asked the Secretary of State for Air why Messrs. Wilco Grass Products were notified only in January of this year that their licence in respect of Weston Zoyland Airfield, which was due for renewal in March, would not be renewed; if he is aware that as a result this company expended, quite unnecessarily, substantial sums of money on maintenance and replacement of plant; and if he will make a statement.

We told this firm on 7th January that its seasonal grass-drying contract would not be renewed. This was because we saw no need at that time to keep the airfield ready for flying use. There is now, however, a chance that we may need this airfield again for flying. We propose, therefore, to renew the grass-drying contract with this firm until 1st October this year. By that date we hope to have decided whether or not we need to keep this airfield.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that Answer will give a very great deal of satisfaction to these people, who were given very short notice of the termination of their agreement? Will he also bear in mind that firms such as this, with a considerable investment in plant and machinery, need some assurance as to the future? Could he say something about the other two airfields in which these people are interested?

We shall be renewing the other two contracts for 1960. I cannot give any undertaking beyond that.

Although this decision will give satisfaction to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), does my right hon. Friend realise how much disquiet will be caused to a number of my constituents who owned the land for a number of years and have been deprived of it but were confident in the hope that they would have it back to farm as they used to?

I realise that there will be some disappointment among farmers who were hoping that this land would be returned to full agricultural use, but I think they would be much more disappointed if we returned the land to agricultural use and then had to change our minds later. In any case, it is rather late in the season for them to start ploughing, but as soon as we can make a firm decision, which I hope will be by the end of the summer, we shall dispose of the airfield if we no longer need it.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what complaints he has received of unnecessary noise caused by aircraft at the Royal Air Force Station at West Mailing.

There have been a number of letters from people living near the airfield. The squadron's essential training programme is bound to cause some disturbance; but we do all we can to keep this to a minimum.

Will the Secretary of State impress on his hon. Friend—who is reported to have said that unnecessary noise was caused there by incompetent flying—that unsubstantiated remarks like that are very much resented in the Royal Air Force?

I quite agree. The pilots of this squadron are highly skilled and experienced. I recognise that there is a real problem of disturbance at the moment; but matters are not helped by allegations of that kind.

asked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent military personnel from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries, training at bases in this country, are and will be directly under control of the Royal Air Force; and to what extent they will be directly under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation command.

Military personnel of N.A.T.O. countries come under R.A.F. supervision while training at R.A.F. establishments, but otherwise remain subject to the discipline of their national forces.

Apart from personnel of the Strategic Air Command in this country, does this mean that all other American forces who might be in this country are neither under R.A.F. nor under N.A.T.O. but also will be under some other independent American control?

American forces are covered by the Visiting Forces Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the German Air Force personnel being trained in this country receive training in the use of nuclear weapons; and whether they engage in training flights in aircraft carrying such weapons.

No, Sir.

Will the Minister bear in mind that, in view of the very widespread objections that were taken in this country to the practice, even by our own Air Force and the American Air Force in Britain, of carrying nuclear weapons over this country, it would be regarded as highly obnoxious if Luftwaffe personnel were to engage in flights of this kind or in this training with nuclear weapons over a country which was so very recently the target of German bombing forces?

There is no question of that arising.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what arrangements regarding landing, refuelling, and other facilities have been made to enable the West German Air Force to carry out practice flights from or over the territory of the United Kingdom.

The arrangements are similar to those for the air forces of other N.A.T.O. countries.

Does this mean that, in fact, the Government have made arrangements for the Luftwaffe to fly over this country in practice flights, and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman say so definitely? If they have not, will he give an assurance that they will not do so, because the whole idea is totally abhorrent to the people of this country?

Certainly not. In common with other members of N.A.T.O., facilities have been provided from time to time for the German Air Force to come to several Royal Air Force airfields, also to stations used by the United States Air Force, and to some civil airfields, too.

Is this going to increase in future, as the Luftwaffe grows with several hundred Star fighters which have been ordered from the United States, and with the lack of air space, of which they complain? Does it mean that we are to have regular Luftwaffe flights over this country, and if so, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there will be very strong opposition to this?

These are normal staging facilities at Royal Air Force airfields which we offer to our N.A.T.O. allies. In this particular case, the German Air Attache seeks agreement from the Air Ministry in advance, giving the details of each proposed flight, including the facilities needed if the aircraft is to land.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some of us on this side of the House feel much the same as hon. Gentlemen opposite, but, at this stage, the only way of controlling the German Air Force is to work with it and exercise a measure of control by co-operation through N.A.T.O.?

Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not he proposes to bring German forces, like the American forces, under the Visiting Forces Act?

No. The flights to which I have referred are individual flights. There has been no visit of a formed operational unit.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that when German military aircraft come here, they come here as aircraft under N.A.T.O. command?

Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for Air why the Chalgrove Airfield has been sold to the present occupiers, Martin Baker Aircraft Company, Limited, and not offered back to the previous land owners.

Chalgrove airfield is surplus to R.A.F. needs. The Government consider, however, that it is essential to the very important work carried out by Martin Baker, Ltd., and have therefore decided to sell it to the company.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this seems to be contrary to the principles laid down in this House which Sir Thomas Dugdale, then Minister, adumbrated as a result of the Crichel Down affair? Is he also aware that out of the six previous owners of 700 acres, four of them wish to regain their land, and two of them previously farmed 500 acres? Will he look into this matter again?

The two cases are quite different. The Crichel Down case involved the transfer of land from a Department with compulsory powers to another Department which did not exercise such powers for the purpose of State management of land. That was the issue there.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg leave to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Air why coloured airmen are not admitted to the Nyali Centre in Kenya, to which other airmen serving in Aden are sent on leave.

asked the Secretary of State for Air why coloured airmen serving in Aden are not allowed to go to the Nyali leave centre in Kenya; why the Royal Air Force has accepted this discrimination; what attempts have been made to find other places, with equally good facilities, at which both white and coloured airmen can spend their leaves; and what rent is paid for the use of this centre.

Because of the terms under which the property is leased to the War Office, coloured airmen cannot use the Nyali Leave Centre. I understand that the annual rent is £1,600.

This is a scandal and an outrage. Will the right hon. Gentleman make the strongest possible representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to end this really intolerable state of affairs? Will he agree that it is quite monstrous that certain Service men, who are rendering just as loyal service as their fellow Service men, should be victimised in this most unpleasant way?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no colour bar of any sort whatever in the Royal Air Force. I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, and see what we can do to put this matter right.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that by accepting this discriminatory clause, he is in fact operating a colour bar in the Royal Air Force? Now that Questions have been put down and asked, the right hon. Gentleman has kindly said that he will consult his right hon. Friend. May I ask him what was done before by the Air Ministry and the War Office to try to get this clause removed from the lease?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the lease is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the War Office. So far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, to the best of my information this problem has only just arisen.

Who was the leaseholder who insisted on putting this clause in? [Interruption.] Surely, Mr. Speaker, I am entitled to ask this, since it must be within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman? Who was the leaseholder who insisted on putting this colour bar in the lease?

There is another Question to my right hon. Friend later on the Order Paper relating to that, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to await it.

Will the Secretary of State consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and ask him to answer Question 68, if it is not reached, because that Question deals with that very matter?

If it is not reached, a Written Answer will be given.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what changes in the plans for the organisation, administra- tion and manning of the Royal Air Force bases in Cyprus have resulted from the delay in reaching agreement in the present negotiations.

There have been minor effects on the rate of rundown we had planned.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in order to reduce the risk of road accidents, he will introduce legislation to require licensed premises to have available at all times food, such as biscuits, which can be readily taken with alcoholic drinks.

Any such legislation would be for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to introduce, but I do not propose to ask him to do so.

Is the Minister aware that he said that he was very favourable to the idea? If the Minister himself would use his invaluable influence, I have no doubt that it would have a great effect?

I think my hon. Friend has greater faith in my ability than I have, but, as a matter of fact, we must distinguish between the availability of food and the consumption of food. When I look at some public houses on the roads, I see food which has remained there for a very long time, while the alcohol is consumed fairly quickly.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will list those classes of matters affecting the administration of the nationalised industries within his general sphere of responsibility upon which he is now prepared to answer Questions, despite previous refusals to answer on the ground that they were matters of day-to-day administration by the industry concerned.

No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House stated on 25th February, 1960, there can be no hard-and-fast formula by which these matters could be identified.

Does not the Minister think that, after the statement by 'the Leader of the House, there is now some confusion? Under the custom of the House, the Table is unable to accept Questions on matters to which a Minister has previously refused to reply. Unless the Minister will now indicate those further matters to which he is willing to reply, it is impossible to put down Questions to him.

As Chatham once said, "I am responsible for nothing but what I control". It is very difficult for a Minister of Transport to be asked questions about why a particular train was late from X to Y, or sometimes even why toilet paper was not there—a question which is often asked. Those are questions of day-to-day management and are not really the responsibility of the Minister.

The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Leader of the House made a statement about this which was intended to ease the situation. Does the Minister realise that, unless a move is made by him and others with similar responsibilities which can be noticed at the Table, there will be no improvement?

I have my right hon. Friend's statement here. He said that there was no very great scope for extension. He said that Ministers can answer Questions only on matters for which they have a recognised responsibility. He went on to say:

"… they may from time to time be concerned with other questions of broad policy affecting the industries."—{OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1960; Vol. 618, c. 577.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the difficulty that he refers to about the Minister answering about trains being late, and so on, was not found insuperable when the Minister of War Transport had to answer Questions of precisely that kind?

That was a good many years ago, and the railways were not nationalised then.

I was the Minister who had to answer those Questions. May I ask the Minister if he remembers that the railways were then under full national control and that I found it a great advantage to answer as many Questions as possible?

That is precisely the point. They were under full national control then, and now with nationalisation they are not under full national control.

Is the Minister aware that it will not—[Interruption.]

Order. It is impossible to make any progress with trains or Questions or anything else if hon. Members will shout.

Is the Minister aware that under his powers to give general directions he can, if he desires to, control any part of the policy? Is he aware that if he answers Questions about things that go wrong with the nationalised industries, as I did very frequently when Minister of Fuel and Power— [Interruption.]—he will find it of great advantage to all concerned if he gives the House the full facts; and that that is one of the great advantages of nationalisation as compared with private enterprise?

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman considers that to be one of the advantages of nationalisation, but I do not think that the Minister can give broad directives as to whether a train shall be delayed, or clean, or that sort of thing. Quite honestly, I think that I should answer only Questions about matters for which I am responsible, and that I should not be responsible for things that I do not control.

asked the Minister of Transport when the compulsory inspection of motor vehicles will start operating.

I am grateful for this opportunity to explain to the House the difficulty preventing the early introduction of the compulsory vehicle testing scheme, and I would apologise to the House for the length of the Answer.

In view of the importance of this matter, why did not the right hon. Gentleman discover this legal snag before? Are not the Government open to the most severe censure for holding up for four years since they have had power this vehicle inspection scheme before discovering various snags and difficulties? Is the Minister aware that it is generally agreed that this scheme is likely to save 10 per cent. of the accidents—that is to say, 600 lives and 6,000 serious casualties a year? Can he say what is the use of expressing concern about road accidents if the Government refuse to take the action or to dither in taking the action which is open to them of bringing into operation this scheme which, the Government themselves agree, would have a significant effect on these appalling figures?

It would have a significant effect but I do not think it would have the effect that the right hon. Gentleman assumes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—according to the Road Research Laboratory. When I wanted to bring this scheme in, it was found that legally it was faulty and I set about putting it right as quickly as I could.

asked the Minister of Transport how much time, on average, he estimates the applicants for driving tests, who would under the previous arrangements be tested at Turriff, will require to expend travelling to and from Aberdeen to be tested there; and how much time, on average, he estimates that his examiners will save by not having to travel to and from Turriff.

The sample analysis shows that the average additional distance travelled to an alternative centre by certain applicants who would, under existing arrangements, be tested at Turriff would be about 8½ miles; this represents a normal travelling time by car of about twenty minutes. The time at present spent by examiners in travelling to and from Turriff is about one-and-a-half hours, which represents the loss of two driving tests on each occasion.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a matter of considerable concern in the area not only on the part of those who will be seriously inconvenienced by the alternative arrangements that they may have to make, but also because it is symptomatic of the general gradual dehumanisation of these distant country areas for the benefit of centralised administration?

I will certainly bear in mind those points in considering this matter. One must take into account that we are short of testers but we are not short of applicants, and there has to be some kind of proportion kept between the demands on the time of our examiners and the time of the public generally.

asked the Minister of Transport how much time, on average, he estimates that applicants for driving tests, who would under the previous arrangements be tested at Inverurie, will require to expend travelling to and from Aberdeen to be tested there; and how much time, on average, he estimates that his examiners will save by not having to travel to and from Inverurie.

A sample analysis shows that the average additional distance travelled to an alternative centre by certain applicants who would under existing arrangements be tested at Inverurie would be about eight miles; this might represent a normal travelling time by car of about twenty minutes. The time at present spent by examiners in travelling to and from Inverurie is about one-and-a-half hours, which represents the loss of two driving tests on each occasion.

Does my hon. Friend realise that in many cases a person undergoing a test has got to travel by rural bus and may on occasion have to spend a whole day in getting to and from Aberdeen to submit for the test? In many cases this amounts to nearly six and a half hours. Does my hon. Friend consider that inconvenience of citizens to this extent for the purpose apparently of effecting a small saving for his examiners is justified?

I am afraid that the answer is very similar to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. WolrigeGordon). These are difficult matters. I am looking into this question very thoroughly and I will communicate with both my hon. Friends as soon as I can.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall attempt to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Transport what further meetings have been held since the first meeting of 17th January, 1960, of Che various organisations concerned to discuss the traffic jams caused by the raising of the Tower Bridge for shipping; and what further progress has been made in dealing with the situation.

Circumstances have not warranted any further general conference since 19th January. I am pur- suing certain points which were raised at that meeting and those about which the hon. Member wrote to me recently.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fantastic state of affairs whereby any small ship, by flying a signal, can have the bridge opened? Is he further aware that even tiny tugs going into the Pool do this, and that the old-fashioned custom is even abused by small ships that are known to have requested the bridge to be opened, and have then waited in the Pool of London until the level of the water lowered, and then proceeded under other bridges by pulling down masts and funnels which they did not pull down for Tower Bridge? Is he also aware that some of these hold-ups extend from the Elephant and Castle in the south to Bishopsgate in the north, and is it not about time that something was done?

The hon. Gentleman has been most helpful, and, on the understanding that it does not harm him politically in any way, I should like to express my admiration for the thorough way in which he has looked at this problem. I wrote to him today. I have got his letter and all the details, and I can assure him that I will go into them all. I may add that the Port of London Authority has fitted its own yacht with a telescopic mast, and it will be operating this year, and will reduce the number of openings of the bridge which that yacht will require by about two-thirds. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the points he raised ought to be gone into, and that they will be gone into.

asked the Minister of Transport when he decided to have fresh surveys made of alternative routes of the Motorway north from Lancaster to Penrith; and what previous surveys have been made at the request of his Department.

It was decided early in 1959, to appoint consulting engineers to undertake the fresh surveys. Previous surveys which were carried out by the Department between 1945 and 1949, covered routes following the Lune Valley, the Scotch Road, the present A.6 trunk road, and the railway between Kirkby Lonsdale and Sedbergh.

As the Ministry informed the people in the North over a year ago that it was intended to go ahead with the Lune Road and as fresh surveys are now being undertaken, does not the hon. Gentleman realise that it is very disconcerting to the public? They want to feel when these motorways are built that all relevant matters have been taken into consideration as regards the best possible routes before work starts on them.

Yes. It is precisely because we want to take into account all the relevant matters relating to the best possible route that we are having a consultant engineer's survey in this case.

asked the Minister of Transport how many bridges have been relieved of toll payments since 1st March, 1959.

None, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that our right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) gave a pledge as long ago as 1954 that Selby Toll Bridge was at the head of the list of toll bridges which would be relieved of tolls? Consequently no toll bridge in the country can be relieved of tolls until Selby Toll Bridge is relieved of tolls. Is it not about time that Selby Toll Bridge was relieved of tolls?

I can well understand my hon. and gallant Friend's anxiety, but toll bridges are on different classes of roads—on trunk roads, classified roads, and so on. The undertaking by our right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire was that of toll bridges on trunk roads he regarded Selby as of the highest priority for the removal of tolls. So he still does. It is at the top of the list and nothing has been removed from the list.

Does my right hon. Friend accept my assurance that the version of the pledge which he has just given to the House is completely wrong and that this error has already been pointed out to his Department?

I suggest that we have a tripartite summit conference between my hon. and gallant Friend, myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire.

asked the Minister of Transport what was the valuation placed by his Department on the toll rights of Selby Bridge during the negotiations last year with the company which owns the toll rights; and what was the valuation of the rights by the company.

I do not think it would be in the public interest to disclose the provisional and qualified views on valuation reached by either side during the negotiations with the toll owners in 1958, since to do so might prejudice any future negotiations of this kind.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that negotiations last year lasted for months and could scarcely be put into a worse position than they appear to be in today? Is he aware, further, that both his Department and the toll right owners must know what the other side thinks the value may be? Is he aware, further, that the East Riding County Council, the West Riding County Council, the Urban District Council and the Rural District Council of Selby and the Derwent Urban District Council cannot form any opinion with regard to the alternative schemes for getting rid of this long-standing scandal unless they are informed of the value of the rights?

The whole thing is rather complicated because this bridge was built under the powers provided by the Selby Bridge Act, 1791. The Act exempts the toll revenues from tax. The complication when one has an income which is tax-free at the present day is rather more difficult than when it is taxed in the ordinary course of events. As 169 years ago Parliament passed that Act, even though the sins of the fathers do visit upon the children and even though it was a Tory Administration, I do not think that I can be held responsible for what happened in 1791.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider placing new warning signs on the three main roads approaching the Cromwell Road Extension roundabout at Church Street, Chiswick, in view of the increasing volume of high-speed traffic at that point.

In addition to the standard roundabout signs, a large white arrow against a red background has recently been provided on the Hogarth Lane approach, and the intensity of the external lighting of the advance warning signs is being improved. Conditions at the roundabout will be kept under close review, to see whether any further improvements are necessary.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that reply will be received with satisfaction by the local residents, who have been increasingly aware recently of the number of accidents and near-misses at this junction?

I thank my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will instruct his traffic engineering department to examine the possibility of extending Lower Regent Street into St. James's Park, in such a way that the Duke of York Steps and Carlton House Terrace and the amenity of the Park are all preserved, in order to relieve the congestion that at present exists in the vicinity of St. James's Palace.

The studies to be undertaken by the London Traffic Management Unit will naturally embrace the adequacy of arrangements for traffic between St. James's Park and the area to the north, and my hon. Friend's suggestion will be considered.

Is the Minister aware that his Answer will give great satisfaction to all people concerned about traffic congestion in Central London?

I hope that that will be so, but I find in traffic that very few people appreciate what is done by the Ministry of Transport. Their attitude is erroneous, of course. In this case, we must first measure the exact value of this extra route and think of the repercussions elsewhere. It may well be that the repercussions at Storey's Gate, which is already congested, might be even worse. The point is that we will certainly look into it.

asked the Minister of Transport what discussions he has had with the Minister of Works with a view to relieving the heavy traffic congestion at Alexandra Gate, Hyde Park.

A thorough examination of the traffic situation at Alexandra Gate Gate by the London Traffic Management Unit is required before I can usefully take this matter up again with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Work.

Will the London Traffic Management Unit look at this congested place as a matter of urgency with a view to seeing what can be done to relieve the great congestion which continually takes place there every day of the week?

I agree with my hon. Friend that congestion does take place there, but it would be wise to see first whether we can conquer it by traffic engineering methods—that is, to avoid the right-hand turn which is so difficult at that point—rather than take part of the park, for which legislation would be necessary.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to alleviate the dangers of crossing the A.6 road which runs through Disley village in Cheshire, having regard to the details which have already been sent to him.

Our divisional road engineer asked the Disley Rural District Council last September for an up-to-date traffic census and accident report. Until we receive it, we cannot decide what safety measures it could be justifiable or practicable to introduce on this stretch of road.

Will my hon. Friend urge his officials to get really busy on this? There was almost a fatal accident ten days ago, and the local authority informed my constituent that nothing could be done until the number of fatalities increased. How many deaths must there be before we can put up traffic lights?

That is quite an incorrect way to look at the matter. The position is that we have to ask the rural district council to provide an up-to-date traffic census and accident report. Until we get those we cannot decide what sort of safety measures should be put there. We are in their hands. The more quickly the local authority can give us the information, the more quickly can we come to a decision.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the inconvenience caused to motorists by the closing down of the Pink Zone parking-spaces, in view of the ever-increasing need for them; why he closed the Horse Guards car-park two weeks ahead of schedule; and how many cars, up to the latest convenient date, have been towed or driven away by the police.

The car parks around the Pink Zone were a special temporary measure. All but one were closed, after due notice, by 16th January. Notice was also given that the Horse Guards Parade would stay open until the new parking meter scheme began in Mayfair, unless my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works should require it earlier for its traditional purpose. Car parking has now been stopped because the Parade must be repaired in readiness for a review of Household Troops in April, during the State visit of General de Gaulle. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that during December, January and February, the police removed 16,000 cars from the Pink Zone.

In view of the excessive taxation imposed on all motorists, is it not about time they received a little more consideration? Why is it that, except on special days, the Royal Parks cannot be used for cars until proper provision is made? Is it not a scandalous state of affairs that the Horse Guards Parade, which has taken up to 1,000 cars a day, should be closed a fortnight earlier so that a distinguished visitor can inspect troops when, no doubt, he would be delighted to be excused this old-fashioned ordeal?

I am sorry, but I must entirely disagree with what the hon. Member said in the latter part of his supplementary question. Great importance is attached to friendly relations with people overseas—

We do not need troops for that.

I do not know—unless one does these things in decent style, one does not get the right atmosphere. All I would say is that the Royal Parks are used for parking. Hyde Park is used, and St. James's Park is used. A great deal of the roads in the Royal Parks is now used for free parking. I can tell the hon. Member that in the off-street car parking provided at one of the biggest garages there are, at the peak hour on any day, 300 vacancies, yet the police are towing vehicles from the streets because there the vehicles can be parked free of charge.

But what is to be the Minister's advice to those motorists who want to drive into London to see General de Gaulle inspecting the troops?

If the hon. Gentleman will give me the names of the motorists, I will tell them of the garages where they can get off-street parking, provided they pay for it.

asked the Minister of Transport if he has now acquired the necessary working areas on both sides of the Severn for the construction of the Severn Bridge; and if he will now fix a date for the commencement of the project.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend gave on Wednesday, 17th February, 1960, to the hon. Member for Abertillery (The Rev. L1. Williams). Negotiations for the acquisition of the necessary land are still in progress.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the substantial industrial development on both sides of the Severn and the fact that this matter is one of great urgency? Will he do his utmost to bring forward the date of commencement of the project?

Yes, but it is only sixteen days or so since negotiations were started and we have to allow them to take a reasonable course.

asked the Minister of Transport if he has reconsidered the ban on U-turns by London taxicabs; and if he will now lift this ban.

Yes, Sir. I have considered a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the operation of the experimental ban on U-turns in Central London and have received the advice of the London Travel Committee. I have also discussed the ban with representatives of London taxi interests and have received an assurance that if the ban is lifted they will do all in their power to ensure that taxi-drivers make U-turns with the minimum of inconvenience to other traffic. On that understanding that this will be done, I have agreed to the withdrawal of the experimental regulations, with effect from today.

For the very first time, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for a very satisfactory reply? I was afraid that he was going to continue to adopt a non-U attitude.

I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman that it is not the first time that he has congratulated me, nor will it be the last.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will give, expressed in vehicle miles, the fatality rate and the injury accident rate for M.1 and M.45 and for the comparable length of A.5 and A.45, respectively, to the latest convenient date, and similar figures for the same length of A.5 and A.45 for a comparable period before the motorways were open to traffic.

Between 2nd November, 1959, and 29th February, 1960, the fatality rate on M.1 and M.45 was 0·11 per million vehicle miles and the injury accident rate was 0·9. No comparable figures for A.5 and A.45 are available.

Is the Minister satisfied that the construction of the motorways has really improved the situation, and will he say how the matter is proceeding as regards the Leicestershire portion of the London-Yorkshire motorway?

I think, though I am not yet certain, that it has helped the accident rate. These figures should be considered with some reserve, as all the traffic on the motorway has been in the winter months and too short a time really has elapsed to reach a firm conclusion.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the increasing financial burden falling upon local authorities along the coast which have now to purchase special machines for cleaning the oil from the beaches and rocks to make them fit for holiday makers, and that this oil comes mainly from oil-burning and oil-carrying vessels; and if he will make it obligatory on all such vessels to install oil separators.

I regret the outbreaks of pollution which continue to occur, but it is fair to say that there has been an improvement in the position generally round our coasts. The best hope of further improvement lies in the acceptance by more countries of the International Convention—

I think that the hon. Gentleman is answering Question No. 23 now, and not Question No. 22.

No, I am answering Question No. 22.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that when the number of oil-burning and oil-carrying vessels was small, this problem was insignificant, but that as the number is now growing quickly, and in a very short time almost all our vessels will be either oil-burning or oil-carrying, this problem will become very acute? Will he not make it obligatory that these vessels should carry oil separators? He has not mentioned that part of the Question.

I think that the hon. Member interrupted me when I was on that point. I will repeat the Answer. The position is that dry-cargo ships registered here which use their bunker-fuel tanks for ballast water are required to be fitted with oily-water separators. The extension of this requirement to other classes of ships—for example, tankers—is not necessary, because other steps are taken to avoid pollution.

On the oil tankers.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that after the recent collision of an oil tanker tons of oil floated about causing damage; and, in view of the rapidly increasing tonnage of oil tankers and proportionate greater danger, if he will consider the desirability of having stationed at various ports such vessels as can proceed quickly to areas of collision to collect the sludge and oil before it is dispersed over wider areas causing much greater damage.

I am aware that as a result of this collision a good deal of oil escaped, and I regret the inconvenience caused in the area. Every effort was made by the Southampton Harbour Board, with the assistance of other interests, to prevent further escape of oil into the sea after the ships had been separated and brought under control.

Is the Minister aware that similar incidents can occur at other places round the coast? In most of our ports we now have ocean-going tugs almost ready to go into commission on call. Could he not provide vessels to dredge the oil, instead of it being allowed to escape to sea, causing no end of trouble?

The point is that my right hon. Friend has no power to incur any expenditure on the provision of craft or equipment for the purpose that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. As I said in my original Answer, the harbour authorities are certainly doing what they can to help here, and we are discussing with them whether there is anything further that can be done.

But if the disaster occurs five or six miles from the coast, it is not a matter for the harbour authorities but for the Admiralty. Could not the Admiralty do something in the matter?

Perhaps we had better await the outcome of the Conference on the Law of the Sea, now going on.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to make a statement on the investigation by the Chandos Committee of the desirability of the State financing the replacement of the present Cunarders ss. "Queen Mary" and ss. "Queen Elizabeth".

The Committee's Report has not yet been received, but I understand that it expects to complete it within the next few weeks.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable anxiety in the Clyde Valley? Is he aware that the Scottish shipbuilding industry is concerned about the possibility, or the probability, of the replacement of these two Cunarders, and we feel very strongly that with the Cunard takeover of Eagle Air Transport, British shipbuilding may be sacrificed to the competition of subsidised aircraft construction in England at the expense of the shipbuilding industry in Scotland?

I must wait for the Report. I am told that so far it has not been completed, that the members of the Committee have made up their minds but that they have not completed the Report. I have not received it, but it has been printed in great detail in two national newspapers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he eventually makes a decision in favour of subsidising these liners, this will not make the present Government policy any more sensible— in subsidising the aircraft industry to compete with subsidised shipping?

That is not a question for me. I must first of all wait for the Report and study it.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is also a shipbuilding industry in England? Will he bear in mind also that there is a feeling among shipbuilders and shipping interests that there is a little too much money being spent on research in the air to the detriment of research into shipbuilding and shipping problems?

I will bear those facts in mind, as well as the fact that there are many parts of the United Kingdom where people wish to build these ships if the ships are to be built.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to announce the plans of Her Majesty's Government with regard to building the proposed new tube from Victoria to North-East London.

No, Sir. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 2nd March, the whole of the railway system, both underground and overground, is now being examined.

The Minister has now had for several weeks the Report of the London Travel Committee recommending this scheme, and pointing out its urgency. Surely, there is no need for him to await his general overall plan before deciding to implement this scheme, which is urgently required to remove the congestion in North-East London?

This must be considered in the general context of the British Transport Commission's position. The Commission is already incurring huge losses, which will be paid for by the taxpayer. This particular line will add to that loss, and I think, therefore, that to consider it in isolation would be folly.

Is the Minister really saying that there can be no basic decision taken by the Commission until this planning board has sat, deliberated, made its decisions and had them laid before the House? If that is the case, is not the Minister making the task of the Commission of fulfilling its statutory requirements under the earlier Acts quite impossible?

I do not think so. As a matter of fact, it may be possible to put a lot of the recommendations into effect without legislation. Others may require legislation. I do not think that we can look at this railway problem in isolation. It is folly to go into business and organise it in bits and pieces.

Is the Minister aware that the last Committee did not look at this in isolation but in connection with the whole problem of traffic difficulties in the London area; that the building of this new tube will relieve the traffic in the London area, in addition to providing very much needed travel facilities for people in North London?

That is one of the considerations, but not the only one.

asked the Minister of Transport on what basis he founded his estimate of £3,750 in Subhead L of the Transport (Shipping and Special Services) Estimate for 1960–61.

This is an estimate of the amount which will be expended on travel by British Railways on State business by members of the Royal Family and the personal staffs accompanying them.

How does it come that after nine years of Tory misrule the Government have only now discovered this omission? What representations were made to them about it and from what source did the representations come? Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is fair and reasonable that in a case where the Household income is £475,000 per year there should be free travel by sea, land and air while at the same time the Government are denying even cheap travel by tram or bus to old people whose weekly income is £2 10s. a week?

I hope the hon. Gentleman feels better now that he has got all that off his chest.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel better after he has said that.

That has no semblance of being a point of order and it occupied the time, of the House when it should not have done. Mr. Janner. Question No. 35.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

I cannot remember whether the supplementary question was answered. If it was not answered, then I desire to have it answered. I apologise to the House.

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that none of it is due to nine years of so-called Tory misrule. It is due principally to the fact that there was, after the General Election, a division of the former Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation into two Ministries.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to be prepared for the use of biological and chemical weapons in times of war.

The policy of Her Majesty's Government is to continue with research in order to assess the threat from biological and chemical weapons and to prepare defences against them.

Does the Minister agree with the statement of Major-General Chisholm, the Canadian expert, that the potential dangers of chemical and biological warfare are greater today than they have been since 1944? Are our Government stockpiling these weapons, and, secondly, are they putting a firm plan forward at the disarmament conference with a view to controlling these weapons if an agreement is reached?

The answer to the first part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question is that we are not stockpiling these weapons. We are, of course, bound by the Geneva Convention, and our only purpose in this matter is the purpose I stated in my original Answer, that we must assess the threat in order to prepare defences. As regards the disarmament conference, nobody will be happier than Her Majesty's Government if it succeeds and biological weapons are banned along with all the others.

Has the Minister considered or sought any advice on how this country's position is affected by placing some of its forces within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation armed forces, with combined control, when some of our allies in that organisation have not signed the Geneva Conventions in this respect which we have signed and are presumably, therefore, not legally bound in that way? What would he the position of British soldiers under the command of an American officer who is not bound by these Conventions at all?

That is a quite different question and a hypothetical one.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order?

I hope it is a point of order to point out that the Minister seems to have misunderstood the supplementary question which he was asked. I asked what consideration he had given or what advice he had taken about it. Surely, that is a question which the Minister could answer in relation to the questions already put and the answers he has given.

I cannot make the Minister answer if he does not want to.

asked the Minister of Defence when he proposes to increase the pay of National Service men.

As indicated in the Government White Paper recently issued on Service Pay and Pensions, it is not the intention to make any change in the pay of National Service officers or men.

Does the Minister realise that we are paying these conscripts only what he has described to me as the minimum necessary during a limited period of compulsory Government service? Further, is he aware that the National Service grants with which we eke out these minimum rates in cases of domestic hardship work out on an average at only £12 to £13 per man for the current financial year, according to the figures which the Minister himself has given me? Can he be surprised that National Service men feel that, because they are conscripts, the Government are getting them on the cheap?

I do not take that view, and I think it puts the matter more into proportion if we remember that the grants which the hon. Lady has just mentioned will cost this year £1,800,000, and that is six times what they were in 1951–52 when the strength of National Service men was twice its current level. I think, therefore, that they are being administered with some generosity.

Will the Minister bear in mind that there are many National Service men who have been deferred up to the age of 26 and they are in a particularly difficult situation? Does he not realise that the amount he has mentioned as being paid for twelve months equals the amount which was lost on two orders for Army boots?

I do not disagree that there may be difficult cases, particularly among men who have been deferred for long periods. I would only say that, if there are special cases, it is certainly my wish that we should help them, if possible.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will consider raising the pay of National Service men especially that of the skilled tradesman.

I must apologise to the House. This Question was to be answered with Question No. 38. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to have it answered again.

Not only was the Answer unsatisfactory but the answers to the supplementary questions seem to have been even more unsatisfactory. Does the Minister realise that men who go into the Services expect to be paid a proper rate for the services that they render in a way similar to the way they would be paid in their ordinary civilian occupations? Is it not grossly unfair, especially in the case of skilled people, that their services should be used without payment? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter in order to give complete satisfaction to the men who are serving in our Forces?

I have already said that I quite accept that, towards the end of National Service, when men, some of whom are 25 or more, are being called up, there may be specially hard cases. It is my wish to help them if possible.

Does not the fact that we have fewer National Service men and that we are paying more in National Service grants show the inadequacy of the pay, since National Service men have to resort more and more to National Assistance for help? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the matter again?

I will look at any special case.

Will the Minister indicate to the country how he proposes to implement the remark that he made that he will deal with cases of skilled people?

I did not say that at all. I said that if there were any specially hard cases I would endeavour to meet them.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent commercial advertising is permitted in recruiting establishments of Her Majesty's Forces for the purposes of stimulating recruiting; and what payments have been received, from what firms, during the past twelve months.

Commercial advertising in recruiting offices is not allowed. This rule was broken in one case recently, and recruiting staffs have now been reminded of the rule. No payment was received from the firm.

I am grateful for that Answer, but is the Minister aware that there has been much resentment in Birmingham caused by the display of certain posters, one of which read:

" Those who were tired felt fresh,

Those who were old felt new;

Everyone sang as he marched along,

' Guinness is good for you '."

I have already said that this practice is out of order and must be stopped. Perhaps I may comment that, if only Army recruitment were as successful as the sales of that particular beverage, I should be very pleased.

On a point of order. May I ask whether the Minister of Defence has sought your permission, Mr. Speaker, to answer Questions Nos. 41, 42, and 43 after Question Time, because I should like to put it to you, Sir—

Order. The hon. Member may not do that.

With respect, Sir, I desire to put the reason for my submission, which is that last week my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) and myself were requested by the Minister of Defence, who was then in the Middle East and who sent a signal to this country, to defer our Questions to this week so that he could answer them in person.

Order. The hon. Member must realise that this is quite incorrect. The fact is that, if a Question is not reached, there is no device of which I know to draw attention to the matter. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman in his misfortune, but I cannot allow him to do what he is now doing.