asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps he has taken to eliminate the nuisance caused to the residents of Reading by low-flying aircraft from Greenham Common.

I have explained to the hon. Member in correspondence why aircraft coming in to land at Greenham Common may have to approach the airfield from the general direction of Reading. A detailed investigation which we have since held does not suggest that aircraft using this airfield cause substantial disturbance to Reading, which is some fourteen miles away.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the results of his investigation are in conflict with any amount of testimony that he can get from the people of Reading themselves? Is it not silly to site an airfield in the middle of a densely populated area with the main runway pointing straight across a large borough? Does he know that every time there is a complaint there is a slight improvement for a short time—which shows that it can be improved—and will he now effect a permanent improvement?

I have been into this very carefully, because I do appreciate that there is a noise problem; but I am satisfied that the United States authorities really are doing all they can to minimise the nuisance.

asked the Secretary of State for Air the Government's policy regarding disused airfields in Essex.

We are keeping those which may still be needed by the Royal Air Force and disposing of the rest.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether those which it is necessary for the Department to retain include the present disused airfield at Willingale?

We are retaining a part of that, and disposing of the rest.

asked the Secretary of State for Air why recruitment for the Royal Air Force fell from 1,642 in August, 1956, to 752 in August. 1957; and what action he is taking to improve recruitment.

The falling off in 1957 has occurred primarily in recruitment on short-term engagements. In fact, the entry of apprentices and boys shows an increase of some 30 per cent, compared with 1956. As regards the second part of the Question, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the Answer to be given later to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler).

Is the Secretary of State aware that on those deplorable figures we shall, before long, have no Air Force at all, unless National Service is continued indefinitely; and as we are not getting the men and have not the machines, what is he doing with the £500 million Air Estimates that we gave him a few months ago?

I think the hon. Member will agree that if we are to have an all-Regular force by 1962, the main people are the long-service ones—the apprentices and boys—and, as I say, recruiting for them is very encouraging.

asked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent the calls on Transport Command involved in the movement of two companies of infantry from Kenya to Muscat prevented Transport Command from undertaking the transport of 600 troops to Christmas Island; and if he will make a statement on the adequacy of Transport Command for these purposes.

Hardly at all; most of this move was carried out in Beverleys, which are not designed for long-range trooping such as the move to Christmas Island. On the second part of the Question, we are, as the House is aware, greatly expanding the capacity of Transport Command. Even at its present size however, the Command would have been well able to undertake the move to Christmas Island had it not been for other high priority tasks.

asked the Secretary of State for Air which private firms hold air trooping contracts obtained without competition from the nationalised air Corporations.

The air charter firms at present holding regular Service contracts are Air Charter; Airwork; Britavia; Dan Air; Eagle Aviation; Scottish Aviation; Skyways and Transair.

Although most of these firms are highly reputable and experienced, will not the Government change their doctrinaire, anti-B.E.A., anti-B.O.A.C. policy and give troops and ratepayers the benefit of competition from our national airlines?

There is no reason to suppose that troops or families or anyone else will be any better served by the Corporations, and the record of the civil operators in this sphere has been excellent.

Will the right hon. Gentleman please answer my point? Will he not give the taxpayers the benefit of the competition? If the position is as he says, no harm will be done.

I am sorry to have to keep repeating this—I have repeated it several times. The policy of the Government is to allow the Corporations to concentrate on scheduled services.

asked the Secretary of State for Air when he now expects the re-equipment of operational squadrons with Vulcans and Victors to be completed.

It would not be in the public interest to give that information at this stage.

Is not the Victor appallingly delayed? In view of this, what change are the Government going to make in the procedure of giving contracts to very small aircraft firms?

No one is more keen than I am to get aircraft into service at the proper time and without delay, but the hon. Gentleman knows that in developing new aircraft one gets inevitable delays. He himself implored me as recently as 31st July not to make optimistic delivery forecasts which might later cause disappointment.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what new decisions have been taken, since the publication of the Defence White Paper, with regard to the operation by the Royal Air Force of supersonic bombers.

None, Sir.

Are we to understand that the tender which has been prepared or which has already been sent out to the industry for a supersonic bomber has been prepared without the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman?

The Question on the Order Paper asks whether our policy about the supersonic bomber has altered since the White Paper was produced, and the answer is that it has not.

May I press the right hon. Gentleman further? Is it proposed to invite the industry to prepare specifications for a supersonic bomber?

I am not prepared to discuss that at this stage.

Surely this is an important point. Will not the Secretary of State recognise that in the White Paper the Government said that they were not going in for the supersonic bomber? Is it not true that there have been tenders invited for such a bomber?

Tenders have not been invited for a supersonic bomber.

In view of the statement recently made by the Minister of Defence about the inadequacy of bombers in the event of a nuclear war, is it not desirable that the Government should state frankly that they do not intend to produce any more supersonic bombers?

That statement was made in the Defence White Paper at the beginning of the year, and nothing has happened since then to alter it.

asked the Secretary of State for Air why the air journey of the all-party delegation to the Royal Air Force station, Waddington, on 26th September was excluded from the provisions of the insurance cover recently announced.

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained in his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Walter Elliot) on 1st August, the arrangements to which the hon. Member refers apply to hon. Members travelling on a Parliamentary committee or delegation set up directly by the House, Committee of Selection, or Mr. Speaker. I understand that the visit to Royal Air Force Station, Waddington did not fall within its scope.

Surely the Secretary of State understands that this visit was a useful one, carried out at his invitation, and if it was a useful one, as most of the Members thought it was, why is it so excluded from this arrangement? Is it a Treasury direction, or did the Secretary of State merely think that it was not worth while applying the arrangement in this case?

I think the hon. Member knows how very much I value visits by hon. Members to our airfields. I wish these visits occurred more often. But the scope of this particular scheme is not a matter for me; it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the really important point here is that the scope of this scheme should be expanded?

I would ask my hon. Friend to address that question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that the increasing power and numbers of civil aircraft are causing a nuisance to an increasing number of people who reside in the lines of flight from airports; and what progress is being made in the direction of silencing aircraft engines.

I am well aware that aircraft engine noise is a cause of disturbance to many people in the neighbourhood of airports, and I am anxious that everything should be done to reduce it. Some progress has been made; for example, the Comet IV when it comes into service will have noise reducers. Further work may lead to improved types of noise reducers, and also to the design of engines which have a lower output of noise in relation to the power developed. My Ministry will watch the situation very closely and will take the nuisance aspect very carefully into account.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has power to enforce the use of these improvements as they are discovered, and can he enforce them in the case of foreign machines as well as in the case of British machines?

What I can say is that, before aircraft of this type have the unrestricted use of London Airport and other airports in this country, we shall want to be satisfied that the level of noise is not such as to cause an intolerable burden to the inhabitants who live around those airports.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made in the provision of extended runways or by other means to reduce the noise of rising aircraft over residential areas to the west of London Airport, including Colnbrook and Langley.

Extension of runways is not a satisfactory method of reducing aircraft noise in areas west of London Airport. Better results have been obtained by arranging for aircraft to climb as quickly as possible after take-off and fly at higher altitudes over residential areas near the airport.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when I raised this matter earlier, the Minister replied that the runways were being extended eastwards to deal with the problem? Will he consult his Parliamentary Private Secretary, who shares the representation of Colnbrook with me? Will he also remember that at Langley, in addition to the old village, there is a large L.C.C. estate and that life is becoming intolerable for those people because of the noise of aircraft?

My hon. Friend leaves me in no doubt of the views which he and his constituents hold on noise. The whole House will realise that this is a growing and very great burden for people who live around major airports. Nonetheless, improvement must come from technical improvements in aircraft, in silencing take off and so on, and not from longer runways.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what answer he has made to the recommendations of his Scottish Advisory Council regarding the need for a regular air service from Errol Airport.

My right hon. Friend has received no recommendations from the Scottish Advisory Council.

Is the Minister aware that during the Summer Recess the Scottish Advisory Council has definitely come down in favour of an air service from Dundee? Is he further aware that there is now an urgent need of new industry in the city, and that it is generally accepted that the lack of modern air communication is one of the obstacles to attracting new industry to Dundee?

All I can tell the hon. Gentleman about the meeting of the Scottish Advisory Council is that I understand that in August it resolved to write to my right hon. Friend and also to B.E.A. We have not yet so far received the letter. Of course, if we do, we shall take into account what it says.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree, whether or not he has received recommendations from the Scottish Advisory Council, that he has certainly received representations from everybody else in Dundee and that part of Scotland?

My right hon. Friend sympathises with the local interest in this question, but as I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is a matter for B.E.A. and other operators to decide whether they can find a remunerative route to include Errol in their network.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what decision he has reached on the proposal made to him by a committee representing the British Transport Commission, the British European Airways and the British Overseas Airways Corporation that railway communications should be established between Victoria Station. London, and London Airport.

Having studied the Report of the Committee, I have asked the Chairman of the British Transport Commission, in consultation with the Airways Corporations, for further information, which I am hoping to have before the end of November.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman again for that reply, may I ask him whether it is clear that the opening of the terminal at Kensington does not rule out proposals for inter-railway communication with Victoria?

It is not quite like that. I have announced plans for a very large expenditure on improved road communication between west London and the airport. I have now asked for a further study to be made of the rail link. I ought to add that I am still very interested in a possible monorail link, and this we shall have to discuss.

Is there any chance of the vacant space underneath the air terminal being used for a stop on the present Underground railway? Gloucester Road is about ten minutes walk away, and it is a little inconvenient for people to get there because there is no bus service.

I have asked the Transport Commission, now that the terminal is opened and now that they can assess the passenger traffic, to say what further improvements may be necessary to make it as accessible as possible.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement on the progress being made at Gatwick Airport.

Progress has been satisfactory. While I cannot as yet give a firm date for completion, all concerned are working to the target of April, 1958, and I am assured that the airport will be ready as planned for next summer's operations.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) whether an investigation has been carried out into the complaints of damage caused to houses in Cairns Lane, Bedfont, Feltham, by the Soviet jet air liner when it left London Airport on Sunday, 8th September; and whether he will make a statement;

(2) what claims for compensation have been made to his Department by the householders in Cairns Lane, Bedfont, Feltham, whose houses were damaged by the Soviet jet air liner when leaving London Airport on Sunday, 8th September; and if he will make a statement.

Following a preliminary inspection by officers of my Department and of the Air Ministry Works Department, the Building Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research made a thorough examination of the houses concerned, and concluded that the damage complained of was very largely of long standing and was not caused by the take-off of the TU.104. As to the cause of the rest of the damage, such as a cracked pane of glass in one of the houses, there was no definite evidence either way. As regards compensation, no formal claims have been received by my Department.

Will the Minister insist that the new jet air liners, irrespective of nationality, use silencers to deaden noise before they are allowed to land at London Airport in view of the large population living round the area? Regarding damage, I should like to point out—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—that I inspected the houses in Cairns Lane and questioned constituents. I am convinced that the damage was caused by the Soviet jet air liner when it took off at 4.10 a.m. on 8th September.

The hon. Member really ought to ask questions at this time.

I have answered the first part of the supplementary question by the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) in a previous answer which I gave on jet noise. As to the second part, I must take the advice of the Building Research Station in this matter and not the hon. Member's.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he has yet decided to hold a public inquiry into the accident at Nutts Corner to a British European Airways aircraft on 23rd October; and if he will make a statement.

On 23rd October, 1957, a Viscount aircraft of British European Airways Corporation was making a flight from London to Nutts Corner with a crew of five and an employee of the Corporation and his wife as the only passengers. At approximately 16.45 hours, in conditions of low cloud and rain, an approach to runway 28 was made using a ground-controlled approach. On completion of the G.C.A. talk-down the pilot commenced to take normal action to overshoot. Almost immediately afterwards the aircraft crashed near the up-wind end of the runway. It was almost completely destroyed and all on board were killed.

The Chief Inspector of Accidents is conducting a detailed investigation into this accident. In accordance with normal procedure, I shall decide, when I see his preliminary report, whether the circumstances justify a public inquiry.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the House will wish to join with me in expressing sympathy with the relatives of those who have lost their lives.

Whilst assuring the Minister that we on this side of the House would certainly like to associate ourselves with the sympathy which he has expressed, may I ask whether it is not unusual for these preliminary inquiries to take so long before it is decided whether or not to have a public inquiry? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any unusual circumstances in this case?

The only circumstance that has delayed matters is the fact that the aircraft crash was such that wreckage was very widely spread and very much dispersed and damaged. Therefore, the investigation has taken my officers rather long. Otherwise, I know of no other unusual circumstances, and I await the preliminary report on which I must decide.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps are being taken to make the mechanism of traffic lights respond more quickly to approaching traffic, especially at night when the volume of traffic is very light, and so avoid both unnecessary delay and wear and tear on engines and brakes of road vehicles.

The majority of light signals are now vehicle-actuated. To make the mechanism respond more rapidly at times of light traffic would increase the risk of accident.

Can my hon. Friend say how this would increase the risk of accident? If a light remains red in one direction for a longer time and only changes when traffic approaches it, surely it means that there is nothing coming in the other direction. How can that affect the risk of accidents?

There is a certain danger in the speed with which vehicles approach the red signal in anticipation that it may change to green by the time they get there. To shorten the interval in the present phasing might very well lead to a greater accident risk.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has now been made in the preparation of the scheme for compulsory inspection of motor vehicles; and when he expects the first stage of that scheme to be in operation.

I hope that the scheme will come into operation next year, but discussions are still proceeding and I cannot yet give a firm date.

In view of the large number of accidents which it is hoped will be avoided by the introduction of this scheme and the large number of deaths which may be eliminated, are not the Government awfully slow in tackling this business, considering that the Measure authorising it was introduced about two years ago? Can we not have some greater speed in view of the importance of the matter? Further, has the right hon. Gentleman yet decided to what extent licensing stations will be publicly or privately operated?

In answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I do not mind being pressed, but I am determined that, if possible, this scheme shall come in by agreement and meet the various needs which must be met if it is to work satisfactorily. That is the only reason for the delay. I am as anxious as is the right hon. Gentleman to get it working as quickly as possible. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I shall have to come to the House when we have a scheme.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that this scheme is not a victim of any cuts in Government expenditure?

No, it is not.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, for the purpose of a licence to drive a motor vehicle, he will initiate a regulation excluding heavy motor cars from Group A, placing them in a separate group and requiring applicants for a licence for such vehicles to pass a test showing competence to drive that type of vehicle.

No, Sir, I do not consider that there are sufficient grounds for doing so.

Is it not a fact that at present a young man can take his test in, for example, a "bubble" car, and the very next day after passing that test drive a heavy petrol tanker? Was it not the case before the war that there was a separate test? Ought not this to be resumed now that the Minister has legalised higher speeds for these heavy vehicles?

No. I do not think there is sufficient evidence to show that there is necessity for a separate test for the drivers of these heavy goods vehicles. In the main, the standard of driving by these drivers is exceptionally high.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the rate of accidents per 1,000 vehicles on the roads in 1938 and in 1956.

Accidents involving personal injury numbered 64 per 1,000 vehicles in 1938 and 33 in 1956.

Does my hon. Friend ascribe this mainly to better roads, better drivers or better pedestrians?

It is due to a number of factors, not the least of which is better road safety measures.

Is not the interesting deduction to be drawn from these figures that the very much higher rate of road accidents, injuries and fatalities, is due exclusively to the fact that the roads are so much more congested, and ought that not to encourage the Government to go on with the road programme more expeditiously?

The hon. Member has the deduction the wrong way round. The figure in 1956 was 33 per 1,000——

Yes, I know.

—as compared with 64 per 1,000 in 1938. More than twice as many vehicles are on the roads today. I think I ought to make this point in drawing deductions. This is not a measurement of the mileage actually driven by these vehicles. It is difficult, therefore, to draw any precise deduction from it.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what decision has been reached as a result of his discussions with the Chairman of the British Transport Commission regarding the abolition of privileged taxi ranks at railway stations.

The Chairman of the British Transport Commission has given me his report, and to complete the picture I am now obtaining the views of the representatives of users by referring the matter to the Central Transport Consultative Committee and to the Scottish and Welsh Transport Users Consultative Committees.

While welcoming that considerable development and while expressing appreciation of it, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the working committee of the Home Office has recommended that railway station ranks should be served in rota by nearby taxi ranks, and has urged it in the interest of the public? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that taxi drivers are becoming impatient, and that unless an early decision is reached he may have difficulties all over the country?

I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is the convenience of the public that ought to be studied in this matter. It is only fair to the Commission to say that its view is that the convenience of the public is best studied by a continuance of the present arrangement. That is why I thought it only fair to take it further to the consultative committee.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter is becoming urgent, and that only a few weeks ago a taxi driver in Leeds was summoned because he picked up a fare after he had set another one down? Arising out of discussions which took place at that time, it was discovered that the whole of one of the stations in Leeds was let not to an association but to one man who can exclude anybody he wishes?

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that licensed taxi-cabs in Manchester are allowed free access to the station approach at three main line stations, but not at the Exchange Station; and whether he will take action to end this anomalous situation in the course of his discussions with the Chairman of the British Transport Commission.

The conditions at Manchester Exchange Station are exceptional because of the local licensing difficulties. I understand that the general manager of the London Midland Region of British Railways is looking into the matter with the interests concerned.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that late at night and in the early hours of the morning passengers arriving at Manchester Exchange Station who do not find a taxi-cab on the rank very often have to walk down the long approach to pick up a cab cruising at the bottom of the approach? That does not apply to the other three main line stations in Manchester. Is not this a ridiculous anomaly?

It is because of the boundary between Manchester and Salford, and it is that point which the general manager hopes to overcome and, perhaps, to arrange some common practice.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is now in a position to give the result of the British Transport Commission's reassessment of the cost of the modernisation programme, after taking into account the changes in prices and all other factors which change the scope of the programme.

The British Transport Commission estimates the cost of the work covered by the plan prepared in 1954 at £1,500 million. This revision takes full account of changes in price levels and of major technical decisions reached since the plan was first published, as well as the reassesment of costs which detailed planning has made possible.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what part of the £170 million which the Chancellor announced yesterday is to be devoted to the modernisation programme is to be used for ordinary replacements on which the railways spent more than £100 million last year?

If the hon. Gentleman wants an answer to that question, he had better put it down.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what changes it is proposed to make in the railway modernisation programme in view of the reduction in capital investment; and what delay in its fulfilment will result.

It will not now be possible to accelerate the programme in the next two years as much as the British Transport Commission had planned, but because the programme is ahead of schedule the level of investment will not fall below that forecast in the Command Paper, Proposals for the Railways, and there will be no delay in the fulfilment of the programme as a whole.

Is it not a fact that the actual amount which will now be spent and the actual authorisations made in the next few years will be less than had been planned for, and does that not mean that the Commission will be in serious difficulties in regard to revenue as a result? Can the Minister state precisely whether there is going to be a cut-back in the plans which have been made for expenditure on railway modernisation this year and next year?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the figures yesterday, which I entirely accept. They are very large sums of money. I expect the Commission to get the best value for them, and that is its job.

Can we have a little more information on this matter, because at the moment we are rather in the dark? Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was going to cut the payments to Transport Commission services to £170 million a year. The proposals in the White Paper for railway modernisation amounted to £135 million and £140 million for the next two years. Can the Minister somehow reconcile those figures so that we may be assured that the modernisation programme will not be affected, as he has just said in reply to the Question?

If the right hon. Gentleman likes to put down another Question, I shall be only too happy to answer it. I can help him a little bit by repeating what I have just said and what I said in July, that the programme is well ahead of schedule. Therefore, the payments are higher than were originally, anticipated when the plan was made. These are therefore allowed for, and that is the reason for the higher figure. Therefore, the higher figure really shows the amount of acceleration which the Commission has been able to achieve, and which is very necessary.

Does it not also include the greater costs to which the Minister referred, and will there not be a reduction in the amount of materials consumed and of work done as a result of increased prices?

I think that that question had better be put down. There is a detailed answer. I am quite satisfied that the Commission has a fair share of the investment programme. It knows I now expect it to make the best possible use of it, and it will do.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the conflict of view between Sir Harold Howitt as indicated in his report and those of Mr. E. L. Gethin, relative to the recommendations indicated in the Blue report, and the British Transport Commission directive of 13th August, 1957, he will arrange to have a copy of the Blue report and the directive of 13th August, 1957, placed in the Library of the House of Commons, to enable hon. Members to judge for themselves on these documents.

No, Sir. As I have already informed the hon. Member, Sir Harold Howitt's report itself gives all the relevant material from Commission documents necessary to his findings.

In paragraph 47 of the report to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred is a serious conflict of view between Sir Harold Howitt and Mr. Gethin. Indeed, the directive issued by the British Transport Commission on 13th August, according to Mr. Gethin, differed fundamentally from the Blue report. Why will not the right hon. Gentleman make them available in the Library? Has lie anything to hide?

Nothing at all. I can easily dispose of the matter by repeating what I have said publicly and in a statement, that I fully accept Sir Harold Howitt's version as being a completely impartial and accurate account of the affair.

Would the right hon. Gentleman be a little more definite why this report cannot be made available to hon. Members? It is now past history, but it has been referred to both in this House and in this report published by Sir Harold Howitt. Is it not desirable that the House should have the full contents of them so that these differences of opinion may be resolved?

The reason is this, and I am glad to state it. I think it is quite wrong that the Commission, which is trying to run itself as a commercial concern, as it is the Government's wish it should, should think that its internal documents should at any time be produced and laid for public examination. It is done once a year when the Commission's accounts are thoroughly investigated. Otherwise, I think it ought to be left alone to get on with the job.

In the light of Sir Harold Howitt's report, were not the charges satisfactorily disposed of, and ought not the matter now to be left to rest?

That is my view.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, in view of the reduction in capital investment, what revision has been made in the Estimates contained in Command Paper No. 9880, Proposals for the Railways; by what year it is now estimated that the British Transport Commission will balance its accounts; and how the deficits are to be met.

The British Transport Commission informs me that it can distribute the amount of capital investment now approved so that no revision of the estimates in the Command Paper of its financial position is called for. This will not affect the date by which it is estimated that the Commission will balance its accounts. Deficits will be met in accordance with the provisions of the Transport (Railway Finances) Act, 1957.

How does the Minister reconcile that with the fact that there is going to be a cut in the expenditure? Does he not recall that in the White Paper it was made quite clear that fulfilment of the estimates to bring the Commission into balance by 1961 or 1962 was dependent upon there being no cut in the modernisation programme? A cut is now taking place, and the financial circumstances of the Commission are difficult. Does he really believe it will be able to achieve those estimates by 1961 and 1962?

Yes, I do, and so does the Commission.

If £170 million is to be made available to the Commission for all its capital purposes in the next financial year and, according to the White Paper, it requires£135 million to keep its modernisation programme up to schedule, does that mean that it will have only £35 million for all its other capital purposes?

If the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue these detailed matters, he must put down Questions. I have given a clear answer to the Question on the Paper.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what further progress has been made in widening streets by narrowing unnecessarily wide pavements in urban areas.

Of the list of sites in London given in my right hon. Friend's Answer to my hon. Friend on 27th February, 1956, three schemes have now been completed and two are in hand.

Will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to speed up improvements of this kind, as very great improvements in traffic flow could result?

Yes, we think that an improvement can be made in some places. I am now pursuing inquiries into the five suggestions which I have recently had from my hon. Friend, and I will let him know the outcome shortly.

Will my hon. Friend consider taking one narrow main road into London, for example, King's Road from Putney Bridge to Chelsea, to see whether he cannot systematically widen the road by taking off unnecessarily wide pavements and see whether great improvements to traffic flow cannot be made on one road as an example of the sort of thing which might be done generally?

We are now considering where pavements are wider than is necessary for pedestrian flow and where such improvements can be made, and in due course they will be made.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, no matter how much he may narrow the pavements in London, there will still he too many cars on the roads?

We can make some improvements in this way.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why the new Gatwick by-pass is in part a dual carriage-way and in part a single carriage-way with three lines of traffic.

Because it will eventually be by-passed by the Brighton Radial Road, which will be a motorway. The present by-pass is intended to provide extra facilities only for the airport.

That may well be, but is it not ridiculous that when a new road is being built some parts of it should be dual carriageway, some parts single carriageway—two lanes on one and three on the other? When a new road is being built, it should be dual carriageway from beginning to end. Is the Minister aware that there is no question of lacking space for building a big road, but that there is plenty of room on both sides of the road?

There are two other points. One is that the radial road, when built, will lie alongside the present road and, if the present road were all dual carriageway, there would then be two roads each with dual carriageways. Parts of the present road are dual carriageway, firstly, to facilitate entry into the cloverleaf junction within the airport and, secondly, because there were dangerous curves and my engineers did not want to miss the chance of dealing with them.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will arrange for notices to be displayed at each end of all traffic diversions caused by road works, showing the date on which normal working will be resumed.

The date when a temporary diversion ceases to be necessary depends on the progress of the work, which in turn is dependent on weather and other factors and cannot, therefore, be accurately forecast. I fear that for this reason my hon. Friend's suggestion would be extremely difficult to implement.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that, if the date could not be accurately forecast, it could be approximately forecast? Is he aware that there has been a very long diversion in West End Lane, Hampstead, for most of the summer, and would it not be most helpful to motorists to know the dates so as to be able to avoid it for a certain time?

I will try to meet my hon. Friend's point by speeding up the work where we can, but it would not be helpful to predict a date when there are so many uncertainties.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make a statement about the proposed new trunk road for Kent.

I hope to advertise early next month a draft scheme under the Special Roads Act, 1949, showing the proposed line for the Medway towns bypass. This new motorway, about 25 miles long, will provide a greatly improved route between London and Dover as well as North Kent.

Does the Minister not agree that all the arguments which can be adduced show that the Medway bypass should have priority, and will he give an assurance that that will be the case?

I can give the assurance that it is one of the five main projects to which I attach great importance, and those five main projects will now be carried out as soon as physically possible.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will reconsider his decision, as expressed in his letter of 2nd August, 1957, to the Secretary, Urban District Councils Association, to raise the population limit from 20,000 to 30,000 for urban district councils and non-county boroughs, who can at present claim the right to maintain classified roads.

The question of highways functions as a part of local government reorganisation is still under consideration, and I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's legislative proposals.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind when these proposals come up for discussion that many local authorities are extremely worried at the possibility of a change in this figure and see no reason why the present state of affairs should be changed and think it may well lead, if claiming rights are refused, to increases in costs and less efficiency in road maintenance?

Yes, I will see that that is carefully considered.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how the amount of work done on the roads in 1938 compares with that being done in 1957.

There is no ready yardstick to provide an exact comparison of "work done."

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the position in view of the fact that the Road Research Board says that the present programme is not keeping pace with the increased traffic?

I am quite satisfied that I have a fair share for the roads in the country's capital investment programme.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now state when the Marble Arch—Park Lane—Hyde Park Corner scheme is to begin and when it will be completed.

No date for constructional work to start can be given until the necessary legislation has been passed.

Has the Minister no idea when that will be?

It is customary not to anticipate the Queen's Speech.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the sort of answer we have had for many years? Can he give an indication when he hopes to get legislation through, the date when it will be started, and by when it will be finished?

No, Sir, certainly not. It is not customary in the House to anticipate the programme for a new Session.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the recent changes in the financial situation, it will be necessary to make any modifications in the immediate programme for road improvement in Great Britain; and which particular schemes or projects are to be given a lower priority.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made yesterday in the debate on the economic situation by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when approval will be given for a grant for the improvement of the west side of Pooles Lane in the urban district of Willenhall.

I regret that this may not be possible for some time.

Is the Minister aware that the road is in an absolutely shocking condition? Is he aware that the Staffordshire County Council has approved its part of the grant and it is only the parsimonious approach of his own Ministry to the scheme that is holding up this very urgent improvement?

I quite accept that this, like many other schemes, is desirable, but this is a Class 3 road and the amount of traffic it carries simply does not warrant its having the priority which the hon. Member would like.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress is being made with the widening of Rainham Road, Dagenham, from Dagenham East Station to the junction with Ballards Road.

We expect to authorise the scheme within the next week or so.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware of the condition of the temporary bridge at Fullbridge, Maldon; and when work will commence on the new bridge in order that the difficult and dangerous diversion can be done away with.

Essex County Council has applied to us for a grant towards this scheme, but I am unable to say when we can authorise it.

Will my hon. Friend please look at this matter again? Is he aware that it is only the skill of bus and lorry drivers who use the bridge that prevents very many nasty accidents, and that the condition of the bridge is a great inconvenience and danger to people living in the borough?

I know that it is a bad spot, but I am afraid that it still will have to wait its turn.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make a statement about the stranding of the Aberdeen trawler "Carency" on 29th June last, north of Wick Harbour; and if he will state the time, place, and other details of the formal investigation he has ordered.

Yes, Sir. The trawler "Carency" left Aberdeen shortly after noon on 28th June, 1957, for the West Coast fishing grounds. The ship stranded in fog off Greenigoe, about one mile north of Wick, at about ten minutes past midnight on 29th June. Later that day the Wick Lifeboat and the trawler "Gilmar" made unsuccessful attempts to tow "Carency" off the rocks and, as there was by that time a danger of the ship capsizing, the crew were taken off in the lifeboat. At about 5 p.m. the ship heeled over and subsequently became a total loss.

As already announced, the formal investigation into the casualty will be held by a sheriff's court in the Sheriff's Court Buildings, Aberdeen, beginning at 10.30 a.m. on Monday, 18th November.

I thank the Minister for that Answer. Can he say whether reference to that inquiry will provide a means of assessing compensation for those who were injured or who suffered loss in this unfortunate occurrence?

It is, of course, the duty of the court to make a full report on the casualties, and no doubt that is a matter which it will take into account.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make a statement about the stranding of the Aberdeen trawler "Girdleness" on 4th July last, near Cantick Head, Orkney Islands; and if he will state the time, place, and other details of the formal investigation he has ordered.

Yes, Sir. The trawler "Girdleness" left Aberdeen at noon on 3rd July, 1957, for the fishing grounds north of latitude 61°N. The ship stranded in fog near Cantick Head, Hoy Island, Orkneys, at about 4 a.m. on 4th July; she refloated under her own power on 7th July with the crew still on board.

As already announced, the formal investigation into the casualty will be held by a sheriff's court in the Sheriff's Court Buildings, Aberdeen, beginning at 10.30 a.m. on Monday, 16th December.

Is the Minister in a position to say whether this and the ship to which the preceding Question referred carried the latest type of life-saving apparatus, and, if so, what type?

I am not in a position to say that without notice, but it is the function of the court to make a full report, and I cannot anticipate that. I have not got that information at my disposal.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will consider making some form of radar reflector a compulsory and standard piece of equipment for all life-saving appliances used at sea.

My right hon. Friend does not at present propose to make equipment of this kind compulsory, but he will certainly keep under review the desirability of doing so.

asked the Prime Minister if he will authorise the issue of an appropriate clasp on the 1939–45 Star recognising the Dunkirk action.

I have been asked to reply.

No, Sir. Although the normal time qualification for the 1939–45 Star was six months, this was waived in favour of men who took part in the operations in France and Belgium between the 10th of May and the 19th of June, 1940.

May I ask my right hon. Friend to convey to the Prime Minister the sense of disappointment that his answer will bring to many people?

I will certainly convey my hon. Friend's sentiments, but I would remind him that a previous Prime Minister, Lord Attlee, felt constrained to reply in a similar sense to the question as long as eleven years ago. This matter has been very carefully considered from time to time, and I do not think that my hon. Friend will be able to alter his mind.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the formations which took part in that campaign took the full force of the first attack during the war and that many of those who took part were volunteers? Is he aware that they feel that less than justice has been done? They have no appropriate recognition compared with others who later spent a short time in the back areas or in the N.A.A.F.I. but qualified equally.

If there had been special recognition in respect of Dunkirk, for example, it would have been difficult not to recognise other operations which, although they may not have the same emotional or historical significance, were in themselves very important, and some of them, such as the campaigns in Dieppe and Norway, were themselves already included in the conferment of the Star.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the future of conscription, with reference to the current level of recruiting to the Regular forces.

asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the continued decline in Regular recruiting as disclosed by the latest published figures, he will give an estimate of the effect this is likely to have on Her Majesty's Government's timetable for the ending of National Service; and what steps they propose to take to arrest the fall.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement giving details of the present position with regard to recruitment for the Armed Forces; what are the prospects for the immediate future in this respect; and if he will give consideration to an all-party investigation into the problem or give details about any other line of action that has been decided upon to deal with the situation and the ending of conscription.

I have been asked to reply.

Returns of Regular recruiting for July and August have been placed in the Vote Office. The return for September will be available shortly. The Government's policy with regard to National Service remains as stated in Command Paper 124. My right hon. Friend proposes to make a full statement about recruiting early in the new Session.

While regretting the absence of the Minister of Defence and hoping that he will be soon fit again, may I ask whether it is not now absolutely clear that the assumption on which the Government promised to end conscription is not being fulfilled because of the decline in recruitment and, therefore, either the assumption will have to be changed or the programme will have to be changed? May we not, therefore, know immediately what the Government intend to do about it?

I cannot accept the hon. Member's assumption for one second. There has been, of course, an appreciable falling off in recruitment, but it would be quite unwise to make any of the conclusions that the hon. Member has made until my right hon. Friend makes his statement on recruiting early next Session.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is some feeling that there is too much complacency by the Government on this important matter? Without giving any secrets away, can he not at this stage answer that part of the Question which asks if the Government will give consideration to an all-party investigation? Can he say whether that has been considered or not, and if not, is there not something else being done in view of the very unsatisfactory position?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that neither I nor my right hon. Friend have any complacency in this matter. Quite clearly, my right hon. Friend's statement on recruiting will show that various points raised both in the House and outside, such as the Question put down by the hon. Gentleman, have been considered. Beyond that I cannot say anything, except to assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no complacency on the part of the Government in this matter.

Will the Secretary of State convey to the Minister of Defence that this is exactly what now begins to be apparent to everybody but himself? So far, every month he and his colleagues are denying what is obvious. May I ask him whether the latest figures do not show that the Government are not within streets of reaching the figures on recruiting that are essential if conscription is to end by the date they have given? Is he not aware that, unless something drastic is done urgently, the Government will have to announce to the House that their programme has changed? Will he, at any rate, be less complacent when speaking to the Minister of Defence than when he makes his statements when talking to us?

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I am complacent. I have just told the hon. Gentleman that I am anything but complacent, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend shares the same view as myself on this matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that, even if the figures are not satisfactory and remain unsatisfactory, the one thing we do not want on this side of the House is a resumption of National Service after 1960?

On that question, Her Majesty's Government's policy has, as I said in answer to the Question, been laid down clearly in Cmd. 124.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he is aware of the heavy cost to the nation arising from the incidence of tuberculosis in the Armed Forces; and what steps he has taken, or will take, to institute mass miniature radiography of chests of recruits and B.C.G. vaccination where necessary.

I have been asked to reply.

The Services have been making use of mass miniature radiography for at least the last ten years. Service men are examined both on entry and periodically during their service. B.C.G. vaccination is available, in appropriate cases, to anyone who has been in contact with tuberculosis. As a result of these measures, the incidence of tuberculosis continues to show a steady fall.

Is it not necessary to take very special care in such cases, because the conditions in barracks are such as to favour the spread of tuberculosis to those not already infected if there is even a single individual suffering from the disease in an active and infectious form?

The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that every care should be taken about this dangerous disease, but I will send him figures which show that there has been a steady decline during the last four years.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement on the recent talks with the South African Minister of Defence, and the arrangements being made for a conference to integrate and develop the joint planning already undertaken.

I have been asked to reply.

As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

May I ask the Minister at this stage if it is proposed to allow the Union of South Africa to establish defence bases in the High Commission Protectorates?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should read the rather long reply and then, if he likes to put down another Question next week, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be delighted to answer it.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will take steps to amalgamate the Army chaplains and Royal Air Force chaplains into one branch of the Services.

I have been asked to reply.

There is already a great deal of mutual assistance between chaplains of the three Services; and it is not clear that any saving would be obtained by amalgamation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is mistaken in the statement? Cases frequently occur when an Army chaplain travels to take a service for the Army to a place where there is already a R.A.F. chaplain who, in turn, travels to take a service for the R.A.F. at a place where there is already an Army chaplain. Does it much matter what colour trousers are worn under a surplice?

If my hon. Friend could give either my right hon. Friend or myself details of those instances, I should be delighted to look into them.

Is it not a fact that those details have already been given in this House in the Estimates this year, and how can it be that the Secretary of State does not know about them?

It is all very well the hon. Gentleman getting excited. Those questions have been looked after, but I assume that my hon. Friend will be producing new examples, though I can only assume that.