asked the Minister of Transport (1) why Langstone Bridge was recently freed from tolls, in contravention of the pledge made by the right hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, when Minister of Transport, that Selby toll bridge would be the first toll bridge to be relieved of tolls;

(2) why Conway Bridge in Wales was recently freed from tolls, in contravention of the pledge made by the right hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, when Minister of Transport, that Selby toll bridge would be the first toll bridge to be relieved of tolls; and if he will ensure that the pledge given by his predecessor is not broken again.

There has been no contravention of a pledge. The statement made in 1954 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) clearly related to the priority which he felt should be given to the removal of the tolls at Selby as compared with tolls on other trunk road bridges. Langstone Bridge is not on a trunk road and the toll rights of the old Conway Bridge have not been acquired. As my hon. Friend is aware, we are now planning to provide a bypass at Selby instead of acquiring and reconstructing the toll bridge there.

On an unimportant point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I be permitted to ask two quite separate supplementary questions in relation to the two Questions I have on the Order Paper?

If the hon. and gallant Member so wishes. I notice that some hon. Members, without asking permission, ask a number of supplementary questions when called to ask one.

My two Questions have been answered together, though they relate to two entirely different matters. First, with regard to Lang-stone Bridge, my hon. Friend has just said that no such pledge as I mention in my Question was given. His right hon. Friend made the same statement not long ago and offered to have a tripartite conference between myself, himself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire accepted that invitation, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport said that his remark should not have been taken seriously. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] May I ask my right hon. Friend whether that offer is still open? May I ask my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary whether as a grant of no less than £186,000 was given to help in the provision of this new toll-free bridge at Langstone, he thinks that it is within both the spirit and the letter of even his interpretation of the pledge which was given in 1954?

With respect, I think that my hon. and gallant Friend has misunderstood the position. I have checked on the records. The position is that in July, 1954, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire was Minister of Transport, a discussion took place, at which I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend was present. The record, which was subsequently issued to the Press following the meeting, clearly stated:

"The Minister said that he …was anxious that the tolls should be purchased and abolished and a new toll-free bridge constructed at the earliest possible date. Of all toll bridges on trunk roads he regarded Selby as the case of the highest priority for removal of tolls."

That is the position. If my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to discuss it with my right hon. Friend, I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend would be willing to accommodate him.

Mr. Mapp—Question No. 6.

On a point of order. I did not put a supplementary question on the second Question on the Order Paper.

I beg the hon. and gallant Member's pardon. His first supplementary was so long that I thought it was two. I called Mr. Mapp.

rose—

I am sorry, I think that we really must get on.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the progress made on the Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel and the approach roads; what major measures still require to be carried out before the project is complete; what progress has been made in respect of deciding the scale of toll charges; and whether he is satisfied that in view of the rapid increase in road traffic, the tunnel will be adequate to deal with it.

The driving of the tunnel itself has been completed and work on the Essex approaches begun. Tenders will soon be invited for the Kent approach road.

In addition, the tunnel roadway must be built and the ventilating and drainage plant installed. Offices, toll booths and lighting must also be provided. The work is well up to schedule and should be completed in 1962.

The Tunnel Committee is collecting data in order to recommend what toll charges should be made.

The tunnel will make a valuable contribution to the needs of traffic in this area for many years to come.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that statement. Is he aware that there has been a goad deal of concern on the Kent side because there is no evi- dence of major works being tackled and, until they are completed, the tunnel cannot be used? Further, will he explain to many puzzled people in Kent why toll charges are to be imposed when the other tunnels are free? Is not this a retrograde step, or is there some explanation which will satisfy the people of Kent?

In reply to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I would say that there is no doubt that there does not seem to be very much sign of activity on the Kent side, but this is simply because the Kent approach road comes last in the phasing of the programme. The tolls, I understand, are to be the subject of a Private Bill to be presented in the forthcoming Session, and there will be plenty of opportunity then for the whole matter to be debated.

What interests are being consulted in the consideration of the level of tolls, what user interests and what local authorities?

I cannot answer that without notice. All I know is that traffic surveys are going on at the moment to ascertain what is likely to be the amount of traffic which will use the tunnel when provided. I know that because I was stopped during one the other day.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will expedite the improvement of the road communication between the Whitchurch, Glamorgan, Manor Way by-pass and Pontypridd; and if he will make a statement.

We are pressing on with our plans for this road but we have not yet quite completed our investigation of the scheme for making use of the abandoned railway. This must be done before the necessary statutory Order can be made.

Will my hon. Friend take account of the fact that the full benefit can accrue from the considerable amount of money which has been spent on this Manor Way by-pass only if there is an extension of the road at a fairly early date?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Transport if, in order to enable work on the Park Lane improvement scheme to proceed at night, as well as in the daytime, without undue disturbance to patients in St. George's Hospital, he will consider offering to equip the hospital, at the expense of his Department, with double windows or other sound-excluding devices.

The London County Council has already investigated this proposal. Its conclusion, with which the hospital authorities agree, is that there would be no assurance that noise would be excludede sufficiently to prevent disturbing the patients.

The hon. Member may, however, be glad to know that the surface works will be substantially completed some months before the underpass. This means that traffic should then circulate at least as well as it does now.

Does that Answer mean that the total scheme will take rather less than the twenty-eight months envisaged?

No, it does not mean that the total scheme will take less than the twenty-eight months. The surface works will be completed some months before the underpass; the underpass will be the last thing to be completed at the end of the twenty-eight months.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, with a view to establishing the effects of accident-proneness on road safety, he will consult with the insurance companies in order to discover the proportion of the total number of accidents caused by those Who have had three or more accidents in three years.

The line of inquiry suggested by my hon. Friend has already been followed to some extent, and I will raise this question in the discussions which I am proposing to have with insurance companies and underwriters.

I thank my right hon. Friend very much for what he has said. Does he agree that, if we could establish that there was a group of acci- dent-prone people or accident repeaters in this country, we could give them treatment through driver clinics as is done in some states of America, and might not this inquiry be very useful on that account?

I hope that something will come out of it. It will certainly be pursued.

asked the Minister of Transport what proportions of deaths on the road have involved old people of 70 years of age and over and young people under 25 years of age, over the last available year.

In 1959 l7·8 per cent. of the persons killed in road accidents were aged 70 or over and 33·3 per cent. were under 25.

These are two very big groups. If we can ascertain that there is a group of people who have accidents, might we not be able to have a specially directed campaign on the dangers affecting old people and young people and thereby reduce the number of accidents?

Special consideration and propaganda is already directed to elderly people and children, and this has been very effective in schools. The Question, of course, relates to the under-25 age group, which includes people of widely differing characteristics.

asked the Minister of Transport what acreage of land has been so far acquired as working spaces for the construction of the Severn Bridge.

No land has yet been acquired but negotiations are in progress.

Is it not about time that the Minister took a firm decision about this matter? It has been shilly-shallying about for years. As the right hon. Gentleman's party has been in power for nine years, we should surely get better progress than this.

The district valuer is now negotiating. This is a question of compromise between the rights of the individual and the speed of building.

asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the recent announcement by the Government about the date for the completion of the Severn Bridge, whether he will now make a statement about the date for the commencement of the building of the bridge.

The Government have not made such an announcement. As regards the start of work on the Severn Bridge, I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Wednesday, 23rd March, 1960, to which I have nothing to add.

Is it not amazing that Lord Brecon, one of the members of the Government, should make a statement that the bridge is to be completed by 1966, while the Minister himself can make no statement about the date of commencement? When are we to have an end to this confusion?

I do not think there is any confusion. I think the question was asked at a meeting held by a junior chamber of commerce and Lord Brecon gave his personal opinion.

asked the Minister of Transport how many county authorities have requested him to meet a deputation to discuss the proposed Severn Bridge; and what replies he gave.

The only request of this kind I have received was from the Negotiating Committee on the Severn Bridge, which includes in its membership the County Councils of Gloucester, Monmouth and Glamorgan. The Committee's principal concern was the date when work on the bridge was expected to begin. It was explained that the date would depend on completing the acquisition of land and on the necessary funds being available. This being so, I did not feel justified in putting the Committee to the inconvenience of coming to London to see me.

Is the Minister aware that it is much to the advantage of everybody to have completely frank consultation with interested parties in the Severn Bridge project? Is he also aware that the authorities on both sides of the bridge are very concerned about his reluctance to name a date for the commencement of the scheme, and will he now give a date?

I cannot name the date for the commencement of the scheme, because we have not yet got the land.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local authorities which had a conference on Friday have, over the last three years, brought pressure on his Department? Surely, he can give a helpful conference of that sort better hope than he is now giving?

I think that, rather unusually for him, the right hon. Gentleman is exaggerating, because in this case the district valuer is engaged actively in negotiations, and he cannot move faster because he has to be reasonably fair to those people whose land he is taking.

asked the Minister of Transport if, in the interests of road safety, he will discourage the use of vertical or near-vertical kerbs, except in built-up areas.

My divisional road engineers will continue to apply in practice the advice on this subject which my predecessor issued to highway authorities in 1955. He recommended that in rural areas vertical kerbs should be provided only where a footway adjoins or is close to the carriageway and is used to an appreciable extent, or where for some other reason it is dangerous for vehicles to leave the carriageway.

I agree with what my right hon. Friend has said, but does not he think that the time has now come when the specification of appropriate cross-sections for different types of roads should be more forcibly pressed on local authorities? Is not this one way in which we can prevent accidents on the roads?

If my hon. Friend has in mind any instance where he thinks that a local authority has not carried out the recommendation I should be grateful for particulars, and will look into them.

Well, here is an instance. Will the right hon. Gentleman find out why that advice was not given, or taken, when the new nuclear power station road was constructed from Latchington to Bradwell in Essex?

Yes, I will certainly look into that.

asked the Minister of Transport the number of accidents in Court Road, Orpington, since 1st July, 1959, and the steps being taken to improve the safety of this road.

Since 1st July, 1959, there have been 26 accidents involving personal injury, in 3 of which serious injuries were caused.

Plans are under examination for the construction of an island at the junction of Court Road with Spur Road and Avalon Road which, with approach islands, will improve a length of approximately 750 feet. Advance warning signs for the junction will be erected shortly; a large "Bend" sign has recently been erected about a quarter of a mile south of the junction with Spur Road and Avalon Road.

Dual carriageways are ultimately to be provided throughout Court Road.

My hon. Friend will recall that his right hon. Friend wrote to me on 3rd December last saying that this would be dealt with as a matter of urgency. He said, in fact, that he would ask his divisional engineer to speed things up as much as possible. As the figures of accidents seem most regrettably to have increased—over 24 in the previous year—is my hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient urgency is being given to this matter?

Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend wrote to my right hon. Friend on the subject, it is being pursued as a matter of urgency.

asked the Minister of Transport what further consideration is being given, in respect of the proposed Eastern Avenue extension through the Borough of Leyton, to the problems involved in determining the eastern end of the extension; and if he will now give an approximate date for the commencement of this work.

The design of the junction at the easten end of the proposed Eastern Avenue extension is being studied with the help of information from a recent traffic survey. I cannot yet say when work is likely to start.

With regard to the first part of my Question, does not the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that a further extension of the Avenue through that part of Leyton is very complex, and that the sooner it is examined, and a report made, the better it will be? With regard to the second part of my Question, does he appreciate that very many householders are in a very difficult position just now because they cannot sell their houses until they know when the work is likely to start?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that the roads there are in a complicated pattern, and we want the right answer before we proceed further. As to the second part of his supplementary question, we are well aware of the disquiet that may be caused to property owners and others about our future intentions. We published the Eastern Avenue Extension Order rather earlier than we normally would have done, to try to allay that anxiety as much as possible, but we shall certainly keep this matter very much in mind.

asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received from the Chief Constable of Buckinghamshire on the advisability or otherwise of introducing a 50 miles-an-hour speed limit on the at present unrestricted parts of the A.40 between the boundary of the Metropolitan Police area and High Wycombe; and what reply he made.

None, Sir, but we discussed our proposals for a temporary 50 m.p.h. speed limit at Whitsun with the Home Office and a number of chief constables, including a representative of the Chief Constable of Buckinghamshire.

Am I to understand, therefore, that no assurance was given that this new speed limit on the A.40 can be enforced; that the chief constable has not a sufficient number of policemen at his disposal to make sure that that speed limit is observed? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present speed limits on the road are not carried out? I live quite close to the road and travel on it daily, and in a period of ten years I have never seen one police patrol on that stretch of the road to carry out enforcement of traffic regulations.

As the House knows, Mr. Speaker, we are shortly to proceed to a debate on all these arrangements for Whitsun, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, when he can, perhaps, develop that point.

Can the hon. Gentleman say what research has gone on in this country into the relationship between different speeds and enforcement possibilities, such as has gone on in the United States?

I am afraid that, without notice, I do not know.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If, by some chance, I fail not to catch your eye later, how can I get an answer to my supplementary question?

I get so confused with double negatives.

asked the Minister of Transport the present cost per mile for the construction of dual carriageway four-track roads and any estimated costs of flyovers.

It is not possible to give a standard rate per mile, since the cost varies so widely according to the nature of the terrain, the number of rivers, railways and roads to be crossed and the extent to which crossings on the level are eliminated. Recent contracts have varied between £250,000 and £400,000 a mile. Similarly, while a simple flyover in the open country might cost £150,000, one in an urban area might cost almost ten times as much.

As the Minister speeds about the world on his bicycle has he notice that dual carriageway roads and what, in this country, are called fly- overs,—which means one road crossing another—are becoming quite common outside this country, while the British way of life seems to be tied to the idea of the roundabout? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is holding up the provision of proper cross-overs on dual carriageways? Is it the expense, is it the difficulty of acquiring land, or is it trouble in the Cabinet?

I do not think that that supplementary question arises out of the Question on the Order Paper which was directed to estimated costs. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an estimate—one can never do that with civil engineering costs. The roundabout is an old method, and underpasses are being constructed. There is the one at Hammersmith Broadway. I believe that one was opened at Hook the other day, and there is the one at Hyde Park Corner. It is, therefore, quite wrong to say that they are not being undertaken.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's observation that roundabouts are really outmoded, will he see that in any future road development we shall have—instead of these cumbersome, unnecessary roundabouts—flyovers or clover-leaf bridges, so that traffic may make the best use of the expenditure involved in building these modern highways?

The roundabout is an old idea that preceded the underpass and the flyover, but I did not say that it was completely obsolete. There are a large number of places, where the traffic is light, where roundabouts are very suitable. Where the traffic is not suitable for roundabouts, we shall have flyovers and underpasses.

Flyovers seem to be very interesting things. Can the right hon. Gentleman say where we can see one in Scotland?

That question should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

asked the Minister of Transport the estimated cost of the Marble Arch-Hyde Park Corner scheme; and what is the Government contribution.

The estimated cost is £5 million, to which the Government will contribute £3,750,000 by way of grant to the London County Council.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the mouth of Prestwick's unopened tunnel waters when we hear of such vast sums being spent on one corner of London? Can he not urge his right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Government to show the same liberality to Scottish road needs as is shown to London's? Can he say whether or not it is the case that there is a prospect of the estimated cost being revised in the upward direction?

I think that there is some difference between the possibility of a tunnel under the runway extension at Prestwick and this big scheme for the biggest traffic junction in the whole of the country. The hon. Gentleman has asked about estimates of cost. The original cost was £5¾ million but, as we have gone on, we have discovered that that can be reduced by £750,000 and I see no reason to expect that it will go up again.

Can the Minister use his influence to get even a small proportion of that sum for the A8 Glasgow—Edinburgh road where, in recent years, on only five miles of it, nineteen children have been killed because of the Government's refusal to give us a flyover?

My right hon. Friend has a number of responsibilities, but in this connection, at any rate, they do not extend to Scotland—

Order. I was wrong in allowing the other supplementary question. Neither arose from the Question about the cost of the Marble Arch-Hyde Park Corner scheme.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the fact that my supplementary question did arise from the Question, because I asked whether the estimated cost would have to be revised in an upward direction?

I thought, on reflection, that it did not, but we need not argue about it, because it is all dead and buried now.

Is the hon. Member aware that we do not grudge one penny of what is being spent on this London project, but could not he allocate an odd farthing now and again to Scotland?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have a look at the new Forth Bridge and remember what we are doing there.

asked the Minister of Transport when he proposes to improve the main road A.56 between Manchester and north-east Lancashire.

We are investigating proposals for the comprehensive improvement of this road, but much preparatory work has yet to be done and it will inevitably be some years before construction can be started.

In view of that reply, is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that "some years" is a sufficiently quick time to be getting on with the work? Is he fully seized of the importance of this key road in the plan to bring new industry to north-east Lancashire, where the cotton industry has been run down?

I am very well aware of the case, as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones) discussed it with me at some length a few weeks ago. The position is that this road carries a lighter volume of traffic than do many other industrial roads. For that reason, it was not included in the first phase of the road programme, but that does not mean that we shall not be able to include it in the next phase.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this road carries a lighter volume of traffic than some other roads precisely because it is unfit for more traffic than it now carries? Is he aware that of the 30 miles of this road between Manchester and Colne more than 20 miles are subject to a 30 m.p.h. speed limit? As this is the only road communication between Manchester and north-east Lancashire, and as northeast Lancashire depends on improving its communications to attract new industries, will he bear in mind that if we are to wait a few more years in addition to the quarter of a century that I have waited already there will be nothing at all left of industry in this part of Lancashire?

I am afraid that we still have a number of roads that are not fit for the volume of traffic that we would like to see on them, but that is a situation that we are trying to deal with as quickly as possible. We shall certainly keep in mind the claims of this road, for the very reasons mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Transport the estimated cost of the Tyne tunnel project; and his estimate of the number of persons who will be employed thereon.

It is estimated that the tunnel and its approach roads will cost £12·6 million. About 500 men may be employed on the tunnel and 300 on the approach works at the peak.

Can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say what proportion of the cost will be borne by the Government? Can he give an approximate date when the project will start? Will he try to let us get on with the approach roads as quickly as possible so that those now unemployed in Jarrow may be given the work which they are seeking?

As I have said, the total cost will be about £12·6 million. We shall make an outright grant of £3 million and the county councils jointly will contribute £1 million. We will also be advancing 75 per cent. of the balance, about £6·4 million, as a loan, and the councils will raise a loan in respect of the remainder, about £2·1 million. Both loans will be recovered from tolls to be levied on the traffic. The position about timing is that no contracts have yet been let as the project still requires the authority of Parliament The necessary Measure should receive the Royal Assent in July, in which case work would start in late autumn and would take about six years to complete.

asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has made to the committee of inquiry dealing with the organisation and structure of the British Transport Commission in regard to the co-ordination of passenger road transport services in Lancashire with the rail services of the British Transport Commission.

None, Sir.

Will the Minister kindly say how he thinks that a committee of inquiry can give a fair appraisal of B.T.C. services unless it takes into account questions of co-ordination of this kind?

What the committee of inquiry will take into account is another question. The Question on the Order Paper asks what proposals I have made.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many bus companies have arrangements with British Railways for standing joint road-rail committees and that in Lancashire the two principal bus companies, Ribble Motor Services Ltd. and the North-Western Road Car Company Limited, have such a committee and have had it since 1929?

Yes, I am aware of that.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he has completed his promised investigation into the conduct of the inquiry in the case of the "Tutbury Jinnie"; and whether he will now make a statement;

(2) in view of the recent evidence, which has now been sent to him by the hon. Member for Burton, regarding the "Tutbury Jinnie", if he has yet come to a decision regarding the reference of this matter to the appropriate consultative committee.

The result of my investigation into this matter was communicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) in my letter of 23rd May, and I have carefully considered the letters he sent to my right hon. Friend on 30th May. I am satisfied that there was no impropriety in the conduct of the inquiry, and I can see no justification for asking the West Midlands Consultative Committee to reopen the case.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a Mr. George Dow, the area traffic manager for the Birmingham Area, sat on that consultative committee as a member of the committee and as such stated the case for the British Transport Commission, answering the objectors' case and, in effect, as a member of the committee acting as an expert witness on behalf of the British Transport Commission? At the end of the proceedings, he then sat in judgment on the decision. Will my hon. Friend, in view of the evidence which I have sent to him, institute a new inquiry into the whole matter, since justice has not even been seen to he done?

My hon. Friend raised this matter in full on the Adjournment on 3rd May. In the course of that debate, he made the allegations which he has repeated today. I have fully investigated them and I have discussed the matter on two occasions since with my hon. Friend. I assure him that I am myself satisfied that there was no impropriety in this matter. Beyond that I cannot go this afternoon.

asked the Minister of Transport on what date, in implementation of his recent promise, he communicated with the Chairman of the British Transport Commission regarding the position of railway superannuitants; and what reply he has received.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received a reply from the Chairman of the British Transport Commission to the communication he undertook to make to him on the pensions of railway superannuitants; and what was the nature of the reply.

On 17th March last I drew the attention of the Chairman of the British Transport Commission to the views expressed on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) on the previous day, but my letter did not call for any reply.

As the British Transport Commission is apparently willing to fulfil the normal obligations to these people who are trying to live on out-of-date pensions but are unable to do so, is the Minister prepared to give the Commission some assistance in helping these people?

The Commission has made certain proposals which are under consideration, but this is part of the wider question of the reorganisation of the Commission, especially its finances.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have a letter from the Chairman of the British Transport Commission telling me that he has made representations to my right hon. Friend and expressing great concern about the position of these railway superannuitants? In view of the fact that the British Transport Commission wants something done, is my right hon. Friend prepared to take on the battle with the Treasury, having regard to the fact that our election pledge covered all pensioners?

I am, as always, obliged to my hon. Friend. I did know that the British Transport Commission had written to her because I received a copy of the letter, and I told the Commission that I would look at this letter in the light of the whole of the finances of the British Transport Commission.

What are the channels of communication concerning these proposals between the Department and the British Transport Commission? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have led deputations on this matter to his predecessor, and that so far we have received a lot of sympathy but no support? Would he bear in mind in any future discussions with the British Transport Commission that a number of these people, by reason of the conditions of service, were compelled to join the old railway superannuation fund but they now think that they would have been better off if they had never contributed a penny to the fund but had relied upon National Assistance? I am sure that that is not the Tory idea of the rewarding of thrift.

The channel of communications is that the British Transport Commission wrote to me making certain proposals and I replied stating that they are under consideration but, as I said in my answer, the whole question has to be considered in relation to the wider considerations now being given to the finances of the Commission as a whole.

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

asked the Minister of Transport to what extent, in making the capital allocation to the British Transport Commission for the railway modernisation programme, he considered the amount required for the introduction of diesel train services on the Marylebone, High Wycombe, Princes Risborough line, including alterations to stations, bridges and tracks, and new trains and oil installations; what provision he made for these purposes in his total allocation; and to what extent the cost of this part of the programme is to be met out of Treasury loans.

Allocations to the British Transport Commission are based on annual programmes of investment submitted by the Commission and covering the activities as a whole of that body. Expenditures on services such as those to which the hon. Member refers would come from within the allocation, and be financed either from the Commission's internal resources or by Exchequer advances.

Is the fact that the hon. Gentleman cannot give the figures for which I ask evidence that he and his right hon. Friend have sufficient confidence in the Transport Commission that it can go ahead without that Parliamentary scrutiny that was asked for early this morning? Is he aware that some of his hon. Friends have been pressing the Commission, quite rightly, to undertake this expenditure—although it is a small scheme it will mean heavy expenditure—no doubt on the grounds that what benefits their constituents is desirable, but that public expenditure that does not benefit their constituents is probably wasteful and extravagant, and ought to be stopped?

I have tried to answer the Question on the Order Paper. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not rise to the various types of bait he has cast over me in that supplementary question.

asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the increasing road congestion, and the fact that the road programme has not matched up with transport requirements, what proposals he has in mind for the setting up of new transport authorities for highly-populated industrial areas; what areas these proposals will cover; and when the necessary legislation is expected to be introduced.

The House will be aware of the arrangements for dealing with the traffic problems of London, where I have a special responsibility. Outside London the initiative in these matters rests with the local authorities.

Will the Minister consider whether or not a preliminary survey might be made of such areas as south Lancashire, having regard to the principle of the London Passenger Transport Board? Do I gather that the Minister is now denying certain information which has been inserted in the papers in Lancashire?

I do not know anything about what has been inserted in local papers in Lancashire. I should like to see them. If Manchester and Oldham, for example, wish to get together and have a large transport unit, it is up to them to take the initiative and not up to Whitehall to dominate them. If they do that, I shall be quite prepared to consider whatever their plans are.

Is the Minister concerned with this, because it is widely recognised that the only possible answer to the problem of congestion is co-ordinated, supported and strengthened public transport services? Is this something where the Minister simply gives up the responsibility, or will he take any steps to bring that into being?

In this particular case, I think that some of the large towns such as Liverpool and Manchester are considered by many people to be large enough already, but if those concerned themselves wish to form, let us say, a Merseyside transport group or a group around Manchester, I should certainly be prepared to consider it.

Has the Minister had consultations with his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on the location of new industry or the extension of industry in heavily populated areas which may cause further road congestion where congestion is already dense? If such discussions have not taken place, does he not consider that it would be possible in the future to help matters considerably if there were early discussions before locations were settled and more road congestion occurred?

I quite agree. Those discussions are taking place. In Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade are concerned. I deal with the President of the Board of Trade in England.

asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the congestion and danger caused by wide loads on the roads, he will consider introducing a compulsory convoy system for all abnormally wide or dangerous loads, limiting their movement to the hours of 9 p.m. to 7 a.m., announcing their routes, and instituting regular police control of such convoys.

Notice of the proposed movement of all loads over 91½ ft. wide has to be given to the police, who have powers to direct changes in the time, date and route of the movement in the light of local circumstances, and may decide to escort and convoy particular loads. Loads over 20 ft. wide can already move only on the authority of individual special orders issued by me.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the situation caused by these large vehicles is so serious that greater steps are required to deal with it? Is not the right hon. Gentleman letting his free enterprise doctrinaire notions run away with him to the detriment of human life? Could not the problem be tackled by vigorous administrative action to everybody's advantage? Could he not take some steps to restrict the amount of traffic in that way?

Let us get this matter quite straight. They may cause con- gestion, but they rarely cause accidents because they are so slow. It is wrong to say that these big loads cause accidents. The police on the whole have the powers—they are applied, for example, in the City of Birmingham—and it depends on the local traffic authorities' police to decide what to do.

It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that new proposals for control have been sent out in a circular letter which was issued by me on 24th May. It proposed certain controls on the movements of very long loads, which cause more congestion than wide ones, similar in extent to those relating to wide loads, and a special control by the Ministry on loads between 14 and 20 ft. wide, and I am waiting for comments on this.

In view of the heavy loads which are now being carried on the Al and the necessity for constant police patrols, could the right hon. Gentleman say who is meeting the cost of the police patrols which have to be assigned to these heavy loads?

That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that these large loads cause accidents because of the amount of frustration which they cause to scores of drivers of vehicles following behind them?

My information is that they do not cause accidents. I grant that they certainly cause congestion and in some cases there have been infringements. There was a recent case, for example, at Evesham in which the person concerned said that a load was going to be 20 ft. wide and it turned out to be 22 ft. wide, which meant that the routing was wrong. That is now being considered by the local police.

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he is not concerned if the police provide escorts for these vehicles? Is it not a matter of great concern to him that there should be a subsidy for one form of transport as against the railways which have to operate paying for their own policing and security?

The heavy vehicles contribute an enormous revenue. All I am saying is that the police authority comes under my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and if the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) were in his place he would be indignant if I were to answer a question for my right hon. Friend.

Is it not clear from one's personal experience that there is no place on the modern congested road for vehicles of this size and the loads they carry? Would it not be better to come to a decision that the railways are a much more suitable form of transit for this type of traffic?

The odd thing is that even if these loads go on the railways they still have to go on the roads to get to their final destination.

asked the Minister of Transport what recent reports he has had concerning the road congestion caused by the build-up of long queues of traffic, due to very slow-moving and very large bulk-carrying vehicles.

Reports about individual cases are made to me from time to time, by the police or highway authorities or by individual members of the public. I have had several such reports on a recent hold-up at Evesham.

Although the Minister said last week that it was the custom for these slow-moving loads to pull into a lay-by and let the accumulated traffic behind pass, this is very seldom done. Will my right hon. Friend consider what he can do about this?

These large loads can at present move freely on the roads only if two days' notice is given to the police and the directions of the police as to time, date and route are followed. It is a matter for the police in the locality concerned to see that their directions are such that traffic is not impeded.

Is this not another example in which the Minister, although he has not administrative control, has responsibility for co-ordination? Has he made any representations through his right hon. Friend to local authorities about the rules that the police ought reasonably to lay down for the movement of heavy goods vehicles likely to cause congestion to other road users?

It is left to the discretion of the police. A general order would not be satisfactory because local authorities vary according to the roads that they possess. It is only in these areas that local traffic authorities and the police know the conditions. Any general rule would not be worth the paper that it is written on.

asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the obstruction, delay, danger and nuisance caused by the length, weight or nature of loads carried by heavy motor vehicles on the roads, what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that the existing regulations are adequate to meet the case.

The very largest loads may move only under individual special orders issued under my authority. I have just circulated for comment proposals for further controls on long loads and those over 14 ft. wide.

While the Minister's Answer gives some encouragement, does not he appreciate that my Question covers the complaints and observations of a large number of hon. Members on both sides? Is he satisfied that even the further regulations he is making will meet this very great danger and nuisance to motor traffic?

I think that they will go a long way on very wide and long roads

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make regulations to ensure that car bumpers are at a uniform height.

I do not feel that this is a matter for regulations. The motor industry is aware of the advantages of standardisation where possible, and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has made its views on this subject known to all manufacturers. Because of the wide variety of sizes of vehicles, however, it has not been found possible for all models to conform.

Is it not ridiculous that in these days of growing congestion the manufacturers of private cars should fit bumpers of varying heights which afford no protection and sometimes cause one car to become entangled with another? It is ridiculous and something should be done about it. Why does not the Minister get on with it?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could advise us on the way in which we could apply standards which would be appropriate both for a bubble car and a Bentley.

Is my hon. Friend aware that with the enormous type of American car on the one hand, and the European type minicar on the other, the only protection that the minicar could have would be to have the bumper on top of the radiator?

Is it not more important that the Ministry should consider introducing regulations governing the weight and strength of the bumpers, which is perhaps more important than standardisation?

That goes a little beyond my right hon. Friend's responsibility. I must emphasise that bumpers on cars are not really a safety measure. They are intended to provide protection for vehicles from damage.

In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Transport if he has yet received the report of the Aberdeen interests which he called together to study the problem of the pontoon docks there; if he will send it to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North; and what action he intends to take on it.

The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir." We will consider the other two points which the hon. and learned Member refers to when the report has been received.

Does the Minister agree that, when he takes the responsibility of calling these various interests together for the purpose of consultation, he has a responsibility to urge them to get on quickly? This matter has been dragging on for a long time and is frustrating the solution of problems of industry and employment in Aberdeen. Will he, therefore, get the various interests concerned cracking on the job?

The hon. and learned Gentleman need not be too pessimistic about the lack of progress. The final meeting of the working group is taking place today. The appropriate committee of the British Transport Commission will consider its report on 15th June and the Harbour Board will consider it on 27th June. I think that we had better see those dates past before we go further.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement on the Chandos Report.

As I said on 25th May in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), the Report of the Chandos Committee is confidential. But the Committee has prepared a summary which, with permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I must make it clear that this in no way implies that the Government accept the proposals of the Committee, which are, however, being urgently considered.

As I cannot put a supplementary question on what my right hon. Friend is placing in HANSARD, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, when we know what has been recommended and when the Government have made a decision, he will arrange matters through the usual channels so that views can be expressed by the House of Commons as to what it thinks of the recommendations? May we have an undertaking that the Government will not commit themselves before the House of Commons has had an opportunity of expressing its views?

My experiences at the Dispatch Box are that when a Report is published the views of the House are made abundantly clear.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, if the House is to have a sensible debate on this matter, it must have as much information made available to it as is available to the Government? Will not he reconsider the possibility of publishing the Report as it stands?

No, that would be impossible because it would mean breaking promises. A firm undertaking was given by my predecessor to Lord Chandos, namely, that the Report would be treated as confidential and would not be published. In turn, Lord Chandos gave a similar assurance to his colleagues on the Committee and to people who gave evidence before the Committee, and they gave away confidential information. In these circumstances the main Report of the Committee must remain confidential, but I am grateful to Lord Chandos for this summary which will give the conclusions to the world as a whole.

As the Chandos Report may make a considerable impact on the future of the shipping industry of the United Kingdom, surely before the Government come to a decision on whether the Cunard Steamship Co. Ltd. should receive a subsidy or a loan at a low rate of interest the House should have an opportunity of discussing it in general.

That question should be put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I am certain that, if asked on Thursday after Questions, he will undertake to provide an opportunity for that.

Can the Minister say what is the main conclusion of the Report? Are there to be one Queen, two Queens or what?

As the summary will be published in HANSARD tomorrow, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read it.

Will the Minister take note of what his hon. Friend the Member of Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) said? Before the Government commit themselves, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that there is a debate in the House on this matter? We in the North-East are very much perturbed about it. We are afraid that the Chandos Committee may recommend the closure of certain small shipyards and that there should be concentration on the larger ones. We have memories of Shipbuilding Securities of days gone by. We do not want that to happen again. We should have a debate in the House on the principle involved.

The Chandos Committee's terms of reference had no relationships to closing down shipyards.

As my right hon. Friend's reply on the question of a debate is not satisfactory, may I ask him whether he will, as the responsible Minister, point out to the Leader of the House that, in the interests of the future of shipbuilding and shipping in this country, which are absolutely vital to our survival, there should be a debate before a final decision is taken? It is up to my right hon. Friend. He should not push it on to the House of Commons to make representations.

I should be most agreeable to a debate. If time can be found for one in the usual way I shall he delighted.

asked the Minister of Transport the tonnage of vessels ordered by foreign countries from United Kingdom shipbuilding yards and the tonnage of vessels ordered by United Kingdom shipowners from foreign yards this year.

In the first quarter of 1960, licences were issued for some 26,000 tons gross of ships to be built in the United Kingdom for foreign owners. In addition, licences for some 18,000 tons gross were issued for Commonwealth orders. I have no official information about the tonnage ordered by United Kingdom shipowners from foreign yards, but I understand that in the first quarter of this year it totalled some 19,000 tons gross.

Those figures are an improvement. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it is most disturbing that we are a net importer of new shipping? Will he make representations to British shipowners that they should play the game by British shipbuilding yards?

I have no doubt that they will read this in the shipping news, as usual. We have received orders from abroad for 44,000 tons and have placed orders abroad for 19,000 tons, a net gain to the industry in this country of 25,000 tons. If we were to impose any restrictions on British owners placing orders abroad, and if other countries took retaliatory action, the shipping industry would be harmed a great deal.

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

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will invite Members of Parliament to observe the next air mobility exercise of the strategic reserve.

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend is asking the Secretary of State for War to examine the possibility of doing this when plans for the next major exercise are being made.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether, as dozens of journalists are taken, it is possible to take half-a-dozen Members of Parliament? Surely it is very important that Members of Parliament should be informed and learn about these things when it is considered necessary to inform journalists of them.

It is difficult to make definite promises because the dates of these large-scale exercises and the exact place where they will take place are not yet firm. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air are very sympathetic to this need.

When the Government come to a decision on this matter, how will they arrange the selection of Members to observe these exercises? Is it to be done through the usual channels and through the Whips, or will Members who are not on the establishment rota be entitled to apply to pay a visit?

My experience is that the House of Commons has a very good way of arranging these matters. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's voice will not be unheard and that his claims will not be totally overlooked.

It should be clearly understood that, if an attempt is made to adopt the old practice, there will be very strong protests from certain quarters of of the House.

Will the hon. Member give us a promise that no special privilege will be given to Privy Councillors in this matter?

asked the Minister of Defence whether he has completed his inquiries into racial discrimination in leave centres administered by the Services; and whether he will make a statement.

I have been asked to reply.

Yes Sir. My right hon. Friend is now satisfied that no racial discrimination is exercised against Service personnel in any leave centre administered by the Service Departments.

In welcoming this change of policy, announced last month and reaffirmed today, may I remind the Minister that it was due directly to pressure from my hon. Friends who were informed of these discriminations as a result of letters from men in the Royal Air Force? Is this not another example of how well-informed Members of Parliament can benefit the Services?

It would be true to say that originally this was a difficulty. It has now been overcome. Parliament is one of the ways for correcting administrative difficulties of this sort. I am glad that it has been cleared up.

asked the Minister of Defence, in view of the recent launching of a foreign space ship whose course passes over the United Kingdom, on how many occasions in the last three weeks a foreign aerial machine has violated British air space; what evidence he has as to the country of origin of the aerial machine concerned; and what action has been taken to shoot down or otherwise interfere with any such aerial machine.

I have been asked to reply.

I presume my hon. Friend refers to the Soviet satellite which was launched on 15th May. I understand that this satellite and its rocket passed over the United Kingdom thirty-five times between 15th May and 3 p.m. today. Issues of international law regarding air space are for my right and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. The answer to the latter part of the Question is "None".

Will not my hon. Friend agree that, under the Chicago Convention, each nation has absolute and exclusive sovereignty over all the air space above its territory? This expressly applies to unpiloted as well as piloted planes. Is he aware that it is technically possible for an unpiloted plane to record by photograph or other means what is happening on the ground over which it passes and signal this back to its base? In those circumstances, may not this satellite be a substantial reinforcement to the very large number of Russian representatives, some in a privileged position, operating in a number of countries over which this satellite is passing?

Questions of international law are not for me, but my hon. Friend may have noticed that the Lord Privy Seal made a statement in another place about this matter. He made it clear that a sub-committee of the United Nations is studying the problem of sovereignty in outer space.

Will the hon. Gentleman be very careful, because he might shoot down an American space ship or satellite by mistake and might receive an explanation from Washington which will prove conclusively that George Washington, the man who never told a lie, no longer operates in Washington?

asked the Minister of Defence what he estimates will be the cost of the military tournament and tattoo, to be held in Madison Square Gardens, New York, in conjunction with the all-British exhibition in June.

I have been asked to reply.

No estimate has been compiled by the Departments concerned, since the cost of the enterprise will be a prior charge on the proceeds of the tattoo and will not be borne by Service Votes.

While recognising that this military tournament is an admirable thing in itself, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that this very large sum of money represents a sound commercial investment in support of what I understand his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said is a privately sponsored British trade fair?

I think that it is in every way admirable that we should show our allies and the world what the British Forces can do. This adds to the prestige and regard in which Britain is held. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the Votes will not suffer.

Would it not be a good idea if one or two hon. Members, including myself, could be invited to observe this particular experiment as well?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that he should pay for the trip himself. No doubt we could arrange an entry ticket for him if he could find himself in the right place at the right time.