asked the Minister of Transport to what extent his ban on U-turning in the pink zone has eased the congestion of traffic in the London area; if he is satisfied with the progress so far made; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) on 23rd March.

Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether we can have an assurance that the ban will not be reintroduced for taxis?

The ban was taken off because the trade union concerned and the taxi-cab drivers gave a pledge that they would not use the U-turn during congested periods in difficult streets. If they continue to keep their word, the ban will not be reimposed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are very disappointed that he should have taken this retrograde step, because we hope to see a reduction in the number of right-hand turns and particularly the banning of U-turns, which seriously interfere with traffic flow, add to the danger on the road and are generally against the interest of traffic movement? Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this with a view to reimposing the ban?

Taxi-cabs are a special case. They have a special lock. I consulted the police before taking off the ban and, on balance, we found that provided that taxi-cab drivers tried to play the game with the public it was worth while taking it off. Some people take a couple of bags, one in each hand, to a taxi rank in the centre of the road and there might be danger of an accident. On balance—and it was a very fine balance—it was decided to take the ban off for taxis.

Will the right hon. Gentleman stand by the only sensible decision he has come to since he became Minister of Transport?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for the usual courtesy and kindness of that nice remark to me.

asked the Minister of Transport what is his present policy with regard to replacing level crossings by road bridges; what arrangements he makes for initiating such replacements; and by whom the cost is borne.

The elimination of level crossings, where they cause serious delay to traffic, is an important factor in the selection of schemes for road improvement and as the road programme develops they will be progressively replaced. The initiation of schemes rests with the highway authority concerned, who also bear the cost, apart from any contribution made by the British Transport Commission in respect of the relief from their obligation to maintain and operate the crossing. The Government meet the whole of the highway authority's liability on trunk roads and make grants towards it for approved schemes on classified roads.

Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, would he not consider a more ambitious programme, with a view to trying to eliminate these level crossings in the next three or four years? If necessary, would he introduce legislation to ensure that this can be borne as a road improvement? Would he not agree that this is perhaps one of the few ways in which we can help both the road users and the railways at about the same time?

I agree that it is desirable to eliminate as many level crossings as we can, but some are more important than others. Abolition is desirable on three grounds: it eliminates delays in road traffic, it saves money for the railways, and it reduces accidents.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now reached any definite conclusions about anti-dazzle screening along the centre of M.1.

asked the Minister of Transport if he has yet received a report from the Road Research Laboratory on the experimental anti-dazzle fence on the M.1; and if he will make a statement.

I have just received a report from the Road Research Laboratory which is now being studied. The experimental length of anti-dazzle screening apparently gives satisfactory protection from glare. Before I can decide whether screening must be extended, I must consider other factors, including safety, amenity and cost.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are many people who think that such a screen will be not only a bad eyesore but will not prove to be a good thing from the point of view of antidazzle? Will he further consult the nurserymen of England, who are ready and able to give him sufficient plants of either privet or beech, which could be beautifully staggered, which would do the job properly and would not be difficult to trim?

I considered that and I asked the Landscape Advisory Committee to look at this for me. It advocates fencing as a temporary measure until a hedge, preferably of native bushes of a non-ornamental type, is fully grown; but one has to wait for a hedge to grow to the right height.

asked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to provide a dual carriageway on the A.6 road at Three Mile Hill, Helsington, in the county of Westmorland, in view of its dangerous condition, which has resulted in sixty-nine accidents on this stretch of road during the last four years, with three deaths in the last six months.

This scheme will be started as soon as entry to the necessary land is obtained.

But is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that this has gone on for several years and that the delays over the acquisition of land have not been taking place at the Westmorland end but in his Department? Will my hon. Friend look into this matter, because it is one of real urgency? People are being killed, it is a dangerous piece of road and the delay is taking place in his Department.

With respect, I think my hon. Friend is wrong in saying that the delay is entirely due to us. Originally we had a small scheme for the removal of a black spot. It was then decided, rightly, to make the scheme larger and to provide a length of dual carriageway. In recent weeks we have been held up a little over the landscaping of this section which I think my hon. Friend knows runs through an area of great natural beauty. We are endeavouring to get on with the scheme as soon as we can get entry to the land.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is now able to announce his proposals for improving traffic conditions in London.

On 15th February, I announced my decision to establish a new London Traffic Management Unit and the appointment of Dr. Charlesworth as its head. The Road Traffic Amendment Bill, which has a special application to London, will, I hope, shortly be in the hands of hon. Members. I will make further announcements about my plans from time to time.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Answer will be received with great disappointment? Why is he continuing to barricade himself behind a series of committees— [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—and holding up the prospect of any improvement until some Bill or other is put on the Statute Book? Is there not anything he can do in the meantime, or is he just bogged down like London traffic?

This House of Commons would be very aggrieved if the Minister took action unless it had put certain rights on the Statute Book. I can only act according to the law which this House of Commons has passed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reaffirm the pledge given by his hon. Friend that we shall have the Bill before Easter? Can he tell us when we shall have a chance to enact it?

Yes, Sir. I hope it will be presented before Easter.

asked the Minister of Transport when it is now expected that the Hanger Lane underpass on Western Avenue will be open for traffic.

I hope the underpass will be open this summer.

asked the Minister of Transport when he intends to bring forward further measures to improve road safety, in view of the recent rise in road accidents.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he proposes to take to deal with the increasingly serious position revealed by the Preliminary Tables, 1959. of Road Accidents in Great Britain issued by the Statistics Division of his Department; and whether, in view of the fact that the numbers of deaths and serious accidents arising from the use of motor cycles is so large, he will introduce immediately legislation to deal with the matter

I have nothing at present to add to the Answer which I gave to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Bristol. South East (Mr. Benn) on 9th March.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of people killed in December rose by 26 per cent. compared with the previous year and the number killed in January rose by 33 per cent. compared with the previous year? Has the right hon. Gentleman given up everything for Lent?

No, Sir; I have not given up that sort of thing for Lent. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should put it that way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The casualties on the roads are not a subject for joking. If any hon. Member has any constructive suggestion to make, it will be considered, but the mere making of laws by themselves will not abolish the human error which causes most accidents.

Why is the right hon. Gentleman side-stepping like this? Is he not aware that a few weeks ago a Bill was introduced by the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) in which very practical suggestions were put forward to cope with this very serious situation? Is he aware that the situation does not brook of any delay? Why does he not introduce some Measure to deal with some of the difficulties, if not all of them? I am sure that he appreciates the urgency of the matter. That being so. will he not, instead of waiting for further reports to come forward, deal without delay with points which can be dealt with now?

A great deal of endeavour goes on in this regard on the part of local authorities, Government Departments, and individuals. Any hon. Member can get in touch with his local safety council and offer whatever help he can give in this respect. I am certain that the two hon. Gentlemen who have asked supplementary questions are in very close contact with their local road safety committees in an effort to help.

Will my right hon. Friend publish, in percentages, every month the errors which cause these accidents? Might not that bring home to drivers and others what the real causes are?

We publish the information, but not necessarily the percentages.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Bill which he has promised before Easter will give the House any opportunity to write into the law of the land further measures designed to reduce the danger on the roads?

The hon. Gentleman had better wait until the Bill is introduced, because it is fairly extensive in scope. Anything which is designed to promote a freer flow of traffic ipso facto reduces the possibility of accidents.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the number of accidents resulting in death or injury which have occurred in Whitton Avenue, along the boundary between Wembley and Ealing, in recent months; and how this compares with previous periods

In the six months from September, 1959, to February, 1960, there were two fatal and eight injury accidents in Whitton Avenue along the boundary between Wembley and Ealing. In the corresponding months a year earlier there were two fatal and eighteen injury accidents.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are serious accidents along this road? There is only one pedestrian crossing between the junction with Bridgewater Road and the point where Whitton Avenue runs wholly into Ealing. Will my hon. Friend look into the possibility of providing more crossings?

The figures are disturbing. A lot of the trouble may be due to the fact that Whitton Avenue is temporarily carrying a heavier volume of traffic because of construction of the underpass at Hanger Lane. I will look at the question of the provision of more pedestrian crossings but without giving an undertaking that we can necessarily provide them.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is proposing to take to reduce the present traffic congestion outside the entrances and exits at the western end of Hyde Park.

Arrangements will shortly be completed for an experimental alteration to the means of entry into Hyde Park at Victoria Gate to eliminate the right-hand turn from the Bayswater Road. Traffic will instead proceed by way of Stanhope Terrace and Brook Street and cross the Bayswater Road at right angles under the control of traffic signals. So far as Alexandra Gate is concerned, I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend on 23rd March.

Is the Minister aware that much of the congestion at these two gates is due to lack of adequate communication between North and South? Will he take steps to see that Kensington Palace Gardens is turned from a private road into a public road? That would greatly ease the congestion at these two places in Hyde Park.

My hon. Friend asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question about that the other day, and I thought that he was given a wholly satisfactory answer. I think that the London Traffic Management Unit should consider the position at Alexandra Gate very carefully and study it scientifically before we decide what to do.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider making it compulsory for a vehicle bought on hire-purchase to be registered in the hire-purchase company's name until all payments are discharged so as to protect a third party purchasing a vehicle without knowledge of the hire-purchase debt.

No, Sir. There are no powers under which I could require this without new legislation.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask whether he would not agree that the only effective way of ensuring that this hire-purchase obligation is known to the purchaser is to endorse the log book? Is he further aware that similar endorsements are already made on log books where cars are not allowed to be sold if they have been bought under export orders?

The registered owner is not necessarily the legal owner. In law it is the person who keeps and uses the car, and unless there is an amendment in the law I could not do what my hon. Friend wishes me to do.

Is there not something in what the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) says, in the sense of trying to protect the person who buys a vehicle without the knowledge that it is held on hire-purchase? If the right hon. Gentleman needs an amendment of the law, would he not take the advice of the police and of other legal people? If he does, he will find that we on this side of the House are very co-operative in trying to do something sensible.

If the Opposition is cooperative in trying to do something sensible, I will do my best and will consult the police as the hon. Member suggests.

asked the Minister of Transport when he intends to publish the further information he has received regarding motor-cycle accidents.

We expect to receive a full report on the survey of motor-cycle accidents in about two months. If, as I hope, some preliminary information becomes available in the meantime, we will consider whether it is suitable for immediate publication.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the deep public concern about the present scale of motorcycle accidents, and will he not agree that Members of Parliament and the public should be allowed to see these figures so that we can form our own opinion as to the wisdom of recommendations made over 2½ years ago by the Road Safety Committee concerning the age of motor cyclists?

In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, we are certainly aware of the disquiet. As to the second part, I would remind my hon. Friend that, in the debate on the Road Traffic (Motor Cycles and Mopeds) Bill, I said that we would be ready to consider the publication of those figures when we have them.

Since it is known that there has been a steep rise in the number of deaths as a result of motor cycles, and referring to the debate mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, does he not remember that a committee was established by this House seven years ago which recommended that there should be consultation with the manufacturers of motor cycles to get their co-operation before they sold them to anyone holding an "L" licence? After all, the Government have been warned about this for a long time.

I cannot say what has been done about that without notice. It does not arise under this Question.

asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the decision of the Dutch Government to refuse entry to foreign vehicles not carrying nationality plates, what other countries require motorists going abroad from Great Britain to display G.B. plates.

Under both the 1926 International Convention on Motor Traffic and the 1949 Convention on Road and Motor Transport motor vehicles must display nationality plates if they are to be granted the privileges of those Conventions. Apart from the United Kingdom, there are 104 countries and territories party to these Conventions; I have no information about how many of these enforce the requirement to the point of refusing entry to vehicles not carrying nationality plates.

Is not that a little vague? If a person wants to take his car to the Continent for his holiday, must he have nationality plates on it?

The answer to that question is, Yes, Sir, he must do so under the Convention.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the proposed tunnel under the Channel.

No, Sir. I have only just received a copy of the International Study Group's report on the project.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that if the report is favourable Her Majesty's Government's intentions towards the project will also be favourable? Would he not agree that the forging of links, both moral and spiritual, between ourselves and the Continent, and particularly between ourselves and our French neighbours, is extremely desirable, and that this would be such a link?

I think that anything that can increase the friendship and the unity between this country and Europe is desirable. However, the report arrived jess than 24 hours ago, and I do not think it unreasonable to ask for time to look at it.

Do not the proposals for the tunnel envisage only a railway? If such a vast project is eventually to be contemplated, should it not include a roadway as well as a railway?

I would rather not discuss the report until I have studied it closely, but it envisages two tunnels, one each way, for railways but not a roadway, the reason, I understand, being a technical one—the difficulty of ventilation.

asked the Minister of Transport by what date he expects that the compulsory inspection of old vehicles will become law.

I have nothing at present to add to the information I gave on 23rd March in reply to a similar Question by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss).

The right hon. Gentleman says that he has nothing to add. Is he aware that that is exactly what we are complaining about? Does he appreciate that four years have gone by since the recommendation was made, and that his Department should have been able to overcome the legal difficulties in that time? We are asking him now to say when he expects the new regulations will become law.

I said seven days ago that the drafting of the regulations was proceeding urgently and that I would report again to the House at the earliest possible moment, and I think it will be a question of weeks only.

Will the right hon. Gentleman have an inquiry made into the braking capacity of not only old cars but modern cars, and will he also inquire into the safety glass which is installed in some of the older cars and modern cars, because the prevalence of windscreen shattering in both old and modern cars is terrible?

The hon. Gentleman has a Question on the Order Paper about glass, and perhaps we may leave the subject until we reach that Question. With regard to braking, I agree that modern cars as well as old cars should be tested. However, we must take first things first, and what we want to test first of all are the cars which are more than ten years old. I must confess to the House that I had my own car tested and it did not comply with the braking requirements, and so I had the brakes altered.

The right hon. Gentleman referred in a recent speech to the four years' wrangling which has caused this delay. Does he not agree that if the Government had accepted the proposal that we put forward that the testing stations should be run either by the State or by municipal authorities there would not have been four years' wrangling?

I have never made a speech suggesting that there have been four years' wrangling. Therefore, the assumption on which the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is based is wholly erroneous.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has completed his discussions with the motor manufacturers regarding vehicle direction indicators; and if he will make a statement.

Since these discussions began new recommendations have been agreed in large part by a Working Party of the Economic Commission for Europe which it is expected most European countries will adopt. It is important that we should keep in step with Continental countries, and I am continuing the discussions with the motor manufacturers and others on this basis.

While I appreciate that it is desirable to bring in the other countries, might I point out that it was about a year ago that the then Parliamentary Secretary told me that discussions had been started with the manufacturers, but it was on 15th July last that he told my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir G. Wills) that he was near reaching agreement? Is it not time we had a little more progress?

The Economic Commission for Europe had a meeting to discuss this matter in October, 1959. As a result of that, we are about to make representations to vehicle manufacturers and users about the considerations. However, I regard it as important that an agreement of this sort should be international rather than that each country should adopt its own measures.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will increase the number of enforcement officers to check up on the roadworthiness of lorries licensed in Dagenham and surrounding areas and the accuracy of log books submitted by their drivers.

The number of enforcement officers employed in the Metropolitan Traffic Area has recently been increased, and I have no reason to suppose that the present complement covering the Dagenham area is inadequate. I shall, of course, be glad to examine any case which the hon. Member may wish to bring to my notice.

Will the hon. Gentleman check up on the matter of log books, because in a great many cases evidence has been brought to my attention that two sets of log books are prepared—one to be returned officially and one containing, the facts. Will he, for the protection of the public, ensure that the books which show the hours worked are really returned?

It is the duty of our enforcement officers to go into matters of that kind. I would be grateful to the hon. Member for details of such cases as are brought to his notice.

Is the hon. Member aware that the trade unions are very much concerned about this problem, that it is largely due to the denationalisation policy of the Government, which has meant that there are now far more C-licence holders than previously, and that this is creating a great number of problems, which means more enforcement officers are needed?

I have seldom heard such an hypothesis erected on such false foundations.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that the lorries owned by certain firms, of which the names have been supplied to him by the hon. Member for Dagenham, are operated to the public safety; and what hours were actually worked by their drivers in the past four weeks.

I am having inquiries made and will let the hon. Member know the result.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will ask the Road Research Laboratory to make a new investigation on the incidence of vehicular mechanical defects in causing road accidents.

The Road Research Laboratory is constantly investigating the circumstances in which road accidents occur, either at our request or on its own initiative. I do not think that a new investigation into the incidence of mechanical defects in relation to road accidents would add materially to the information already in our possession on this subject.

If the right hon. Gentleman does not ask for a new investigation, will he, in order to prevent further delay, look at the Laboratory's last investigation and its conclusions that in 20 per cent. of the road accidents which occur in this country some mechanical defect is a contributory cause? Will he bear that conclusion in mind?

I will, but again—first things first. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's recent question: the first thing is to get the vehicle testing in before we start making any more investigations. I will try to do that as quickly as possible.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that our statistics about the causes of road accidents are woefully inadequate? He agreed about this himself some time ago. What steps is he taking to improve the statistical analysis?

I agree. The analysis we make is formed on the wrong basis. It is carried out by the police, and I have asked the Road Research Laboratory to carry out a very large investigation into a number of accidents, not necessarily only those caused by mechanical defects, but into all defects, human error, and so on.

asked the Minister of Transport what the result has been of the London Travel Committee's campaign to stagger working hours.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make periodical statements about progress made by his Department and the London Travel Committee with the staggering of working hours in Central London to relieve pressure on the Central Line and other parts of the London Transport system.

Since 1957 some 240 firms have made arrangements for staggering the hours of more than 32,000 staff. To this the London Travel Committee has made a substantial contribution, and its campaign continues. I will, when appropriate, make further statements about the progress of its efforts.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the London Travel Committee, one of the many committees with which the Minister surrounds himself, has been engaged in this campaign for two years and that 30,000 out of the 1,100,000 people who pour into London daily is a very small percentage? Will he try to get something done about it before I become too pessimistic about him altogether?

Nothing would grieve me more than that the hon. Member should become pessimistic. It must be remembered that there is no quick method of implementing the staggering of hours. Schemes must be worked out on a local basis. We cannot dictate to people or force them to stagger hours. If we could dictate to them it would be much easier, but in a democracy this problem is not very easy of solution.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents and I myself suffer great hardship in travelling on the Central Line and that we should be grateful for and glad to hear about all the efforts which can be made to relieve the congestion?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The more we can do to try to get people to come to London over a longer period in the morning and to leave over a longer period in the evening, the better it will be far traffic.

Is the Minister aware that hon. Members representing constituencies east of London, no doubt including the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), are constantly receiving complaints from their local authorities about deficiencies in the transport services in the area? Today I have received a further batch from the Town Clerk of Bast Ham. In considering the question of staggered hours, will the Minister also look at these complaints about the effectiveness of the service in that area?

If the hon. Member has received any specific complaint, perhaps he will send it to me and I will send it to the British Transport Commission for the Commission to consider.

asked the Minister of Transport what representations have been made to the Japanese Government following that Government's decision to revive the system of subsidising the servicing of loans for shipbuilding, in view of the effect upon shipbuilding in the United Kingdom.

The subsidy to which my hon. Friend refers is a measure of financial assistance to Japanese shipowners and does not directly affect the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry. The Japanese Government are aware, however, that we regret any measures designed to stimulate the expansion of Japanese shipping artificially when the world already has too much tonnage.

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for his reply, but will he assure the House that he will use this and every other occasion to protest against any form of subsidy and discrimination in the shipping industry, and, in particular, to focus attention on the United States of America, which is the principal offender?

Certainly, Sir, but the Question is about Japan; and we are sorry that Japan, a very great maritime nation, finds it necessary to adopt such measures.

The right hon. Gentleman will understand that all of us on this side of the House are very much concerned with the present plight of the shipbuilding industry in our own country. As a matter of fact, many of us still believe that his Ministry is not capable of dealing with this and many other activities for which it is responsible. Can we have the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will direct all his efforts to getting as much work as possible, not only for the shipbuilding industry in Great Britain but also in Northern Ireland?

We have already done that, and if the hon. Gentleman has any construc:ive suggestion which he thinks we should adopt, I should be grateful to hear from him.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House realises that pink zones may be important, but that the Red Duster is far more important, and that we cannot for ever tolerate in this House the practices adopted toy our alleged allies and ex-enemies and by our ex-allies and present allies, both Japanese and American, and pursued to defend their now uneconomic industry; and that anything that can be done to raise this matter, particularly with the American Government, will be welcomed in this House?

I quite agree with my hon. Friend, but everybody in this House keeps pointing out the difficulty and nobody points out the remedy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I myself have protested to the United States about the way it discriminates, and I have now put on record what I think about the subsidy imposed by Japan. At the same time, what can one do to bring pressure to bear upon another sovereign country?

Whilst it is all very well to regret these happenings, does the right hon. Gentleman not realise, in view of the fact that world capacity to build ships is now far in excess of world demand, that it is time we were doing something, or trying to do something, to reach some form of international agreement that would regulate the building of ships? Will he, as I have asked him before, try to take the first step in seeking to get an international conference on this matter?

I took the step when in Washington of seeing the State Department of the United States as well as the Federal Maritime Board. I made my protest and the position of this country perfectly clear. The real difficulty is that this country is in a vulnerable position as regards shipping and we have very few cards to play. I wish we had more.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that, whereas normally a workman can recover damages from his employer in respect of personal injury caused, to any extent, by the fault of the employer, which includes the fault of a fellow servant, this vicarious liability is limited in the case of an employer who is a shipowner, and that damages are here limited to an aggregate amount not exceeding £15 for each ton of the ship's tonnage; and if he will introduce legislation to amend the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, in order to give seamen on small vessels the same right to recover damages as other employees.

By the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act, 1958, which came into force on 1st August of that year, the limit on a shipowner's liability has been raised to some £74 per ton. There is also a provision whereby small ships are to be regarded for this purpose as though they were of 300 tons. The Act gave effect to an International Convention on the subject drawn up in 1957.

While I thank the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he does not agree that it is still unfair to discriminate against one class of workers in regard to the amount of damages payable—that is to say, to link the amount of damages payable to the nature of their work? Will he consult the Secretary of State for Scotland to ensure that the new provisions can be applied to Scotland, because a case which recently went before the Scottish courts, since the date mentioned by the Minister, indicated that the provisions do not apply to Scotland?

I am not sure about the latter part of the supplementary question, but at the moment we certainly have no evidence that any great injustice is being caused by this much higher limit than formerly prevailed. I will certainly look into the matter, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it would be worth his while to look in HANSARD at the debates which took place when the Private Member's Bill was passing through the House.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement about the future of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on the future of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he will make a statement on the resignation of Sir Graham Cunningham as the Chairman of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee;

asked the Minister of Transport if he has yet completed the formation of the sub-committee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee to inquire into the future of the industry; and if he will now state its personnel.

Sir Graham Cunningham, who has for some time wished to retire from the chairmanship of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee, has recently tendered his resignation, which I have accepted with great regret. The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Transport will take his place as Chairman and the Committee will have the same terms of reference and membership as before. The representatives of both sides of the shipbuilding industry have agreed that a sub-committee shall be set up to consider the future of the industry. Detailed arrangements are now being worked out.

In view of the serious criticism of obscurantism on the part of the employers made by this distinguished industrialist, Sir Graham Cunningham, and by the director of the shipbuilding firm in a recent article in The Times, and the criticism of the industry's technical competence made by the Minister of Science at, I believe, a dinner at the Royal Institute of Naval Architects, is it not time that the Government intervened in the affairs of this industry in the same way as it has done in some other industries, and adopted policies similar to those adopted by the Minister of Aviation in the aviation industry, particularly in regard to concentration of the production resources of the industry and the provision of development contracts in order to improve the productive and scientific—[Interruption.]

In answer to that short supplementary question, I can assure the hon. Member that I am more anxious to get both sides of the industry together with constructive proposals for the future than to issue condemnations about the past.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House would agree that tribute should be paid to Sir Graham Cunningham for the very great work he has done in this Committee over a long period? If there are criticisms of the shipbuilding industry, they must be matched against its present competitive ability with the practices in Japan and in Continental countries. Will my right hon. Friend agree that if there is to be imposed rationalisation it is not necessarily the right thing for the industry? Can he tell the House—

Order. I have forgotten how long ago it was that this House resolved to assist me with regard to the length of supplementary questions.

Finally, can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the scope and aims of this Committee are to continue to be in the future what they were in the past?

The Advisory Committee has agreed to set up this subcommittee, and its terms of reference will be for the Committee to decide. We are to have an early meeting and are trying to find out when it will be convenient for all parties to attend, I hope that it will be at the earliest possible moment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the recent statement by the Minister of Science represents the Government's appraisal of the shipbuilding industry? If it does, when will the right hon. Gentleman do something about it? Is it true, as Sir Graham Cunningham alleges, that the Committee is of the opinion that at present the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the problems of the shipbuilding industry?

If the hon. Member will look at the letter again, he will see that that is precisely what Sir Graham Cunningham did not say. Sir Graham said that it was alleged by other parties, and that he did not agree. We have him on our side in that respect. If the hon. Member will look again at the letter he will see who is mistaken. A question about another Minister making a policy statement should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that Sir Graham Cunningham's letter pinpointed two dangers? The first is the danger that the shipbuilding industry now faces, and the second is that the Government have no policy to deal wih the danger. Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that he is depending on the interested parties to give him a policy, or if he has a policy, will he indicate to us now the policy which the Government have to deal with the danger to which Sir Graham Cunningham referred?

Sir Graham Cunningham did not say that in his letter. The hon. Member is completely wrong. Either he has not read the letter or he has misinterpreted it. The point is that there will be a sub-committee to go into this. It must consist of the two sides of the industry and the Government if it is to have effective action.

Mr. McMaster.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Russell.

On a point of order Mr. Speaker. I think you called me to put a supplementary question just before the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) raised his point of order.

I think the hon. Member is strictly right. In flexing my head I lost the sequence of time.

As a representative in this House of the Minister of Science, is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern in the Northern Ireland shipbuilding industry about the recent published comments of the Minister of Science? Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the British industry receives at least the same aid as Continental, Japanese and American yards?

I had better consult my noble Friend the Minister of Science.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will now announce the names of the members of the new Railway Planning Board; and if it is to be permanent; and

The considerations prompting the setting up of this body were fully explained by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement of 10th March last. I hope to be able to announce the composition and terms of reference of the body very shortly.

Was the British Transport Commission consulted before this proposal was made? If so, did the Commission recommend it? Ought there not to be people either in the Ministry or in the British Transport Commission doing this sort of planning without the need of a new board? If the new board is to have these very wide terms of reference, does the Minister think that it can give a once-for-all decision on these matters?

The terms of reference have not been announced and the hon. Member does not know what they are.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary stated them.

The actual terms of reference have not been announced. The hon. Member is, therefore, in error when he refers to them. The Chairman of the British Transport Commission was almost in daily consultation with me, and he agreed with the procedure which the Government are following.

Will this planning board be charged with the responsibility for studying the future of transport as a whole, or will it be confined to the railways? Does not the Minister agree that certain simple, clear-cut decisions, such as those concerning the freedom to develop sites for car parking and similar purposes, and the Victoria line tube, need not await yet another commission inquiring into the management side of the railways?

If the hon. Member thinks that matters connected with the railways are very simple, he ought to think again. It would be better to wait until the terms of reference are announced before answering supplementary questions about them.

Is the Minister aware that his Joint Parliamentary Secretary courteously gave the House certain information about the terms of reference in a recent debate? Are we to understand that this information is wrong?

If the hon. Member will look at HANSARD, as I certainly shall after his question, I think he will find that the words "terms or reference" were never used by my hon. Friend. All he did was to give a little information to the House in the course of the debate. The terms of reference as such have not yet been announced. I think that we ought to wait until the names of the members of the board and the terms of reference are announced.

Will the House have a full opportunity to debate any decisions reached by the Planning Board before they are automatically put into operation by British Railways?

If the hon. Member will study the Report of that debate, he will see that the decisions of the Planning Board will be advisory to the Government and that it will be up to the Government to decide what action to take.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will state approximately how much space in the Greater London Area is taken up by railway lines and railway works of various kinds; and what attempts are being made to obtain suitable areas of this land for car parking.

I have no figures for the Greater London Area. My information is, however, that railway property within the County of London is conservatively estimated to occupy some 3,350 acres. The London Travel Committee is doing all it can to encourage the provision of car parks at stations in London. The number of car spaces at stations in the London area has increased from 6,000 to 8,300 since 1955, and plans have been made to increase the number to 9,500 in the near future.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he will look into the situation in the Greater London Area, where there is also a need for car parks at stations? Does he not agree that an enormous amount of space is occupied by the railways, not entirely by lines but by yards—and other space with nothing on it—which might be used for car parks? Will he go into this question?

I quite agree that it is important that people should go from their homes to stations in the suburbs or in Greater London and then continue their journey by public transport. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a very important subject.

Is the Minister aware that this is exactly one of those points on which a decision could be reached immediately to give the British Transport Commission permission to develop car parks on railway sites and that it is not necessary to wait for six or eight months for a decision by the Planning Board? What is the reason for the delay in reaching a decision on a matter of that kind?

It is not a question of waiting for a decision from the board. Where the British Transport Commission can do this without legislation, it is free to do it now. If legislation is needed, the House knows that it takes some time to get it through. If the board which is to advise the Government decides that legislation is required in that respect, we shall put forward legislation.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement with regard to granting to those who commuted part or all of their Service pensions a sum equivalent to the increases which have taken place subsequent to retirement in the retired pay of officers and men.

As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said on 25th February, 1960, commutation is a voluntary action taken in the knowledge that it necessarily ends the Government's obligation in respect of that part of pension which is commuted.

In answering a supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) on 11th November, my right hon. Friend stated that he did not wish to be unsympathetic about this and that he would look carefully into it. Am I to assume that he has decided that nothing further can be done even though, as he is probably aware, many of the people who have commuted their pensions have served many years overseas and have had to commute in order to find somewhere to live?

My hon. Friend is correct. I looked into the matter again, as I undertook to do, but I am afraid that I can see no way round this difficulty.

asked the Minister of Defence, why information regarding new methods of chemical or germ warfare were supplied by Great Britain for purposes of mass production and stockpiling by the United States of America, which is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention on poison gases.

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent it is a condition of any agreement for the exchange of information regarding the results of chemical warfare research with the United States of America that full-scale production shall take place only with the consent of the country supplying the information.

Information of this kind is exchanged with the United States authorities at the research stage under the normal arrangements, in order to assist the development of an effective defence. No restrictions are placed on the use which either country may make of the information for its own purposes.

Was the statement by the Ministry spokesman on 10th March that details of nerve gases of unprecedented power had been handed to America made with the Minister's approval? Secondly, is he aware that the United States Defence Department has admitted that production is to start there next year? Are not these serious admissions in view of the widespread revulsion against the whole filthy business?

I am not aware of the position with regard to the first supplementary question. On the second question, the position is that there is an agreement for the interchange of information between the two countries, and this particular process was dealt with under that interchange at a very early stage in the research and development programme.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that since this country has ratified the Geneva Convention about this type of warfare and the United States of America has not, if we supply information to the United States of America without any condition as to its being used for defensive purposes only and not used for stockpiling, that would be a breach by this country of the Convention which it has signed and ratified? If he has doubts about this, will be take good legal opinion about it?

I think the hon. Gentleman is perhaps not aware of what President Eisenhower said at his Press conference on 13th January, 1960, when he made it clear that he was not contemplating any change in the traditional United States' policy of not being the first to use chemical or biological weapons.

Mr. Fletcher.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister was answering my Question, No. 44, at the same time.

I beg the hon. Member's pardon; he is quite right.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the statement made by Major General Stubbs, the United States Army chemical officer, that unless the public accept the fact that we must be prepared to use these weapons we shall not achieve a balanced weapon system? Does he deny that this nerve gas which was developed in this country is to go into full production in the United States next year? In view of our position in the N.A.T.O. alliance, what is he doing to oppose this policy of introducing these weapons into the balance of terror?

I am not aware of the statement made, nor am I responsible for statements or actions by the United States Administration.

On a point of order. In view of that very unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek an opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Defence, in view of the widespread feeling against permitting any part of the United Kingdom to be used for the training of German military or air forces, if he will give an assurance that no such arrangements will be made without prior authority of Parliament.

As the House is aware, a small number of German officers and other ranks are already under training in this country. In the event of any major change in the scope of the arrangements, I should in any case inform the House.

I am obliged to the Minister for that answer. He will appreciate that when the treaty arrangements were made under which Germany was admitted to N.A.T.O. it was never contemplated that German troops would be trained in this country. This is a matter on which the House ought to be consulted before any major arrangements are made.

I have already said that I will certainly keep the House informed when any major change is contemplated.

Has the Minister ever had any conversations with the defence authorities in France to find out whether the French are prepared to have German bases on their soil? Will he take advantage of the visit of President de Gaulle to ask him whether German troops will be stationed there too?

I cannot undertake to do that, because I hope to leave for the N.A.T.O. Defence Ministers' meeting in 10 minutes' time.

asked the Minister of Defence, in view of the fact that the general defence of Great Britain against rockets is practically impossible, if he will now revise his policy of using the missile against a conventional attack.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave last week to the hon. Members for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler).

I take it that that means that the right hon. Gentleman is refusing to revise his policy. Will not he think over the matter again, because, as it is now admitted that there can be no defence of the civil population in the case of a missile attack being launched, is it not sheer madness to say that where a conventional attack is made we will meet it by using the missile?

It would be sheer madness if with our allies we did not do our utmost to try to stop a war starting. That is the whole purpose of this.

Would not the Minister agree that it is time the disastrous policy put forward in paragraph 12 of his predecessor's White Paper was revised? Until some declaration is made that that policy has in fact been revised, as it

asked the Minister of Defence what evidence he has of racial discrimination in the leave and recreational facilities available to men and women of the Royal Air Force at camps and establishments administered by the Royal Air Force and the other services, respectively; and what steps he has taken to remove such discrimination.

There is no racial discrimination in any of the Services. However, inquiries about the position in every leave centre throughout the world are not yet completed. I will certainly make a further statement as soon as possible.

Is the Minister aware that only last week the Secretary of State

I should have thought that the policy has worked rather well, It has kept the peace.

asked the Minister of Defence how many retired officers of the three Armed Services, including the Indian armed services, are in receipt of retired pay under each of the six retired pay codes; how many of those officers retired under the 1919 code had their retired pay reassessed because of war service; and how many of these officers are over and under the age of 60 years, respectively.

As the answer consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL RBPORT.

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I am glad to say that the restrictions at the Nyali leave centre have now been removed and that in future there will be no bar on coloured Service men using it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has given to the protest he has received from the Government of Belgium regarding the official statement of Sir Roy Welensky with regard to federation of the Katanga area of the Belgian Congo with the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has made to the communication he has received from the Belgian Government regarding Sir Roy Welensky's official statement that he has received approaches from the Katanga Province of the Belgian Congo for union with the Central African Government.

The Belgian Ambassador asked me on 4th March about Sir Roy Welensky's remarks to a Press correspondent about letters he had received suggesting that the Katanga Province of the Belgian Congo might be associated with the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I told the Ambassador that the political association of any other territory with the Federation would require the approval of Her Majesty's Government and legislation in the United Kingdom. I also said that Her Majesty's Government had not considered, nor been asked to consider, the possibility of any such association.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that reply, but would he not agree that it is of very great importance that this country should have good relations with the new Congo State which comes into existence on 1st July next? Is it not deplorable that Sir Roy Welensky should make statements of this character which appear to the people concerned as empire-building?

I think it should be noted that in the statement attributed to Sir Roy Welensky he said that any move for the association of this Province would have to come from the people of the Province itself. However, at the recent Round Table Conference in Brussels at which there were delegates from Katanga Province, it was agreed that the Congo should remain a unitary State within its present frontier. That is a factor which Her Majesty's Government will have to take into account.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman omitted to mention any communication having been made to Sir Roy Welensky. Have the Government in fact indicated to him his grave indiscretion in making this statement? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has investigated this matter at all, is it not the case that the proposal for union came from mining interests in Katanga who feared that their social and economic privileges would be destroyed under an independent African Government?

I really do not think that the Prime Minister of the Federation is under any obligation to communicate with Her Majesty's Government about any private letters he may receive. However, I have stated our position today and I do not doubt that it will be noted.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that none of the German documents at present in the joint possession of the Allied Powers will be destroyed, and no further such documents be returned to the custody of the Federal German Government, without the prior consent of this House.

I can assure the hon. Lady that there is no intention of destroying any of the captured German documents in whose control Her Majesty's Government have a share. As to the return of these documents to the German Government, this will continue as hitherto under arrangements which ensure that the material remains available for suitable use. In this connection I would refer the hon. Lady to the reply which I gave to the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) on 7th March.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that if these documents are returned to the West German Government he cannot then give this House a guarantee that they will not be destroyed? Does not he agree that the documents are of international importance? Will he, therefore, take steps at the United Nations to suggest that all countries possessing such documents should put them under the control of the United Nations, where they can be made easily accessible to all who are interested in them?

I shall certainly consider that possibility, but there is a factor in this case to which the hon. Lady has perhaps not given sufficient regard: microfilms are taken of all these documents before they are returned.

That is not the point.