? Does he not think that a similar state of affairs would be desirable here?

I would certainly not rule that out. He would be a foolish and dogmatic person who suggested that canals have altogether outlived their usefulness.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will request the court inquiring into the recent Constellation accident at Singapore to report whether, in their opinion, passenger lives might have been saved if backward-facing seats had been in use.

The court inquiring into this accident has been appointed by the Singapore authorities, and in view of the terms of the Regulations under which it has been set up, I am sure it can be relied upon to make any necessary observations or recommendations concerning rearward-facing seats if the investigations show that the type of seat was a material factor in the number of casualties which resulted from the accident.

May I say how grateful I am for that answer, because I am sure that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the very strong feeling held by some aircraft captains and pilots that this is a great contributory cause to the fatal accidents in those unfortunate crashes?

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what representations he has made to the International Civil Aviation Organisation in favour of making backward-facing seats in aircraft a standard requirement.

No representations have been made to the International Civil Aviation Organisation by Her Majesty's Government since the Fourth Session of the Airworthiness Division in March, 1951, which decided that the matter should be left for further examination by Member States.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most experts, including a former Chief Inspector of Accidents for the Air Ministry, hold the view that backward-facing seats would considerably reduce the death rate in crash landings? Would not the extra safety be worth the additional cost? Is there anything to prevent the Government from introducing this requirement forthwith into British aircraft in the hope that other countries will follow suit?

My right hon. Friend feels that this controversial problem is best resolved by international agreement.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what proposals have been agreed with him for the extension of British Overseas Airways Corporation services westward from New York.

In the schedule appended to the terms of reference of the Air Transport Advisory Council issued in July, 1952, B.O.A.C. have reserved to them a route extending westwards from New York through San Francisco, Honolulu and Manila to Hong Kong or Singapore. Only if B.O.A.C. wish to have this route amended will they need to seek my approval by means of an application to the Air Transport Advisory Council. San Francisco will be the linking point of B.O.A.C. with Q.E.A. on the route to Australia under the proposals recently approved as a result of the discussions at Christchurch.

That agreement has, of course, been on the book for some time. I am now asking what steps are being taken to link up with the Australian service. Has any plan been agreed? Is any financial agreement being reached with the Corporation to enable that to be done?

I am, of course, in discussion with the Corporation over any problems arising in its field as a result of the agreement which has been reached. It also involves discussion with another Imperial Government. It would be better if the hon. Gentleman would wait a little longer and then perhaps ask me the same Question again.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, following the agreement with the Australian and New Zealand Governments over the Pacific services, traffic rights are now available for the British Overseas Airway Corporation over the former British Commonwealth Pacific Airways route from Sydney to Vancouver.

The traffic rights across the Pacific available to a British airline under the Canada-United Kingdom Air Services Agreement are not, of course, affected by the conclusions of the Christchurch Conference which have recently been approved, but the service between Australia and Canada will be left for operation by Qantas Empire Airways.

Is there no possibility at a future date of running parallel services down to Sydney in the way that such services are run along the Kangaroo route?

B.O.A.C. welcome the agreement which has been reached, as do Her Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. There is no thought at the moment of running such parallel services.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what is now his policy with regard to the installation of F.I.D.O. at London Airport.

The Department has recently completed a re-examination of the costs and methods of financing a high-pressure F.I.D.O. installation at London Airport. Enough information about the trials carried out with a high-pressure F.I.D.O. installation at Los Angeles last December is now available to enable us to open discussions with the operators shortly.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether certificates of airworthiness issued by the Bureau Veritas of France are accepted for validation by the Air Registration Board; and what is the normal period taken for such validation in respect of aircraft for which evidence of operational use is provided.

Certificates of airworthiness for aircraft designed and constructed in accordance with I.C.A.O. standards, which have, I understand, been applied in France, would be accepted for validation by the Air Registration Board. The second part of the Question does not arise, as no applications have yet been made in respect of French aircraft.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether an application has yet been received for a certificate of airworthiness in respect of the Breguet Deux-Ponts transport aeroplane.

No formal application has been made to my right hon. Friend, but I understand that the Air Registration Board has been approach informally on the matter.

Bearing in mind the unhappy experience of British aircraft manufacturers in America, will the hon. Gentleman make quite sure that France is not subjected to the same kind of treatment by this country?

The two matters are wholly different, and it would be unwise for the hon. Member to imagine that they are on a similar basis.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent expert additional technological staff and mechanical equipment will be required to carry out the increased road construction programme; and what steps are being taken to make these available at the earliest opportunity.

As regards the staff requirements of my own Department, I would refer to the written answer that I gave to the hon. Member on 29th March, 1954. I cannot answer for local authorities' requirements. As to mechanical equipment, consultation with representatives of the industry indicates that no great difficulty should be experienced in obtaining any additional plant required as the programme builds up. Liaison with the industry is being maintained.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, having regard to the increase in houses and schools in the immediate neighbourhood, he will impose a 30 miles per hour speed limit on that stretch of Bristol Road South, Birmingham, which lies between the Austin motor works and Rubery.

We have received a detailed report on this section of road, which has a dual carriageway, and I am sorry that we do not agree that a speed limit is justified.

In the case of a road which goes through a newly built-up area, with a very large housing estate on the one side and a main school on the other, how many children and how many adults have to be killed or maimed before we can get some response to local pressure in these matters?

There have been 59 accidents on this road in the three years from 1950 to 1952, but only two of them were attributable to excessive speed. I am aware that there is a school there and that it has been enlarged. A police officer is on duty at school-time at a nearby pedestrian crossing.

Could we know just when a road like this, which has a growing housing estate alongside it, and is to be the centre of a very large built-up area in this corner of Birmingham, is really going to receive consideration? When does the Ministry apply its principles in these matters?

The principle of the Ministry is not to have a 30 miles an hour speed limit where that is not necessary. As was made plain in another place recently, my right hon. Friend is considering the general policy rather with a view to reducing the number of 30 miles per hour speed limits than increasing them.

What is the length of this piece of road? Does it not seem that 59 accidents there is a rather high figure?

The road to which the Question refers is just under a mile in length. It is an extremely busy road.

Is it not the case that the danger of casualties generally is higher in the restricted areas than in the unrestricted areas?

That is entirely correct.

Following up the point of my previous question, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he does not agree that 59 accidents in three years over a short length of road like this is excessively high? What steps is he proposing to take to reduce the number of accidents on that stretch of road?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not quite follow the answer I gave—that of those accidents only two were attributable to excessive speed.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he has considered the petition signed by 759 people of Chellaston, Derbyshire, asking him, in view of the dangers involved, to reconsider his decision not to reinstate the pedestrian crossing on the Derby-Melbourne road at Chellaston and to agree to the installation at the site of either a Zebra or a controlled crossing, which petition was sent to him by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East; and if he will make a statement.

I am arranging for a traffic census to be taken and will write to the hon. Member when this has been done.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will give a grant annually to assist the crofting counties in the maintenance and repair of unclassified roads.

My right hon. Friend is precluded by statute from making grants towards the maintenance of unclassified roads in counties.

May I ask my hon. Friend if he remembers that unclassified roads fall wholly upon the rates, which constitutes a severe burden, especially for the counties less able to afford it?

My noble Friend will remember that the counties receive an equalisation grant from the Exchequer, and that this takes into account the mileage of roads in the county compared with the population.

My hon. Friend will remember that it is a very severe burden in counties where the depopulation is so severe that it is difficult for them to pay their proportion?

Since 1946, when the Class III category of roads was introduced, a 50 per cent, grant is made in order to assist impoverished counties.

When the hon. Gentleman says that there is no legislation under which grants may be made, is he aware that in the White Paper on Rural Wales it states that the Minister of Agriculture intends to ask for legislation to allow him to make grants for these roads. Why cannot the Ministry of Transport do it instead?

I have dealt in my answer with the powers of my right hon. Friend. I am not responsible for answering for the Ministry of Agriculture.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the large mileage of roads less than 14 feet in width in the crofting counties, he will grant for these counties an annual sum for allocation for the provision of passing places, over and above the grants required for the trunk and classified roads.

Special provision has already been made for the improvement of Highland roads, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 14th July last and 18th March. I hope that this, together with the increased provision for maintenance and minor improvement work in 1954–55, will help to achieve the object which my noble Friend has in mind. I do not think that a further special allocation would be justified.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the immensity of the task? In Inverness-shire alone there are 1,360 roads only 14 feet or less in width. This is an immense task in road reconstruction.

I am aware of it. I am very keen on the crofter counties scheme. We hope a system of 10-foot carriage ways with 16-foot passing places every half-mile will be speeded up as the result of the statement made by my right hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many miles of unclassified roads in the crofting counties were brought into the classified category last year.

One-fifth of a mile of unclassified road was classified as Class 1 in 1953.

Does not the hon. Member agree that his answer shows more clearly than anything else could have done that the problem is not being met in present conditions and that new legislation is required if unclassified roads are to be brought up to a reasonable standard, which at present is not happening?

The basis of the classification of roads depends upon their through-traffic value. It is manifest that the through-traffic value of roads in the Orkney and Shetland Islands is very limited.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will accede to the request made to him for the establishment of a speed limit of five miles per hour on the internal roads of the Quarry Hill Flats, Leeds.

I am considering this request. I will write to the hon. Member when I have completed my inquiries.

When he considers this request, will the right hon. Gentleman have in mind that these internal roads of the Quarry Hill Flats are the chief playground of about 1,000 children who live in the flats?

I know, but I must be very careful not to have unusual speed limits all over the country unless there is a strong case. No accidents of any kind were reported in 1953, as far as I know.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has any proposals to make to avoid the inconvenience caused to both local and through traffic at Ship Street, Brecon, particularly on market days, consequent upon the difficulty of heavy and wide transport lorries and vehicles negotiating this narrow section of a trunk road; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made with the local police and highways authority about the trouble caused.

I know about the inconvenience referred to and have already authorised schemes for improvement at the corner of Ship Street and High Street Superior and also at Llanfaes Bridge. These proposals will give some immediate relief, and further long-term schemes are under consideration.

How can that come about if the estimates for trunk roads in Breconshire for the year are below those of last year?

I shall have to look into that.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what number and percentage of road accidents in 1953 occurred on zebra crossings.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many pedestrians were injured and killed, respectively, on zebra crossings during 1953.