asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now reached a decision in the case of Signalman William Mitchell, 52a, Main Street, Kingseat, Dunfermline, Fife.

Yes, Sir. As the hon. Member knows, Signalman Mitchell has been discharged from the Army.

I thank the Minister for his most helpful attitude in this case, but I was a little disturbed by the terms of his letter of 29th April in which he said that Signalman Mitchell is liable to recall. May I have an assurance that his discharge is absolute and that there will be no cat-and-mouse game played with him in this matter?

I should like to write to the hon. Gentleman about that. It would depend on the circumstances. But I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I will write to him.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will offer to the Lincoln City Council the lease, at a nominal rent, of the land at the Royal Lincolnshire Regiment's barracks on condition that it is used as playing fields and public gardens and named in such a way as to commemorate the long and happy association between the City and the Regiment which is about to be ended.

The baracks will be occupied for about another year, and part may be needed after that for minor units. I sympathise with the hon. Member's suggestion and will bear the interest of the City Council in mind; but if we have land surplus to our needs we are bound to dispose of it by the recognised procedure.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is great apprehension in the city that these playing fields will be sold for use as building land? Will he give an undertaking that that will not be done?

We shall certainly be in touch with the Lincoln City Council about the future of the land.

asked the Secretary of State for War when he proposes to arrange the visit by hon. Members to the depot of the Intelligence Corps.

The arrangements were made known to hon. Members through the usual channels on 12th April.

Is the Minister aware that while, so far as he is concerned, the arrangements may have been made known through the usual channels, most hon. Members do not know anything at all about them? Will he ask the usual channels to send out another notice?

I am sure that the usual channels will do as they always do—all that is necessary to ensure that hon. Members are made aware of the facts.

asked the Postmaster-General what steps the Post Office has taken to make available to the public a loud-speaker equipment for the telephone to enable several people to carry on a single telephone conversation.

I am glad to say that I hope to have loud-speaking telephones on the market later this year. I am not yet in a position to announce all the details, but will do so as soon as possible.

Many telephone subscribers, who are tired of being little more than telephone rests for about half the conversation, will be delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend says. May I ask whether the equipment will be sold at a reasonably cheap price?

Yes; there will be three types of equipment, some simple and some rather less simple. My present information is that the rentals will range from about £8 to £20 a year.

May I ask why it has taken all these years to produce this equipment?

It has involved a lot of complicated research, but we are now at the end of the road and we shall have them on the market later this year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is an appalling suggestion and that telephone conversations last quite long enough as it is?

There is no suggestion that telephone conversations should last longer—

They will.

—but that people ought to be able to listen to telephone conversations without holding the instrument.

asked the Postmaster-General the conditions under which his postal regulations allow a recipient of registered mail to identify his name and address on the package before signing for it.

The Post Office does not undertake to deliver a registered packet to the addressee in person and there are, therefore, no regulations allowing the recipient to identify his name and address on the packet before signing for it.

Does the Minister mean, therefore, that a person signs for the parcel, whether it is his or not, simply because he has had no opportunity to satisfy himself that the parcel was actually to be delivered at his home? In view of the nature of the reply, may I ask the Minister if this is not a matter that should be reconsidered?

This matter has been very carefully gone into. I think that the legal situation is quite clear, and is to the general convenience of most people receiving registered parcels.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will investigate the circumstances under which parcels sent from Cyprus by a serving soldier to his home address in Coatbridge, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie, have been delivered to this address in an insecure condition and showing evidence of having been tampered with.

The hon. Member, I believe, is referring to two greetings cards each enclosed in a box. Detailed inquiry is not possible as neither of the boxes is now available. I can only say that I am very sorry if the cards were damaged in the post, but if they were this must have been purely accidental.

Could we have an assurance from the Minister that some action will be taken to avoid a repetition? It seems to me that serving soldiers in Cyprus are entitled to the courtesy of having their mail delivered securely?

This has been very carefully investigated. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will not occur again.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will now establish a sub-post office in the southern part of Crawley to meet the growing and urgent needs of the people in the Southgate neighbourhood.

There is already a sub-post office in the Southgate neighbourhood of Crawley, and I am sorry that I should not be justified in opening another.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there may be a sub-post office in that neighbourhood, but that there many thousands of people still have to walk a very long way? Will she convey to my right hon. Friend a request that perhaps a small delegation may be allowed to see him to discuss this matter further?

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the head post office was moved in 1959 to a new and better site, which is only about 500 yards away, that the office in the old town centre would be very close to the new head office and would draw a certain amount of business away from it, and that it does serve the area of Southgate as well. I assure him that this has been gone into very carefully. We will, of course, receive a delegation, if my hon. Friend thinks that it is necessary, but we believe that the convenience of the population is well served by the present arrangements.

May I ask my hon. Friend, for the purpose of the record, if she does not realise that the new site of the post office is such that old people particularly find it rather difficult to reach it, because they have to cross two very dangerous main thoroughfares, and it is for that reason that I have asked that the matter should be more fully gone into?

asked the Postmaster-General if he will state the names of the British heroes and literati whose centenaries he proposes to celebrate by the issues of special postage stamps, and the principle he will apply to the selection of an appropriate design for each of them.

We have no such proposals in mind.

Does not the Minister realise that in this branch of culture and initiative, Britain is greatly outstripped by countries as various as Russia, Australia and the Republic of Ireland, and will the Minister take steps to put Britain on the philatelic map and reap a valuable income thereby?

I think that, as the hon. and learned Member realises, the history of this nation is so rich in heroes and out literature is so rich in great men that it would be very difficult and very invidious to try to find which heroes to commemorate. I am sure that the hon. Member's hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will agree that " Every craw thinks its ain bird the whitest".

asked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered the request from the Burgh of Lochgelly for a sub-post office at West End, Lochgelly; and what reply he has sent.

Yes, Sir. The town clerk has been told that we are sorry that a sub-post office could not be justified.

While I will not abuse the patience of the House by repeating at length the reasons why Lochgelly should have a sub-post office, which have been given in innumerable letters to the Minister, in view of the very strong views of local bodies like the town council, the old-age pensioners' association, the shopkeepers and the Co-operative movement, which are better acquainted with the local conditions than the right hon. Gentleman's Department, may I have an assurance that this matter will be reconsidered?

This has been very carefully considered. The office is at present in the centre of the town, and in the only shopping centre in the town. It is within half-a-mile of most houses and only three-quarters of a mile from the most distant house, and we do not think that another office is justified.

asked the Postmaster-General when he now expects to receive the report of the Television Advisory Committee on lineage, colour, and the future uses of available channels in Bands III, IV, and V.

asked the Postmaster-General when he expects to receive the Report of the Television Advisory Council on the technical developments in television which will affect the allocation of the remaining channels in Band III.

I hope that the Committee will report very soon now.

We have had this Answer, I think, about every three months over the last five years. Is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman ended this dilatoriness and got this report produced? After all, a very great deal depends upon it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an answer really soon.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am not a dilatory customer by nature at all. The Television Advisory Committee met on 27th of last month to consider its final report, and I am quite sure (hat I shall not have to fence much longer.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will now state the composition of the commission to examine the future of broadcasting, and its terms of reference.

No, Sir.

Here again is an example of fencing. When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give us some information? He has been asked about this many times. Is it not about time that he brought it to finality?

Of course, the future of broadcasting and television is so important to all our people that it is important that we should get the right answer rather than a hasty answer, but I will undertake to take the House into my confidence at the earliest possible date, and I think it will be a very early date.

If by that reply the Postmaster-General is in fact saying that the terms of reference have not yet been decided, may I ask him if he will consider including in any eventual terms of reference the safeguarding of the English language, which at present is being jeopardised by the inculcation of international American?

This is one of a host of matters which will be examined.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, as he will have available the report of his Technical Advisory Committee, in the opinion of many of us there is no need for another commission?

I am aware of the view of my hon. Friend and many hon. Members of this House, but, of course, my Answer did not say that the commission was being set up.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he will direct the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain from broadcasting programmes referring to the financial arrangements of United Kingdom commercial television organisations.

No, Sir. I understand from the British Broadcasting Corporation that no such programme is in view.

In view of that reply, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend has made any inquiries why the B.B.C. is carrying out an investigation into these matters, as reported, and, if it is not for the production of programmes, is the Corporation in order in spending licence money upon this sort of thing?

When I saw the Press report on this matter, I naturally made some inquiries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The first question to which I addressed my mind was whether this inquiry was within the B.B.C.'s powers. I think it is perfectly clear that the B.B.C. under paragraph (3, x), of its Charter, is entitled—

"To do all such things as the Corporation may consider incidental or conducive to the attainment of any of the objects "

in the Charter, and those objects include the provision to other bodies of matter for broadcasting and the production of films for broadcasting. As to the propriety of the B.B.C.'s action, I have discussed that with the B.B.C, and the Corporation tells me that it naturally wishes to be well informed about the position of its competitors, and it considers that it is particularly important to have this information in regard to the selling of films to American exhibitors.

Is not this a case where the right hon. Gentleman's logrolling friends are seeking to protect commercial television, and will he do nothing to prevent the B.B.C. from discharging its responsibilities under the Charter, as it has done?

I think my hon. Friend was disquieted by the report that appeared in one of the national newspapers, which was, I think and as the House will have seen, later amended in a short official statement later put out by the B.B.C.

Will my right hon. Friend take note that I object to this accusation of log rolling? If the B.B.C. is doing this simply to build up a case for itself in order to get the available channels, that is not a purpose for which it should be using licence money.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this Question suggests that the companies concerned clearly have something which they think ought to be hidden?

It is not for me to answer a supplementary question of that sort. That is not a question for the Postmaster-General at all.

asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) if the Martin Baker Aircraft Company, Limited, was offered a further lease of Chalgrove Airfield; what was the proposed period of the lease; and what were the reasons given by the company for rejecting a lease;

(2) if the Martin Baker Aircraft Company, Limited, has agreed the basis of valuation of the land at Chalgrove Airfield which it will offer back to the original owners when the company has no further use for the airfield.

No formal offer to lease Chalgrove airfield was made to Martin Baker, although in discussions with the company the question of a lease was considered.

A short lease would not have given the company sufficient security of tenure in relation to its future work, nor have justified the capital and maintenance expenditure it will have to incur.

On the other hand, a long lease would not have significantly helped the former owners, having regard to the undertaking the company have given, namely to offer the land back to the former owners as agricultural land at the current market price when its work at the airfield comes to an end.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will give some pleasure to the former owners concerned to learn, I think for the first time, that the company will be prepared to offer the land back at its agricultural value at the date of valuation?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend's reply to a recent Adjournment debate was quite unusually unsatisfactory and that there are several disquieting features in this case which only a public inquiry could satisfy?

Much of the trouble about the Adjournment debate was that my hon. Friend was left only a very few minutes in which to reply—I am making no criticism—and did not have a chance to deploy his case fully. On the question of a public inquiry, he and another Minister have already twice visited Chalgrove. This matter has been considered by Ministers at every stage, and we are fully informed about all the details.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the designs for the various buildings of the Fylingdales early warning station have been or will be submitted for the approval of the Royal Fine Art Commission; and if he will inform the House of the Commission's opinion of them.

The Royal Fine Art Commission was sent an outline of the proposed development including a description of the technical buildings. The Commission's comments did not include any observations on the buildings themselves. It was of course aware that we were discussing details with the Park Planning Committee, which is the local planning authority for the area, and the National Parks Commission. These bodies have already approved in principle our proposals for siting, layout, design and treatment of buildings.

Is it correct, as stated by one of the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friends, that the main structure will consist of three enormous balls? If these balls are as large as they are reported to be going to be, is not any assurance about landscaping and all that rather superfluous and, indeed, hypocritical.

No. These balls, or radomes as they are called, are large, but we have offered to paint them any colour which we are asked to paint them so that they blend in with the landscape, and we are employing a landscape consultant to advise us.

How large are these balls?

I do not have that figure without notice.

Will these balls be painted different colours at different times of the year so that they blend in with the vegetation?

That would no doubt be covered in the discussions which we are having with our professional consultant.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what use has been made of Royal Air Force, South Uist, for training aircrew in the use of Blue Steel.

None, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Air how many Prestwick aircraft were used in connection with the exercise Starlight recently held in North Africa; and whether he is satisfied as to their general efficiency.

Six single-engined and two Twin Pioneers took part in Exercise Starlight. They performed the tasks allotted to them very satisfactorily.

While I am grateful, I am not surprised by that reply. Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have received information from an officer who took part in this exercise saying that these machines gave outstanding service during the course of the operation? That being the case, will not my right hon. Friend consider ordering more of these machines for use in the Royal Air Force?

I agree that they have given excellent service, and we have just ordered three more. However, frankly, I do not foresee the need for further Pioneers for the Royal Air Force because, although we are expanding our short-range transport force, we are bringing in rather different types of aircraft, as my hon. Friend knows, such as the Rotodyne and the new helicopters.

Is it not a fact that, whereas some of the small conventional aircraft are air-transportable, the Rotodyne is not so transportable? Is not that an important consideration?

The Rotodyne is "ferry-able", if that is a word.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say over what territories this exercise took place and whether the consent of the Governments of those territories was secured for this purpose?

I do not think that that arises out of this Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) if he will give instructions to the Royal Air Force that no reconnaissance aircraft shall fly over Russian territory;

(2) to what extent there is cooperation between the Royal Air Force and the United States Air Force for the purpose of obtaining photographic information about Russian air and military bases.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what consultations he has had with the United States Strategic Command concerning flights by aeroplanes based in the United Kingdom over Soviet territory for purposes of espionage.

As the House knows, it has never been the practice to disclose either the nature or the scope of Intelligence activities. In my judgment, it would be contrary to the public interest for me to make any exception to this practice.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the most important thing today is to relieve world tension? Is he aware of reports that the Governments of Norway, Japan and Pakistan are submitting to the United States Government their view of the importance that these reconnaisance flights should not be carried out from their territories? Does he not think that the public interest would be better served if the public were assured that these matters will not have very grave implications for the safety of the people of this country against attacks by bombers or bombs against which there is no defence?

If the hon. Member thinks that we should discuss matters of military intelligence in the House, I do not agree with him.

In view of what has been revealed by this incident and the dangers contained therein, are not the people of this country entitled to know about something which might be very much contrary to the public interest, because it might involve the people of this country being blown up? Surely the public is entitled to know, for example, whether the reports in today's Press are accurate, that the R.A.F. was participating in these activities until twelve months ago, when the Prime Minister is said to have countermanded the order and stopped them. Are we not entitled to know what consultations there are about the uses of American bases on British soil, which might involve retaliatory action against those American bases on British soil—activities for which the Americans take responsibility?

It has long been the accepted practice of successive Governments from both sides of the House that matters of this kind are not discussed in public, and I see no reason for departing from that practice.

Is my right hon. Friend able to assure the House that, in conjunction with the other Services, the R.A.F. will continue to discharge the responsibilities laid upon it to make sure that this country is not surprised by any untoward attack?

Will the Minister agree that this is a matter of very grave concern, especially to those of us who live in areas near American air bases in view of the report that Mr. Khrushchev has said that Russia may retaliate against the bases from which these planes fly? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that no planes from bases in this country will be used for spying on Russia or any other country?

I am not confirming or denying anything. All I am doing, with great respect, is refusing to answer these questions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in reply to a similar Question yesterday, his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that the Government did not think that they would suspend patrol flights, even during the Summit Conference? As a token of Britain's earnest hope for the success of the Summit Conference, could not the Government cease these silly flights now and during the Conference?

I have made my position perfectly clear and I have nothing to add.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will give an assurance that money will be provided for grants for the improvement of classified roads in the Frankwell district of Shrewsbury, to coincide with the programme of slum clearance and redevelopment which the council is carrying out.

If we receive an application for grant it will of course be considered, but, without the necessary details, I cannot say if it would find a place in our programme. I regret I am therefore unable to give the assurance for which my hon. Friend asks.

Is my hon. Friend aware that under the present rules which his Ministry applies, whole areas in the part of the town mentioned are neutralised for long periods and that that makes the local authority look ridiculous when it is not its fault but the fault of the ridiculous rules in my hon. Friend's Ministry?

The local authority has told us in general terms that it wishes to bring these schemes forward. We have asked it to let us have the fuller details and the financial details. When the local authority does that, we will certainly consider the matter.

Am I to understand from that reply that when the local authority makes specific application there will be nothing in the Ministry which will bar it from receiving this land, either for building or for the purposes of a road?

I think that supplementary question rests on the next Question by hon. Friend has on the Order Paper.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that his decision, that his agreement in advance that the cost of acquisition of land or property will rank for grant when such land is incorporated in a highway improvement is conditional upon the land not being included in the highway before he gives his approval for the scheme, has had the effect of neutralising these areas so that they cannot be used for some years pending his approval, the costs of fencing off and loan interests being borne by the local authority; and whether he will ensure that his grant is payable at the time when his agreement to the acquisition is given.

I realise that highway authorities may not in every case be able to find an interim use for land which they acquire for a road improvement scheme in advance of approval of the scheme, though in practice some good short-term use can often be found. As to the second part of the Question, we must continue to devote sums at our disposal for grant purposes to urgent schemes which can be put in hand at once, rather than to the cost of land for schemes which it may not be possible to carry out for some time.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is very seldom an occasion on which a local authority can put to good use an area which amounts mostly to flat rubble on the side of a road? Would it not be much more economical in the long run to make sure that the material is incorporated in the highway, which probably would be the cheapest form of dealing with it?

I cannot altogether agree with my hon. Friend. Our experience is that in the great majority of cases land held for future road work is employed for useful purposes. Sometimes it is let on a short lease, sometimes it is used for amenity purposes such as parkland and so on. On the whole, the system works very well.

asked the Minister of Transport when he will send an answer to the hon. Member for Reading to a letter dated 24th November, 1959, dealing with the need for push button pedestrian crossing lights to be installed in the Oxford Road, Reading.

I have written to my hon. Friend explaining the difficulties we have met in trying to reach a satisfactory answer to this problem.

While realising that the letter received from my hon. Friend was stimulated by this Question, may I ask if he realises that there have been 196 accidents on this stretch of road in eighteen months and that in the six months since I wrote to him the number of accidents has increased and is increasing? Will he show some greater speed in dealing with this problem than we have seen during the last six months?

We are very well aware of the difficult conditions of this stretch of road. To make the necessary progress in the matter, to which my hon. Friend rightly draws attention, we felt it necessary to obtain some up-to-date figures of the numbers of vehicles and pedestrians. That information has only just been received from the local authority. We are examining it now as a matter of urgency.

asked the Minister of Transport the total acreage taken up by the M.1; and what proportion has been laid down to grass or young plantations.

This motorway covers about 2,000 acres of land in all. About 51 per cent. of this area is occupied by features of the motorway which do not require to be paved, such as the cuttings, embankments, and the central reservation. These have been grassed or planted to harmonise with the surrounding countryside. A further 3 per cent. of the total area is being used solely for landscaping purposes, mainly with young plantations.

In view of the very considerable acreage that is laid down to grass on verges, can my hon. Friend say what general arrangements have been made to keep them tidy, and in particular what arrangements have been made to collect the hay harvest which will he available shortly?

With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, the fact is that the areas put down to grass in this way are of such a character that I do not think we could expect to get much of a crop of hay from them. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down the first part of his supplementary question as a Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Minister of Transport if a commencement date has now been fixed for the West Riding section of the London-Yorkshire motorway.

No, Sir. We are considering the objections to the draft scheme for the motorway from Crick to the Doncaster By-pass. The proposals by the local authorities for the further extension of the motorway to Sheffield and Leeds are being examined. It will inevitably take some time to complete the statutory processes. It is therefore too early to fix starting dates for either of these schemes.

Is the Minister aware that there has been far too much procrastination about the construction of the Yorkshire Motorway? Will he bear in mind how important the decision will be, not only to Yorkshire but to the North-West, and that at the moment thousands of pounds' worth of road-making machinery is lying idle?

I think that is a little hard. As I said in the first part of my reply, we have to go through the process of considering objections made to the draft scheme. We are pressing on with that as quickly as we can. We have no interest in delaying these schemes.

Can the hon. Gentleman indicate how long the construction of the West Riding section will take from the date on which it is started?

No, I cannot do that without notice.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will invite the West Riding County Council to act as agents on behalf of his Department for the building of the West Riding section of the London-Yorkshire motorway.

asked the Minister of Transport what decision he has reached concerning the appointing of consultants to be responsible for the construction of the Yorkshire section of the London-Yorkshire motorway.

The West Riding County Council has recently made representations to us that it should become our agent for the detailed preparation and supervision of the construction of the extension of the motorway to Sheffield and Leeds. These representations are still under consideration.

As regards the motorway from Crick to the Doncaster By-pass, consulting engineers have already prepared a draft scheme. In accordance with our general policy, it is our intention that the further detailed preparation and the subsequent supervision of construction should also be undertaken by consulting engineers.

I am shocked to hear that reply. Is not the hon. Member aware that the West Riding County Council has already carried out 51 miles of road building as his agent at a cost of about £17 million and that the work has been done satisfactorily? Will not he therefore take into consideration, or ask his right hon. Friend so to do, the work which has been done by the West Riding County Council to make certain that this authority is not pushed on one side for private enterprise?

There is no question of the West Riding County Council being pushed aside. It already has a heavy programme on its hands. It is now supervising its thirteen-mile share of the Doncaster by-pass and some fourteen large A-road schemes. I do not think it can be said that the authority is not being given some work to do. As for the general policy, it is my right hon. Friend's decision that schemes which traverse the area of more than one county council highway authority should in general be carried out by consulting engineers.

What does the hon. Gentleman hope to gain from such a policy? Will he bear in mind that the West Riding County Council has already carried out a large amount of preliminary work and has all the technical staff to deal with all the aspects of major road construction?

We are well aware of these views held by highway authorities. The great advantage of using a consulting engineer in cases of this kind is unification of control of the whole job. That is an extremely powerful factor for us to have in our support.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the cost of road congestion amounts to an annual figure of about £500 million, and that it is increasing at the rate of £150 million a year; and if he will state the steps he is taking to reduce this drain on the nation's economy.

The road programme and the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Bill at present before the House are designed to combat congestion the consequences of which in both safety and cost I appreciate. I am bound to say I do not however necessarily accept the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman.

Is the Minister aware that he is placing more confidence on the Road Traffic and Road Improvement Bill in this matter than is placed by most people concerned? Is he not aware that roads are becoming hopelessly overcrowded, particularly with long distance freightage traffic, while the railways are very well able to cater for that type of traffic? Would it not be in the national interest for more of that traffic to be diverted from road to rail in the interests of motorists and everyone concerned? What does he think the picture will be in a few years' time if industry and he do not do something more drastic about the diversion of traffic from road to rail?

I regard that as a counsel of despair. What we have to do is to provide in this country an up-to-date network of road communications. We are doing our utmost to ensure that we press on with the road programme as quickly as possible. The Bill, about which we are far more optimistic than is the hon. Member, will put some valuable additional powers into my right hon. Friend's hands to deal with congestion in the towns. I think that this is far better than trying artificially to divert road traffic from road to rail.

What consultations have the hon. Gentleman and the Minister had with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders about the number of cars likely to come on to the roads in the next few years? Secondly, may we have a White Paper which sets out the Government's plans more than a few months ahead? At the moment, hon. Members who axe trying to follow this subject have to content themselves with a flood of individual Press releases from the Ministry of Transport.

We are in regular touch with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, and the society gives us its views as to the future numbers of vehicles coming on to the roads. I will bring to my right hon. Friend's attention the suggestion about a White Paper.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to ensure that the Park Lane improvement scheme will be completed in less than twenty-eight months.

The programme for the scheme has been worked out very carefully by the London County Council, which is responsible for carrying it out. Its plans have been prepared in consultation with my Department, my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Works, the Metropolitan police, the contractor and other bodies concerned.

Parts of the scheme will be open to traffic as they are finished, but I am satisfied that, if traffic is to be kept moving while work is in progress, twenty-eight months is the best possible time that can be achieved for the completion of the whole scheme.

Since the hon. Member's Department clearly has some responsibility in this matter, cannot he look at this again? Presumably night working would be very expensive. Is there to be any of it? Will he bear in mind the enormous cost, in time and trade and temper, of this extraordinarily long-drawn-out dislocation?

I fully understand the hon. Member's views. They were the views which I held when I first heard about this. I have personally looked very closely into the plans. The difficulty is that we are dealing here with two of the busiest junctions in the country. Hyde Park Corner carries over 100,000 vehicles a day and Marble Arch is the third busiest junction in the country. We have to keep these traffic lanes open. As for the possibility of night work, we must remember that at Hyde Park Corner there is St. George's Hospital, and for that reason we have been obliged to ban any work between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. in the interests of the patients. I am afraid that there is nothing we can do to speed this scheme, much as we should like to do so.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that a great part of this work is a long way from St. George's Hospital, for example that at the Marble Arch end? Even if there is no work near the St. George's Hospital end after 11 p.m.— which we can understand—will he at least assure us that at any rate work will be carried on during Saturdays and Sundays and at night where it is out of earshot of St. George's Hospital?

The difficulty is that the key to this scheme is the underpass along Piccadilly, and that is very close to St. George's Hospital. I will bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to the attention of the London County Council, which is responsible for this scheme, tout I am not very sure that it will be able to carry it through.

Is the Minister aware that many people believe that such schemes as the Hyde Park Corner scheme are not the right things to do in this day and age? Is he aware that if we are to have road improvements of this character, they ought to be on a much wider and broader plan, not the sort of scheme which, although it might relieve traffic congestion at one point, does not solve the problem in the areas from which traffic comes and into which it goes from that point? Is the Minister aware that in America such schemes in the heart of a city have been abandoned?

There is a strange duality of view in the Labour Party on these matters. If that is the hon. Member's view, I must point out to him that some of his hon. Friends are always pressing us to do more of these road improvement schemes.

asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made with the provision of traffic lights at the junction of Gower Street and Hampstead Road, London.

The St. Pancras Metropolitan Borough Council, which is the highway authority, is about to invite tenders for the provision of traffic light signals at this junction.

Is the Minister aware that I first raised this matter in 1957 and that in February, 1959, his predecessor said that the accident rate at this junction was rising? I was told towards the end of last year that the lights would be installed. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that it takes three years to have traffic lights installed in an important street in London?

In this case, yes. The timing of the project appears to have been influenced largely by considerations of finance. The St. Pancras Borough Council allocated the project to 1960–61 and was not at all responsive to our pleas Chat it should be brought forward. The responsibility, therefore, does not rest with us.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, for the convenience of persons visiting Parliament and of hon. Members, he will request the Bus Stopping Places Advisory Committee to consider the provision of a stopping place outside St. Stephen's Entrance for buses which pass along Abingdon Street.

Yes, Sir.

I am very pleased to hear that the Minister is taking note of that point. Would he please expedite the inquiry into it, because it is a very serious nuisance for many people who come in buses to the House when they have to stop either a considerable distance from the House or far away on the other side of the road?

I hoped that my short and hopeful Answer would draw an equally short and hopeful response from the hon. Member.

asked the Minister of Transport if, in the interests of road safety, he will take steps to remove unsuitable vehicles from roads within his responsibility.

The enforcement of the law is a matter for the police. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular type of vehicle in mind, and will let me have details, I will see whether anything can be done.

Will my hon. Friend remember that about 11,000 very seriously disabled men and women are at present being forced by Government regulations to travel on our crowded and rather dangerous roads alone in single-seater vehicles? Will he urge his right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health to press on with the scheme for replacing these admittedly very unsuitable vehicles by some form of two-seater vehicles which would enable these very seriously disabled people to take a passenger with them?

That goes a little wide of my right hon. Friend's responsibilities, as I expect that my hon. and gallant Friend realises, but I will certainly see that what my hon. and gallant Friend has said is brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.

asked the Minister of Transport for how many years he has received police analyses of the motor accidents on which prosecutions have been initiated in the courts of summary jurisdiction.

Particulars of individual road accidents involving personal injury have been reported by the police to my Department since 1949. These reports do not distinguish accidents as a result of which proceedings were taken.

Will my hon. Friend have a look at the recent analysis published in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which gives a very great deal of detail about the accidents on which police prosecutions have been taken? Will he bear in mind that I am rather inclined to think that, in relation to road accidents, all the emphasis on learner drivers and old cars, etc., begs the question and that a very much more detailed examination of the reasons for accidents would serve the purpose of my right hon. Friend much better than the present system?

Yes. I very largely agree with what my hon. Friend said in the second part of her supplementary question. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Minister is seeking to have a detailed investigation made of all the Christmas road accidents so that we can, if possible, learn some useful and constructive lessons from them. That is something about which I hope that we shall be hearing before very long.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Road Research Laboratory, which has the greatest experts on the factors leading to road accidents, is brought into the analysis of figures by the police forces so that a really accurate indication of the causes is made available to the Minister of Transport?

No, I do not think that it is, but I will inquire into that and let the hon. Gentleman know.

When the Minister completes his research, will he publish the figures and results?

We will give consideration to that.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce legislation to enable him to exercise wider powers in relation to area transport users' consultative committees.

No, Sir. We do not for the present propose to introduce legislation to alter the powers of these committees.

As a number of recommendations are being made for the closure of stations, while the whole question of the railway organisation is now in the melting-pot, would it not be desirable for my right hon. Friend to make a general recommendation that those considerations should be held in abeyance until the over-all policy is made clear? Is it not undesirable that there should be these piecemeal closures when, perhaps at a reasonably short-distant time in the future, those decisions will require to be reversed in keeping with a national decision?

I rather doubt whether the assumption my hon. Friend makes from the review which is being carried out by the planning, or advisory, group is justified. Certainly we must remember that in the current year £90 million is having to be found in direct subsidy for the B.T.C. I do not think we should lose any opportunities for useful economies, provided they can be properly made.

Is my hon. Friend aware that 93·5 per cent. of the cases brought for consideration before the consultative committees have been found in favour of the British Transport Commission? Is he aware that in at least one case I have given him irrefutable evidence that the decision was forestalled by the British Transport Commission by at least two months? He is now investigating another case—that of the famous "Tutbury Jinnie", which I brought to his notice a few nights ago. Will he agree that now the whole procedure of the transport users' consultative committees is a complete farce so far as consumer protection is concerned?

No, I am afraid that I cannot agree with all those assumptions made by my hon. Friend.

Would the hon. Gentleman pay tribute to the very useful work which the transport users' consultative committees have been doing and are doing? At the same time, would he have another look at the financial situation? At present the British Transport Commission has to bear the whole of the cost of the work of the committees. Might it not be to advantage and win more confidence among the general public if the cost of staffing and working these committees were borne from other sources than the British Transport Commission?

In reply to the first part of that supplementary question, I have answered a number of Adjournment debates in this House about the working of the committees, and I believe that on every occasion I have paid warm tribute to the work they are doing. I repeat that tribute this afternoon. I shall look into the second part of the supplementary question, about finance, but I am not very hopeful of being able to change the present practice.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the danger to the fishermen of Brancaster from the wreck originally sunk as a target in the channel there; why the marking of the wreck with buoys was discontinued; why he sold the wreck as scrap and subsequently failed to insist on the purchasers fulfilling their obligation to remove it; and whether he will now have the wreck removed.

I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the wreck of the "Vina" in Brancaster Bay, about which he has written to my right hon. Friend.

Its marking was discontinued in April, 1959, when the buoy previously provided by the Air Ministry broke away.

The wreck was, however, sold by my Department in 1957 and it was resold in May, 1959. I am advised that responsibility for the wreck and for taking reasonable measures to ensure the safety of other vessels lies with its present owner.

I am aware that there have been complaints that this wreck may be a danger to fishermen and we are in communication with the owner and Trinity House with a view to an early solution of this matter.

Was it not rather a mistake to sell this wreck to a scrap merchant who had not facilities for marking it or perhaps even for removing it? Will my hon. Friend make amends by having the wreck cleared out of the channel at the earliest possible moment?

Yes, Sir. I am giving personal attention to this matter, about which I have been concerned for some time. I hope that we shall be able to clear it before long.

asked the Minister of Defence how many men of 18 to 25 years of age, whose previous occupation was in the coal-mining industry of Great Britain, have joined Her Majesty's Forces during the years 1957,1958, 1959, and to the latest available date in 1960, stating each year and each divisional

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he made at the recent meeting of the Council of the Central Treaty Organisation to seek agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and other interested powers, on the limitation of armaments in the Middle East.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figures, when published, will show a very marked increase in the number of young miners who have left the coal fields in these years to join Her Majesty's Forces? While, appreciating that miners make first-class Service men and also that they have left the coal fields because of a profound sense of insecurity in their jobs, may I ask him to consult with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power to see what can be done to halt this drift away to the Armed Forces, otherwise we will have serious manpower problems in the coal fields in the very near future?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that some of the areas do show a considerable increase. Others do not show so much. I should like to echo his words that these fine men are very welcome indeed in Her Majesty's Services, and I will certainly take note of what he says about the coalmining industry itself.

None, Sir. The general question of disarmament was, however, discussed and the Council expressed the hope that real progress would be made at the Ten Power Conference.

As Her Majesty's Government are already committed to try to limit armaments in the Middle East without Soviet help by the Tripartite Agreement, and as in the Prime Minister's communiqué with Mr. Khrushchev last year he agreed to try to limit armaments in Europe with Soviet agreement, why on earth are the Government so unwilling to try to seek to explore this possibility as regards the Middle East?

We think it more important to make progress on general disarmament. I think that the hon. Member asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a rather similar Question the other day, and my right hon. Friend said that he was bearing the hon. Member's suggestions in mind.

In that case, will the Minister of State ask the Prime Minister to raise the question at the Summit Conference?

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said on the previous occasion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made to the French Government about the deportation from France of British citizens who marched from Aldermaston to Calais via London with the intention of proceeding to Paris to represent to the Summit Conference their views on nuclear disarmament.

I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) on 9th May.

In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman say why no protest was made in this case? Does not the Foreign Office represent British citizens abroad any more? What was the misdemeanour which these well-intentioned young men and women were supposed to have committed? Why were they not entitled to proceed, or is there no longer any democracy on that side of the Channel?

I anticipated that there might be some Questions on this subject, and the British Consul at Lille was instructed to ask the authorities for a precise account of what happened. Perhaps I can let the House know what that report is. According to his report, the group held a demonstration with banners on the evening of 30th April. The local Commissaire de Police informed them that demonstrations were not permitted without a licence, requested them to disperse, and took away their banners. He asked them to call on him on the morning of 1st May. In the course of this call, it emerged that the group were in possession of 5,000 leaflets and numerous documents. The police thereupon confiscated the documents and pamphlets and undertook to consult higher authority before giving them further instructions. On the morning of 2nd May, the Commissaire informed the group that they must return to the United Kingdom. This they agreed to do and returned to the boat without any police escort. At no time did they ask for the assistance of Her Majesty's representative.

I still ask: what was the good democratic reason why these young folks should not make the demonstration they intended to make? Was the literature seditious? What was wrong with it?

rose—

Order. That is clearly not a matter for which the Minister is responsible.

Would it not perhaps be fair to add that in this country these young people might have been sent to six months' imprisonment rather than just be asked to go away?

That is nothing to do with the Foreign Office.

Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiries to find out why these people, whose banners had been taken away, whose leaflets and pamphlets had been confiscated, and who thereafter merely desired to walk along the French roads to Paris without their banners, leaflets and propaganda, were requested then to return to this country?

As I understand it, the French authorities regard that as a demonstration, and a demonstration without a licence is illegal.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations Her Majesty's Government's representative at the Geneva talks on the testing of nuclear weapons had with the representative of the United States Government before that Government announced their decision to carry out an independent series of underground nuclear tests; and, in view of the damage this decision has inflicted on the prospects of agreement being reached at Geneva, what representations were made by Her Majesty's Government in opposition to the proposed tests.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government at the Geneva Conference on Nuclear Tests that all tests carried out for the purpose of establishing that small underground tests can be controlled are to be jointly organised and carried out by the three Governments.

The declaration issued by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Eisenhower after their meeting at Camp David in March called for an agreed programme of coordinated scientific research to solve the problems of detecting small underground nuclear tests. Scientists from the three countries taking part in the Nuclear Tests Conference are joining the delegations now in Geneva today to assist in working out details of this programme. The Soviet Union have accepted that a limited number of nuclear explosions can form part of this programme, but the procedure for conducting these will have to be agreed when the scientists meet.

On 7th May the United States made an announcement indicating the scope of their contribution to such a research programme, and I will arrange for the full text to appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

We were already aware of the United States' proposals and their nature has been explained to the Soviet delegation at the Geneva Conference. I do not accept that this decision could cause damage to the prospects of agreement as suggested by the hon. Lady.

Is it not a fact that what the Soviet Union and the other Powers had agreed to were joint tests for this purpose? That being so, is it not to say the least very extraordinary that the United States Government should have made this unilateral announcement before there had been these further consultations among the Powers as to the exact form these joint tests should take? Is not this likely to arouse suspicions and alarm on the Soviet side and damage the prospects of agreed disarmament?

No. If one is going to announce what contribution one intends to make to a programme of research of this kind, it is very difficult to do it except unilaterally. This is what the United States contribution is to be, and I have explained that the actual procedure by which the United States carry out these tests has to be agreed with the scientists of the other two countries in Geneva.

Is not the Minister, no doubt unwittingly, misleading the House? Surely, the agreement at Geneva was that any tests carried out in connection with this joint programme of research should be tests carried out in common by the three Governments concerned. Can the Minister assure the House that the American Government do not propose to carry out tests independently, and without the presence and participation of the representatives of the British and Soviet Governments?

These are precisely the matters that the scientists are meeting at Geneva to work out. All I can tell the House is that the President of the United States set out the policy of the United States Administration when he said there was to be an agreed programme of co-ordinated scientific research—an agreed programme. That appears in the declaration issued after the Camp David talks, and as far as we know the American Administration will abide by that declaration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman be a little more explicit on what is a vitally important point? Is it Her Majesty's Government's opinion that these tests that were announced, suddenly and surprisingly, by the American Government are tests in which Her Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government will participate? If that is not the case, how are they to be reconciled with the moratorium which, in principle, has been agreed by all three Governments?

What I would certainly say is that the procedure under which these tests are carried out must be such as to give assurance to the other countries concerned that no military advantage can accrue to the United States Government by the carrying out of the tests.

That is a totally different matter. Is it not the case that under the moratorium proposals the only tests to be carried out would be underground tests for the purpose of discovering better methods of detection, and tests in which all three Governments participated? Would the Minister of State confirm that that is, in effect, the intention of the Camp David announcement? Would he also indicate clearly whether the moratorium applies to all tests, or only to tests carried out for military purposes?