asked the Secretary of State for Air if the intermediate-range ballistic missiles now being installed, and about to be installed, in Great Britain can be recalled or blown-up in mid-air if discovered to have been launched in error.

Procedures for handling and control of these missiles are such as to ensure that they cannot be launched in error.

But is it not a fact that if they were launched in error there would be only fifteen minutes in which to discover the error—a far shorter time than was available when American bombers, launched in error against the East, were recalled over the Pole? Will the Minister consider the Labour Party proposal that no further steps should be taken to build these bases until a fresh attempt has been made to negotiate with Russia at top level?

No, Sir. I have already assured the House that handling procedures are such that these missiles cannot be launched in error. Therefore the question does not arise.

Will the Minister explain how he can be so sure that these missiles would not be launched in error? Unless he is saying that no missile will be launched until after we have been hit, how can he guarantee that a case would never occur when we would launch a missile and, on second thoughts, prefer that it had not been so launched?

The arrangements agreed between the Government of the United States and Her Majesty's Government ensure that a missile can be launched only on a joint decision of the Prime Minister and the President, and this would be done only if the facts were indisputably clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Air who has the final decision over launching the missiles now being installed in Great Britain.

As stated in the White Paper published last February—Cmnd. 366—the decision to launch these missiles would be a matter for joint decision by Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government.

What does that really mean? Is not it obvious that Parliament could not be consulted? There would not be time even for the Cabinet to jump into their taxis. As Mr. Dulles has said, the decision would have to be taken by the military commander in the field, on the spot. In view of the recent public poll, which showed that a majority of people were against these bases in any case, will the Minister stop work on them?

No. What it means is that the decision to launch these missiles will be taken in exactly the same manner as we laid down in the arrangements for taking decisions under the Attlee-Truman agreement.

In view of the fact that the missiles which are sited here can act as an attraction to an attack upon us, will not the Minister consider giving a flat assurance that the final word will always be with the British Government, and not with somebody else?

These weapons are a joint deterrent between the British and the Americans, and the decision to launch them would be a joint one.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if, in view of the orders issued by the United States Government banning the carriage of nuclear bombs by aircraft flying over United States territory, he will now issue orders to stop the carriage of nuclear bombs by aircraft flying over the United Kingdom.

I understand that the United States Government have issued no orders of this kind.

Is not the Secretary of State aware that the American delegation at the conference on surprise attack at Geneva declared that the United States military authorities had now prohibited the carriage of nuclear bombs over American territory? Will he inform himself of this situation—which I can assure him is a fact—and ask himself why we should carry on with a dangerous and provocative practice when the Americans have stopped it?

I am assured by the Americans that no such orders have been issued.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if a decision has now been reached on the type of aircraft to be used as a successor to the Beverley.

asked the Secretary of State for Air when a decision will be made on the provision of a long distance freighter for the Royal Air Force.

asked the Minister of Defence what proposals he has for the provision of a long-range freighter aircraft for Royal Air Force Transport Command.

I will, with permission, answer together this Question, Question No. 11 and Question No. 93 addressed to the Minister of Defence, to which I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence will be making a statement on this question shortly.

Surely the Minister is aware that this procrastination in taking a decision upon a successor to the Beverley is causing grave concern throughout the aircraft industry, especially those members of it, such as Messrs. Short Brothers and Harland, who believe that they have the answer in regard to the successor to the Beverley? Surely the time has come to take a firm stand and come to a decision, and to honour those agreements which we believe are to be made, so that the aircraft industry may get on with the job and not be left waiting and wondering for months to come.

I have said that my right hon. Friend will be making a statement shortly. This is a matter which we have had to consider very carefully. They are very expensive aeroplanes, and we cannot afford to make a mistake.

What is causing the delay? Why cannot a decision be made at this stage? Is it a fact that unless a decision to taken soon, we shall be well into the 1960s before we have any aircraft that is capable of long-distance freight carriage?

I have already said that the decision will be made soon.

Mine is the third Question, No. 93, and I hope that it may remain on the Paper. I deferred it particularly because of the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.

Does the Minister recognise that this continued delay, besides having an effect upon the Fighting Services, is playing into the hands of the American aircraft manufacturers, who will have the aircraft ready at the time we want them?

We are bearing all these matters very much in mind.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that from the Army's point of view also, there is great urgency for this aircraft? It is not merely the question of the production of the aircraft It is badly needed for the Army.

This is one of the matters that we have had to consider carefully. We have been working closely with the War Office concerning it. It is no good having an aircraft that will not carry what the Army wants it to carry.

asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) what principles are followed in deciding the markings to be painted on aircraft about to be used in military operations;

(2) what principles the Armed Forces follow at the time of military operations when marking their operational equipment so as to distinguish it from those of other forces.

I will, with permission, answer together this Question and Question No. 94 addressed to the Minister of Defence to which I have been asked to reply.

So far as aircraft are concerned, certain markings such as R.A.F. roundels are always carried. Additional markings for a particular operation must be readily distinguishable from both ground and air; must be easy to apply; must not be good aiming marks; and must be different from other signs used for ground-to-air recognition.

If these principles are followed, how was it that at the time of the Suez operation the R.A.F. adopted markings which were already in use by Israeli aircraft in that operation? Was it just a coincidence?

These were markings adopted by the Royal Air Force without reference to anyone. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There was nothing new about that. Special markings were also adopted for the Normandy landings on D-day.

How was it that these special markings for this operation happened to be adopted by the Israelis before our aircraft took off? Were the Israelis not informed what our markings would be?

Not by us.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what consideration has been given to the design of the T.S.R.2; and whether it is to be supersonic with a vertical take-off and landing technique.

A large variety of suggestions for the type of aircraft which can meet our requirement were put forward by the industry and carefully considered by the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Supply. The aircraft will be supersonic. It will not be capable of vertical take-off and landing; but it will operate from short runways with semi-prepared surfaces.

Why did the right hon. Gentleman's Department cast to one side so easily the N.A.39? Would not the modified version of the N.A.39 have produced an aircraft for the Royal Air Force by 1961 and also have saved us between £30 and £40 million? Secondly, has the Air Ministry in mind the development of the T.S.R.2 as a supersonic manned bomber with short take-off run, as well as the encouragement of the development of the Swallow technique as a separate research aircraft?

In both these matters, it is important to have regard to the time scale. We wanted an aircraft which was more advanced and would do a slightly different task from the N.A.39 and we were prepared to wait for it. The Swallow, on the other hand, is an even further advanced design and that would have a much later time scale.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say, what he was unable to tell us last week, in what respects the T.S.R.2 will have an improved performance over the N.A.39?

There is, I believe, a later Question about that. The main features are a much shorter take-off and landing run and much better facilities for blind navigation over land.

Could not the modified version of the N.A.39 have precisely those two advantages? It could have been modified to take off in shorter distances, particularly as it is now being developed to take off from aircraft carriers. Secondly, would not it have most of the capabilities of the T.S.R.2?

A modified version of the N.A.39 would have had to be radically redesigned. It would have cost a great deal in research and development. We would not have got it any earlier, and it was, therefore, better to start again and have a brand new conception.

asked the Secretary of State for Air, in view of the decision in paragraph 61 of the 1957 Defence White Paper regarding the future of manned bombers, and particularly the suggested time lapse for one to be produced, when the development stage of the T.S.R.2 will be completed; and when he expects production to start.

Our intention is to have the aircraft in service in the mid 1960s. The development and production programme will be planned accordingly.

What precisely does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the "mid-1960s"? May I draw his attention to paragraph 61 of the 1957 Defence White Paper, which said:

"Having regard to the high performance and potentialities of the Vulcan and Victor medium bombers and the likely progress of ballistic rockets and missile defence, the Government have decided not to go on with the development of a supersonic manned bomber, which could not be brought into service in much under ten years."

The T.S.R.2 is supersonic. It is manned. We have already wasted two years, from 1957 to 1959, for a decision and it will take at least seven years for this type of aircraft to be produced. We have, therefore, lost ten years. What is the object of this exercise?

That paragraph in the Defence White Paper referred to a strategic supersonic bomber under Operational Requirement No. 330. That was the aircraft that was cancelled. Ten years would have been about right for that particular aircraft, but that does not mean that every aircraft takes that time toy build. The hon. Member asked what I meant by "mid-1960". I cannot be specific, but it means about 1964 or 1965.

Do we not have any aeroplanes at all?

asked the Secretary of State for Air what period of time elapsed between the acceptance of the T.S.R.2 and its original introduction as O.R.339.

The decision to develop the T.S.R.2 was made just over a year after the general operational requirement was first released for study by industry.

Do not this delay, and the fact that we are not likely to have this aircraft until 1965, show that there is a complete muddle between the Ministry of Defence, the Service Departments and the Ministry of Supply in bringing these plans to fruition?

It shows nothing of the sort. What it means is that first of all the industry had to be given an opportunity to study the requirements before it could tell us whether the aircraft that we needed was a practical proposition. Then we had to consider the matter in relation to the whole of our defence policy. As the aircraft will remain in service until the 1970s, it is important that we should reach the right decision.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance, so far as he can, that now that the order has been placed, the Ministry of Supply will not interfere with the progress of this aeroplane or bring in modifications which will delay it further?

I have always found my right hon. Friend extremely helpful in this matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also ensure that the firm or firms get on with the job so that we do not have the delays that we have had in recent years?

asked the Secretary of State for Air by what means it is intended to give the T.S.R.2 the ability to operate from small fields.

By a combination of high engine power, advanced wing design and a special undercarriage.

Is the Minister satisfied that this will, in fact, produce the performance which he is talking about by 1964 or 1965, which was the time to which he committed himself in an earlier reply, and which is only five years away? Is he aware that he have had no aeroplane in modern times—with much less advanced technique than this—which has been produced, from the actual specification to flying service, in anything like that time?

I have every confidence in the assurances given by the industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent the range of the T.S.R.2 is expected to exceed that of the latest Matador flying bomb.

The range of the T.S.R.2 will be substantially greater than the latest Matador derivative known as Mace.

asked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent Royal Air Force personnel are trained for the purpose of delivering bombs containing bacteriological weapons.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what training is being given for distribution by air of botulinus toxin and other bacteriological weapons.

No such training is given.

Is the Minister aware that the Ministry of Supply has a research department for manufacturing substances for spraying over enemy crops in war time and that this factory has been visited by the Daily Express scientific correspondent, who reports this in his paper? Will the Minister give an assurance that the Royal Air Force will have nothing to do with this dirty business?

I can only repeat that we are not giving such training.

Have discussions taken place at any time on this matter between the Ministries of Air and Supply? Secondly, in view of the widespread revulsion over this utterly inhuman business of germ warfare, whether used against human beings or enemy crops, will the Minister state that the Air Force will never undertake such an operation?

In reply to the first part of that supplementary question, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply dealt fully with this matter earlier in the week and said that the study was being made for purely defensive reasons. On the second point, subject to the proviso that they have reserved the right to retaliate in kind against any power which uses bateriological and chemical weapons, Her Majesty's Government are bound by the Geneva protocol of 1930 which forbids the use of such weapons.

I asked the Minister whether any such discussions had taken place. Will he give an answer?

asked the Secretary of State for Air how many times in the last year he has asked for scripts of broadcasts on the Forces Network to be submitted to him; how many scripts were rejected; and how many were amended.

The British Forces Network in Germany is run by the Army, but scripts or recordings about R.A.F. affairs are cleared with the R.A.F. Command headquarters. None from outside sources has been rejected in the last year. In the normal course of editing for transmission some have naturally been amended to shorten or lengthen the broadcast, to improve the wording, or even to remove obscene expressions.

Does the Minister still take power to himself to censor scripts which might be controversial, as happened recently? In view of the fact that Lady Tedder was enabled to broadcast yesterday without her script being vetted by the Minister, will he drop this procedure now, as it is completely useless?

I made it perfectly clear that there were rather special reasons for my action then. As the hon. Member knows, Lady Tedder did broadcast last night.

Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to modify the statement he made the other day, that he or the Army authorities would allow no broadcasts on this network which were critical of or contrary to the policy of the Government or the Army Council or the Air Council? Surely, after seeing the scripts, critical broadcasts should be allowed so that these opinions may be heard?

As I have said, this Forces Network is run by the Army, and there is a Question down to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War later this afternoon about the principles of censorship on this network.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the disquiet felt in the Royal Air Force at the present state of Coastal Command; and whether he will make a statement on its future.

Coastal Command, like other R.A.F. Commands, is smaller than it was, but its present state is one of high efficiency in regard to both equipment and training. The Command has demonstrated this with distinction in recent years not only in its primary maritime role but also in its transport and colonial policing activities.

I have every confidence that this high state of efficiency will be maintained in the future.

Will the Secretary of State comment on the allegation that the Air Council is treating this Command as a poor relation and is not giving it the resources which it needs, because it is about to be transferred to the Royal Navy?

We certainly have never treated it like a poor relation. I believe it is the best equipped maritime force in the world. As to the second pant of the supplementary question, I have seen certain speculation in the Press, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish me to comment on that.

asked the Secretary of State for Air which changes introduced after the Benson experiment have been dropped without announcement.

I am aware of none and certainly we have no intention of dropping any. But most of the changes made as the result of the Benson experiment necessarily left discretion to commanders, and I would expect some adjustments to have been made locally. I have asked the Inspector-General to discuss the whole question with Commanders-in-Chief and to let me have a report including, if possible, suggestions for further improvements.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that when a Report like the Grigg Report, which the Government have accepted, states that these improvements and reforms have been quietly dropped, it must cause a good deal of disquiet? Can he clear up the discrepancy between that categorical statement in the Grigg Report and what he tells us now?

As soon as I saw that statement I asked the Inspector-General to investigate it, but the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Grigg Report did not give specific details.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the trouble with the tail of the Victor bomber, reported last August, has now been cleared up and all restrictions removed from the flying of this aircraft.

Yes, Sir.

May we be assured that this very important weapon in our home defence forces is now satisfactory for the rÔle for which it was designed?

I can give that assurance.

While complimenting my right hon. Friend on the fact that the trouble with this aircraft has been cleared up, may I ask him whether he does agree that the trouble with the tail of the Labour Party is still chronic?

asked the Secretary of State for Air if he has now considered the Army's requirements for a heavy helicopter; and if he will make a statement.

The B.192 is being produced to meet the Army's requirement for a heavy helicopter.

Does that mean that the Army and the Air Ministry have decided against anything of the Rotodyne type and are going in entirely for the orthodox helicopter type of aircraft?

No Sir. It does not quite mean that. It means that we shall be getting the B.192 at the end of the year and the others, of course, come very much later.

asked the Secretary of State for Air how many officers of the rank of squadron leader and above are on the staff of the Ground Officers Selection Centre at Uxbridge; what are their ages; and for how long they have held their existing ranks, acting, temporary or substantive.

As the Answer is in the form of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

May we have an assurance that the officers at this centre, a very important place, are the very finest possible men for this job and that they have not been selected merely because they are of an age when they could not get anything else to do?

I appreciate the spirit behind the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I am quite satisfied that

asked the Secretary of State for Air what progress is being made with the plan to issue raincoats to air men.

We hope to begin issuing raincoats to Regular airmen towards the end of March.

Is not this symptomatic of the way in which the present Government do all these things? May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the airmen are to have these raincoats after the winter is over—or is supposed to be over? May we have an assurance that some, at any rate, will be issued before March?

We have had to place an order for about 100,000 raincoats, and 100,000 take quite a lot of making. We are hoping to get delivery of the first 20,000 at the end of March. I am sorry that it has worked out at the wrong end of the winter.

asked the Secretary of State for Air how many delivery flights per month are being made by United States Globemasters bringing

About forty, but the great majority of these flights do, of course, carry support equipment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although last week he denied that there were sixty of these missiles here, I have since been able to find a statement made as long ago as 21st November to the effect that there were to be sixty of these missiles here by the end of 1958 and that thirty Globe-master journeys per month were scheduled to bring the missiles and their supply equipment here? Does the right hon. Gentleman say that that information, as well as what I said last week, is wrong or does he know nothing about it at all?

I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman gets that statement which he said was made in November, Where does it come from?

The information that I am quoting is from an announcement made in the journal called the Aeroplane of 21st November, quoting United States statements—[Interruption.]Yes, but the Thors are coming from the United States. Last week the American general who was in command of them was apparently wrong. Is the Minister aware that the reports upon which he has cast doubt are coming from the manufacturers, from Douglas? If neither the commander nor the manufacturers know what they are talking about and the Minister knows nothing about anything, what are we to believe?

Let us get this quite straight. The only fault lies in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman consistently misquotes what people say. What the American, General Schriever, said was that the first squadron of missiles would be on their pads in February, and that is correct.

Would the right hon. Gentleman tell me what is the misquotation here?—

"United States reports state that 60 Thor I.R.B.M.s are to be delivered to Britain by the end of 1958. The missiles and their support equipment are being flown to Britain from Long Beach, California, in Douglas Globemasters. Thirty delivery flights a month are scheduled."

What is the misquotation there? If the right hon. Gentleman now says that there is not a misquotation, would he say what part of that statement is wrong?

The right hon. Gentleman asked for the facts and I have given him the facts. He can believe me or believe the Aeroplane, whichever he likes.

I have no doubt which I would believe.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is now the intention to retain Valetta and Hastings aircraft in Transport Command, in addition to the Beverleys, Britannias, Comets, and A.W.660's; and for how long.

As I explained last week, the A.W.660 is to be introduced to supplement the Beverleys and Hastings at present in service. Both the Beverley and the Hastings have still some years of useful life ahead of them. The Valetta has been withdrawn from service in Transport Command and Middle East Air Force, and is gradually being withdrawn from service elsewhere overseas.

Does not the Minister feel that the addition of yet one more aeroplane to this long list of those which Transport Command has to handle must increase enormously the costs, the difficulties of maintenance and the dumps of supplies that have to be held all over the place? Does not he think that it would make the job of Transport Command much easier if he could bring in some degree of concentration?

Of course, the introduction of a new type of aircraft always gives rise to problems, but that does not mean that they cannot be overcome. They present no reason for getting rid of aircraft which are still useful and economical, nor are they a reason for not taking more advanced types of aircraft when we can.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has now reconsidered Government policy in connection with Malcolm Clubs; and whether he will make a further statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a further statement about the future of the Malcolm Clubs.

In the course of the Adjournment Debate on 18th December, I said that if, in the near future, Malcolm Clubs paid their debt to the Air Ministry and showed that they had acquired adequate working capital, I would gladly consider the situation afresh.

We now understand that, given more time, Malcolm Clubs would hope to be able to raise funds to improve their financial position.

As stated in another place, the Government have therefore decided to take no steps towards the closing down of any of the clubs before the end of this year, in the hope that by then Malcolm Clubs will be able materially to improve their financial position.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman regard it as invidious that last Wednesday, in reply to a Question on this topic, he said that he could not alter his decision about the closing of the clubs—that is contained in the OFFICIAL REPORT—and yet, only a few hours afterwards, a Government spokesman in another place agreed to retain the clubs for another 12 months? Does that indicate any difference of opinion in the Government, and how does the right hon.

Gentleman feel about the action of his colleague in another place, in view of what he said last week?

It was during the course of the debate in another place that Lord Tedder said that if he had more time he would launch an appeal, and that he was hopeful of raising these funds. I had never been told that before. It was, therefore, only just that we should give them extra time.

When we consider the debate which we had in this House and what took place in another place, will not the Minister agree that all that information could have been gained in five minutes' conversation between the Air Minister and Lord Tedder himself? Does not he feel that he made the Air Ministry appear rather petty, heavy-handed, and obstinate in the way it has handled this matter, grateful as we are for the final decision?

Not in the least. It only goes to show that I am always open-minded and ready to change my mind if necessary. As regards the early part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, as I pointed out in the Adjournment debate, we did wait for six months between taking a decision and announcing that we were going to do anything about it, because we wanted to allow as much time as possible.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he was informed that his colleague in another place was about to make a statement contrary to the one he had made some hours before? Would not it have been more courteous and reasonable on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to admit that he was mistaken about this matter?

I heard Lord Tedder's speech from the Steps of the Throne. It was I who asked my noble friend Lord Dundee to make that statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what difficulties have been encountered in the transport and housing of the several hundred United States technicians sent to Great Britain to work on Thor missile sites; and if he will make a statement.

The men concerned are employees of contractors responsible to the Douglas Aircraft Corporation which is in turn under contract to the United States Government. The job calls on them to move from place to place and most of them are living in caravans. I understand that difficulties over accommodation and transport have been temporary and certainly they have not delayed the work.

asked the Secretary of State for Air why three civilian transport drivers were suspended without pay at Royal Air Force, St. Mawgan, during the period preceding their being found not guilty of theft.

I regret that my inquiries into this matter are not yet completed. I will write to the hon. and learned Gentleman as soon as possible.

I can, however, say that the suspension was terminated after three days and full pay restored.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the charges against these men were dismissed without the defence being called, and, where a man is under suspicion, is it the practice to suspend him without pay, as that seems to be a very objectionable practice which was adopted here?

The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that this was a late notice Question, received only the day before yesterday, and I really have not had time to get the full facts. I should, therefore, be grateful if he would let me write to him about this case.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in respect of how many schools in the County of London he has received applications for the imposition of waiting restrictions out side the schools; and in how many cases such application has been granted.

We have received applications in respect of twenty-eight schools in the County of London. Restrictions have been imposed in one case and will shortly be imposed in a second. Decisions have not yet been reached on the remaining twenty-six.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what decision has been made regarding the point of junction of transport through Slough with the new by-pass.

We have decided that the junction for Slough on the new by-pass should be at the Tuns Lane extension, as requested by the Borough Council.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on this occasion we can congratulate the Minister on his decision?

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will state, in detail, the nature of the work which is yet to be done to prepare the trunk road improvement scheme from London Road to Milehouse Lane, Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Orders affecting about thirty sideroads must be made before negotiations can be completed for purchasing the land necessary for the improvement scheme. The property required will include licensed premises, shops, dwelling-houses and a school and will involve problems of re-housing and relocation. Compulsory purchase orders may also be needed. Engineering plans and contract documents have to be prepared concurrently.

All this is agreed. Will the Minister say how many years ago this by-pass was planned and why his Department has been so dilatory in authorising the preparations for it? Also, in view of the nearly 6 per cent, unemployment in Newcastle-under-Lyme now, is not it urgent that this work should go forward immediately?

The work is going forward as fast as it can now. If the hon. Gentleman would like to have even greater details about the preparations needed, I shall be very happy to send them to him.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware of the substantial reduction in road accidents brought about as a result of control of vehicles' speeds by the introduction of a system of linked fixed-time traffic signals on a length of dangerous road at Slough; and whether he will encourage the adoption of such a system on other similar roads.

While there has been a welcome reduction in accidents, there has also been appreciable delay to traffic on this important trunk road. Investigation of the position is continuing to see whether modifications to the system can be made which might retain the increased safety but with less delay, for example by cutting out some of the signals at the less busy junctions.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the delay has been only 55 seconds on this length of road, according to the Road Research Laboratory, and that serious accidents have been reduced to one quarter of what they were before and, in fact, none of those serious accidents affected pedestrians?

That would not be a quite true picture of the reduction in accidents. I shall be happy to send the computation to my hon. Friend. The broad result of the work is that the Road Research Laboratory would like another year's observation here before it reaches any conclusions on it.

Will the Minister adopt the principle that the prevention of accidents is much more important than the saving of a very small amount of time in moving along the road?

Unfortunately, they are related together only too often; as a result of delays, frustration arises in the minds of drivers, and that itself leads to accidents. We have to try to reach a balance in these matters, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the prevention of accidents is always our concern.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware of the difficulty many people have in seeing when traffic lights change at some cross-roads where there is no "Cross-now" signal for pedestrians; and if he will install more of these.

Unless there is a "Cross-now" signal, pedestrians should, when crossing at a light-controlled intersection, take into account the movement of the traffic as well as the indication of the lights. The installation of "Cross-now" phases involves a delay to traffic and is, therefore, for crossings where pedestrians experience special difficulties.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that that really is not good enough from the pedestrians' point of view? There are doubtless many examples, but is he not aware that, if one takes some of the roads running into Piccadilly Circus, or where Wigmore Street runs into Portman Square, it is quite impossible, on looking across, to see when the lights change, and accidents occur? Will he look at the matter again?

The problem at each intersection has to be looked at on its merits. It is a matter of balance as to whether or not a "Cross-now" phase, a special pedestrian phase, should be introduced. If the hon. Lady will send me details of the particular crossings she would like me to consider, I should be very pleased to have them.

I have given the Minister particulars of two. Will he look at those?

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) whether he has yet concluded his negotiations for the purchase of the toll rights of Selby Toll Bridge; and if he will make a statement about his plans to construct a new bridge;

(2) whether his Department still intends to proceed with the pre-war proposal to construct an east-west by-pass road at Selby; and when work on this project will be commenced.

A scheme for rebuilding the existing toll bridge, which carries trunk roads A. 19 and A.63 over the River Ouse at Selby, was included in the road programme subject to the reaching of a satisfactory settlement of the toll question. It was at the same time envisaged that a by-pass would eventually be constructed.

Negotiations with the toll owners have shown that the probable cost of acquiring the tolls would greatly exceed the amount we feel this scheme justifies. Accordingly, we are not prepared to proceed with it.

We intend to include the scheme for a by-pass, which is a long-term improvement, in its due place in the order of priorities in the road programme, but I am unable at present to say when that will be.

Does my hon. Friend recall that the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for the Colonies gave a very specific undertaking that of all the existing toll bridges in the country Selby would be the first to be relieved of toll charges? Will he assure me that that pledge stands? Secondly, can he give no indication as to when work is likely to start on the by-pass?

I am afraid that I cannot do more today than say that we now intend to include it in our road programme. I cannot give a date. As regards the pledge to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, the answer is that we have given very careful consideration to the cost of buying out the toll and we feel that it would take too big a slice of our total Road Fund moneys to justify it.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how much it would cost? Are there no means of purchasing it, by compulsory purchase or otherwise? Why should it stand in the way of a road improvement?

We have not reached precise figures, but the indication that we have of the probable cost is that the amount involved would be more than we consider this particular scheme would justify—[HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"]—as a total sum in our road programme.

How can the Minister know that the amount would be too much if he does not know what the amount is? Could he tell us what the amount is?

I should like to see that question on the Order Paper, because I have not got a precise figure. We have made it our business to find out approximately what sum would be involved, and that sum, in our judgment, would take too big a slice of our total Road Fund moneys to justify it.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us who the owner is and whether he is trying to exploit the public?

No, I think not. It is a private company, I believe. We are satisfied that, in terms of the use, the kind of figure that we expect to be asked is about right.

Could my hon. Friend follow the procedure which was adopted in Cardiff, whereby the Penarth toll has been acquired by two local authorities, Glamorgan and Cardiff, those authorities recouping by levying a toll over two years and thereby repaying the capital cost? Cannot that be done by the Minister in this case?

I am afraid that that would not solve this particular problem.

Will the Minister please have another look at this? The House does not feel satisfied that he is moving with anything like urgency. As the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) has reminded us, he has been pressing the question about tolls for many years, but matters are allowed to go on and we seem to make no progress. The by-pass is a pre-war venture which is still being talked about. There is an element of great urgency here, and I should like the Minister to give an undertaking that he will arrive at a decision very quickly in this case.

The decision to build the by-pass is a valuable step forward, because, when it is built, it will to a considerable extent relieve the traffic now going over the toll bridge.

The Minister keeps referring to our Road Fund. Could he tell us how much money is in the Road Fund?

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps he is taking to assist local authorities to spend more money on the repair and maintenance of existing roads.

I hope to be able to give greater help to highway authorities for this kind of work in the coming year.

Will the Minister confirm that the total maintenance grants in the current year are less than they were last year? Has he seen the survey, in a booklet entitled "Stitch in Time" published by the British Road Federation, in which attention is directed to the serious situation resulting from lack of maintenance of the road network?

I do not disagree with what the hon. Member said about the current year and the past year. I said that I should be able to give greater help in the coming year.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many people were killed and injured in road accidents in 1958, compared with 1957.

Five thousand nine hundred and seventy persons were killed and 293,797 injured in road accidents in 1958 as compared with 5,550 killed and 268,308 injured in 1957.

In view of the serious figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary, may I ask whether he will ask the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents to undertake special campaigns this year to bring to the notice of the public the great danger now on the roads?

Can my hon. Friend say whether accidents have increased in proportion to the increase in the number of vehicles on the roads?

No, they have not. The answer to the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) is, yes. We have already discussed with the Royal Society its campaign for this year, and it is doing everything in its power to get over to the public the gravity of accidents and the necessity for all road users to show greater care when using the roads.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how many hundreds of people have been, or are likely to be, killed as a result of postponing for three-and-a-half years the provisions of the vehicle road testing Clauses in the 1956 Act?

I could not possibly estimate that figure, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are proceeding with that matter as fast as we can.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in what circumstances zebra crossings are sited across by-passes carrying fast-moving traffic; and if he will make a statement.

We are not, as a general rule, prepared to approve the installation of zebra crossings on roads carrying fast-moving traffic, where they may induce a dangerously false sense of security.

Is there not a good deal of evidence that some zebra crossings tend to defeat the objects for which the bypasses were first designed? Is not it a fact, as my hon. Friend has indicated, that the tendency of pedestrians to regard these crossings as absolutely safe is in itself a danger on such roads?

We do not normally site zebra crossings on unrestricted roads.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will take steps to ensure, in all cases, specially bright illumination at zebra crossings.

As a road safety measure, my Department is considering means of providing better illumination of pedestrians about to step on to crossings in poorly lit streets.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he will pay particular attention to the great differences which occur in different parts of the country both in the quality and quantity of the lighting?

Yes, certainly.

May I ask the Minister whether, in giving consideration to the question of better lighting on crossings, attention will be given to keeping clear the lower half of the amber bowl so that the light will go down on the crossing at the foot of the post?

What we are trying to do is to fit a small auxiliary light at the foot of the beacon so that it shines on the crossing, but that is only in the experimental stage.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make a statement on the progress and future of the road programme.

I do not intend to depart from my general policy of not announcing lists of schemes far in advance, but measured in terms of expenditure I can say that as compared with an average expenditure on major improvements and new construction over the past four years of £12·3 million, our expenditure this year is likely to be well over £40 million. The approved capital investment programme for next year includes expenditure of over £50 million, and for the year thereafter of over £60 million. It is the intention that thereafter the programme should be planned on a basis of not less than £60 million per annum.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that all right-minded people are proud of the zeal and enthusiasm with which he is tackling this problem, notwithstanding all that has happened in the recent past?

I think that the answer is that no one who knows anything about road building deludes himself that we shall be able to build a large number of roads without having any difficulties. I have indicated in my Answer that the Government intend to press on with the programme, despite difficulties.

Can the Minister tell us to what extent there is to be an increase in work to be done? Does he consider it fair to take an average over the last four years in view of the fact that the programme has been accelerated over the last four years? It would be of interest to the House to know to what extent more money is to be spent and more work done over the next few years.

It the hon. Gentleman studies the Answer, I think he will see that it says that clearly that will happen.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is satisfied that the procedure for the ascent and descent of jet aeroplanes from and to London Airport safeguard nearby residents from undue noise and vibration: and if he will make a statement.

The procedures described to the House by my right hon. Friend on 5th November, were designed to achieve the aim set out in the Question. We are watching the situation carefully, in collaboration with the air lines concerned, but reports on operations so far indicate that more experience is required before the effectiveness of these procedures can be fairly judged.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was hoped that residents in the nearby areas would become conditioned to the noise and vibration, but that only this last week, from Colnbrook and Langley, over which places these planes immediately rise, I have had letters saying that children are still terrified and that adults and old people are left in nervous prostration for some minutes after the aeroplanes have passed? Is he aware that unless he makes some change, he will have to declare a curfew during the period of the planes passing, and would not that be intolerable?

I hesitate to comment on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but we realise that there is an awful problem here. I feel that we need a little more time in which to judge the effectiveness of the procedures which have already been put into operation.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have had no answer to a letter sent to his Department some little time ago, in which it was stated that aircraft taking off to the west, jet and others, deviated to starboard, and that this brings them directly over Longford village, causing increased annoyance to residents in that village? Is that the case, and is it necessary?

I should have to have notice of that point, but I think I recollect signing a letter to the hon. Gentleman yesterday.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what civil airports in the United Kingdom were closed, and for how many days in each case, since 1st November, 1958, to the nearest convenient date.

I will, with permission, circulate information in the OFFICIAL REPORT about civil airports where weather conditions prevented operations for a period of 24 hours or more during the period 1st November, 1958. to 20th January, 1959.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that during this winter the closures have been exceptional, owing to fog? Can he say whether any estimate has been formed of the losses which have befallen operating corporations as a result of fog disruption? May I also ask whether we have given up hope of achieving an effective method of fog dispersal?

I think that all hon. Members who have travelled by air know how annoying fog delays can be. Without notice, I have not any estimate of the cost to the corporations or independent operators.

Can the hon. Gentleman get an estimate?

If the hon. Member cares to table a Question, I will look into the matter. In answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) has tabled a Question about F.I.D.O., the Answer to which will, I think, clear up the hon. Member's doubts.