asked the Secretary of State for Air how many officers who retired before 1958 are in receipt of pensions.

The number of officers drawing pensions awarded before 4th November, 1958, is 7,366.

In view of the fact that the Government have not proposed a further Pensions (Increase) Bill, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that modern Service men are inclined to judge the value of Government promises by how their predecessors, their grandfathers and fathers, are treated? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the general feeling in the country is that we have done very little and treated these people very shabbily? Therefore, will he make representation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order that the right type of men will be attracted to the Service and will not feel that their predecessors are not being properly treated in the Services?

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's views on this subject. I am afraid that I am not in a position to add anything to what the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty said last December on this subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Air how many widows of officers who died before 1958 are in receipt of pensions.

The number of widows drawing pensions awarded before 4th November, 1958, is 746.

First, may I say thank you to my right hon. Friend for not asking permission to answer my two Questions together?

I am not sure if my hon. Friend's assumptions about the Daily Telegraph are well-founded. It seems to be more the instrument of her views than those of the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will state the principles on which the political views of clergymen and ministers serving as whole-time or part-time chaplains in the Royal Air Force render them liable to removal from their duties.

Like any other officer, a member of the Chaplains' Branch is required by regulation to refrain from taking an active part in the affairs of any political organisation. There are no such hard-and-fast rules or principles for part-time chaplains. There have, however, been two instances in which local ministers resigned their Royal Air Force chaplaincies because they wished to express publicly views which were incompatible with these appointments.

If one of those two instances is the case of the Free Church minister who resigned under pressure because he was a nuclear disarmer, is it not then being admitted that there is, in fact, political discrimination—and, indeed, a political and military Gleichschaltung—of ministers of religion in the Royal Air Force?

No, Sir. I do not think so. Every man's private opinion is his own affair, but if he expresses a view in public which is not consistent with his position as a chaplain in a Fighting Service, we cannot ignore it. The part-time chaplain in question, being a man of honour, voluntarily resigned his position.

Is it not going to be rather difficult to censor all their sermons —at Christmas-time, for instance?

I do not think we are faced with any problem of that kind. When the matter arose in connection with the part-time chaplain to whom the hon. Member has referred, he saw there was an incompatibility and resigned.

asked the Secretary of State for Air why ejector seats are not provided for all the crew of V-bombers instead of merely for the two pilots, in view of the fact that ejector seats for all the crew are technically possible in V-bombers and are provided for all the crew in the B47, B52, B58 and the proposed B70 bombers of the United States Air Force.

The rear crew members are, of course, provided with an escape hatch. To fit ejector seats for them would involve a large modification programme and the depletion of Bomber Command's front line over a long period.

Is it not the case that, in the commonest type of emergency, the only way to escape from these bombers is by means of the ejector seats? In view of the unselfishness and high sense of honour which characterise the Royal Air Force, is not the present arrangement most detrimental to the morale of the R.A.F.?

No. I am advised that the greater number of accidents take place al high altitudes, when pilots are able, with their ejector seats, to go on piloting while the rest of the crew escape; they then have the advantage of ejection in the latter phase of the accident. When accidents happen at low level, this is not so easy. The hon. Gentleman and I have travelled together in airliners, and in those airliners there were no ejection seats or any other kind of escape apparatus.

If it is not possible for changes to be made in existing aircraft, will not the Secretary of State give an assurance that this point will be considered in any new designs of aircraft undergoing manufacture at present?

I should not like to give an assurance at the moment, but I will certainly look into it.

asked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent the decision to place Fighter Command under the control of the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, as part of a unified air defence system for Europe, involves changes in the size, rôle, composition and deployment of United Kingdom air defences forces; and if he will make a statement.

I do not expect that changes will result in our plans for the size, rôle, composition and deployment of our forces; these are matters reserved for national decision.

I accept that unified air command in Europe is desirable, but does not the Secretary of State agree that the announcement of a decision of such importance should have been made to the House and not left to the last day before Christmas and made by way of a Written Answer?

The elements which the hon. Gentleman mentions in his Question—size, r⊚cle, composition and deployment—are reserved for national decision. The main change. towards which we had been moving before, is the integration of the warning system. I think there would have been general unanimity in the House that it was right to move in that direction.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what changes in the future policy of the Royal Air Force are involved as a result of the decision to acquire the Skybolt missile; and if he is satisfied with the progress to date of the development of the missile.

The answer to the first part of the Question is, None, Sir. As to the second, detailed questions on the progress of development are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation, but I can say that all reports I have received show that good progress has been maintained.

While not endorsing the Government's decision to acquire this weapon, may I ask whether the Secretary of State has seen reports about the progress? Will he give us an asurance that the Skybolt weapon will fit the existing V-bombers without undue expenditure? Will it fit both the Vulcan and the Victor? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us about reports to the contrary which have appeared? Can he also say that there has been no cut-down in the programme for development of Skybolt in the United States?

Obviously, I cannot give assurances about what will happen in the United States. I have seen the Press announcements to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I can report that progress is being maintained satisfactorily in the factory on the production of this weapon. We see no reason to doubt that it will go forward. I should not like to answer off the cuff about fitting the weapon into the Vulcan and the Victor. If the hon. Gentleman will table a Question, I will certainly do my best to answer.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say at this stage which of our bombers is being adapted for this purpose?

I have a good deal of information on this. There is always difficulty when Questions of this nature are asked and one must suddenly try to remember what is on the secret list and what is not. It is very easy to be confused, particularly if one is new at the job. I should like to check on that before I make a reply.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement on the accident at a Thor base in December; what damage was caused; and why the group captain in command of the base has been posted elsewhere.

In the course of a periodical fuelling exercise at a Thor site on 7th December, a large quantity of liquid oxygen was released in the launching area. There was no fire or explosion and only very minor damage. A Board of Inquiry concluded that the primary cause was a failure to carry out the correct procedures for controlling the flow of liquid oxygen. This was considered to reflect on the state of efficiency and training at the station, for which the Station Commander is responsible.

On a point of order. May we be informed what Question the Minister is answering?

Yes. I am obliged to the hon. Member. The Minister is answering Question No. 6a. It is possible that same hon. Members have not gat the revised form of the Order Paper. Owing to a mistake among the Officers of the House, the star on the right hon. Gentleman's Question was not noticed. The only way to put it right was to reprint in order to prevent injustice.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must, with respect, point out that the un-revised form of the Order Paper was issued at the Vote Office immediately before 2.30 p.m.

I am very sorry about that. We have done the best we can to remedy an injustice.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I am absolved from any mistake.

I did not categorise the accident as minor. I said that the damage was very minor. The accident could have led to a serious fire. The House and the country are entitled to know that we maintain the highest standard of efficiency in stations of this kind, and when there is any fall-down in efficiency very strict measures have to be taken. Perhaps I should add that there had been minor deficiencies—not of an accident character, but of other sorts—in the station before. In the circumstances, the Air Officer Commanding thought that the right decision was to recommend the posting of the officer, and we have seen no reason to take another view.

asked the Minister of Transport if he has received the special report on the completion date and final cost of the Western Avenue underpass at Hanger Lane; and if he will make a statement.

We have now received the special report from the consulting engineers and we expect the surface junction above the underpass to be open to traffic in its final form by the end of May. Pedestrians should be able to use the subways a few weeks later. The final cost of the contract is likely to be about £925,000.

Does not this mean that this underpass is fourteen months late and will cost about £250,000 more than the original estimate? What redress has the Ministry against the contractors?

We are in discussion with the contractors about a number of matters arising out of this. There is a claim which we are told the contractors propose to make, and in the circumstances it would be wiser if I did not comment in answer to my hon. Friend's question. My right hon. Friend and I have taken the very closest interest in this case.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects that work will begin on the Andover bypass.

Proposals for the expansion of Andover to take overspill from London may affect the plans for the bypass and the side roads which are being reconsidered in consultation with the agent authority, the Hampshire County Council. The draft Orders will be published as soon as possible after the plans have been agreed. In these circumstances, it is too early to say when work will start.

Will my hon. Friend confirm or deny that agreement has been reached on the plans Which were sent to his Minister by the county surveyor on 23rd November last? Can my hon. Friend state whether or not his Ministry will have given approval to these plans so that a public inquiry on the proposed by-pass can be held early this year at the same time as the expected public inquiry into the new proposed town plan for Andover?

With regard to the second half of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, this is one of the things we have in mind, because we are anxious to save time where we can. On the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the current position is that the revised, alternative proposals for the bypass and side roads have been prepared by the county and are being considered by our divisional road engineer in conjunction with the county surveyor. It may be some time before these proposals can be settled and the draft Orders published, but we shall get on with it as quickly as we can.

asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for improving the road junction of A.303 and A.343 at Weyhill, Hampshire.

I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the junction of A.303 and A.342 at Weyhill. To improve visibility, a building was demolished and the carriageway realigned at this junction in 1959. We have no further plans for it

I apologise to my hon. Friend for the typist's error in the Question. Is he aware of the very dangerous situation where the two main roads converge art the western end of the village of Weyhill and of the very strong local opinion that there should be a roundabout at this junction?

No, I was not aware of that. I know the spot to which my hon. Friend refers, but I have not found it all that dangerous. In view of the fact that he has brought it to my attention, I will have the matter looked into.

asked the Minister of Transport what progress is anticipated within the next year in regard to the construction of the Leicestershire portion of the London-Yorkshire road.

asked the Minister of Transport if he can yet state when construction for the extension of the London-Yorkshire Motorway to Doncaster will commence; and what are the latest causes of the delay.

We hope during the next year to publish the draft Orders for alteration to side roads and accesses for the whole route from Crick to Doncaster. These Orders are open to objection for three months. As we have then to consider all the objections received and may have to hold a public inquiry, I cannot forecast at this stage when we shall be able to make the Orders. Land acquisition and detailed engineering design will also go forward during this period, but cannot be completed until the side road orders have actually been made. Until these statutory processes are further advanced, I cannot usefully forecast the date for starting construction.

Is the Minister telling the House that after having had this matter under consideration for nearly seven years he is only now considering the question of side roads? Has he not investigated that before? Why has he to wait another twelve months before anything can be done? is he aware that there is considerable anxiety and that these delays are costing people fortunes? Will he get on with the job?

On a number of occasions in the past I have crossed swords with the hon. Member on the reasons why this scheme has been so long delayed. Blame does not rest with the Minister of Transport—either my right hon. Friend or his predecessor. All I can say is that we are proceeding as fast as we can within the confines of the statutory process laid down by Parliament. We cannot short-circuit that. We are determined to get on with it as quickly as possible.

asked the Minister of Transport how many accidents were reported in the Metropolitan Police area during 1960 involving traffic islands or bollards used for traffic control purposes.

I regret that the information asked for is not available.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is ample visual evidence that traffic bollards are frequently involved in accidents and that they may well be a contributory factor in the seriousness of some accidents? Will he look into the possibility of replacing the present type of bollard with something which is potentially less dangerous to traffic?

That is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper, but I know that the design of the current bollard was reached after many years of experiment and is said to be not dangerous from the point of view which my hon. Friend puts. I will certainly have this looked into, because I was rather surprised to know that the information for which my hon. Friend asked is not available.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that the catering facilities planned on major motorways will be adequate to meet the needs of motorway users; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. Service areas providing catering and other essential facilities are being opened at roughly 25-mile intervals on all major motorways. Two such areas are now in full operation on the M.1. Another will be completed at Strensham to coincide with the opening of the northern section of the Bristol-Birmingham Motorway now under construction.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the service which is likely to be given by these stations and the charges which will be made to the public?

Yes, Sir. We have had very little complaint about the way in which these service areas are being conducted. Such complaint as has been made has been that there is not more of them. As I said in my Answer, this is a matter to which we are devoting a great deal of attention.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied as to the value of the M.1 motorway, now that it has been in operation for a year; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. Traffic on this motorway has recently reached an average of over 15,000 vehicles a day. Journeys are speedier, and safer. Laden goods vehicles using the M.1 save 40 to 50 minutes on the round trip and private cars up to 1½ hours, compared with the time previously taken on the A.5 and A.45 route. The accident rate is half that of the best type of all other roads in the country.

In view of the great success of the M.1 and the motorway principle, which some of us have been advocating for this country for about 25 years, will my hon. Friend say whether the Government have plans to press ahead with further motorway developments?

Yes, Sir. I can tell my hon. Friend that 120 miles of long-distance motorway have already been built; another 86 miles are under construction; and another 100 miles are expected to be put in hand this year. As my hon. Friend knows, during the next five or six years, we hope substantially to complete the five major projects and to make a start on the extension of the M.1 from Crick to Doncaster. My right hon. Friend is appointing Sir Owen Williams and Partners as consulting engineers to complete the preparation of this latter scheme.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that the London-South Wales Motorway, which is urgently required on traffic grounds and is one of his five major projects, has a sufficiently high priority in the road programme; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. In deciding the priorities of particular schemes, we have to take account of the needs of traffic over the whole country. The South Wales Motorway is being built in stages concentrating first on those parts where the traffic needs are greatest. Construction of the Maidenhead by-pass and the Thames Bridge is already well advanced; we expect work on the Chiswick-SloughMaidenhead section and on the Severn Bridge to begin shortly.

Will account be taken of the fact that this road, when completed, will bring relief to the two alternative routes which now exist and will also bring tremendous economic benefits not only to South Wales but to the southwest of England, too?

I think that my hon. Friend heard the reply which I gave a few moments ago to the Question about the M.1. We are quite confident that, if we get the London-South Wales motorway built, the same sort of results will appear from it in a very short time as have appeared in connection with the M.1.

asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has for the installation of traffic signals at the junction in Redhill of London Road, Frenches Road and Linkfield Lane.

The Reigate Corporation is planning an improved lay-out of this junction to make it suitable for traffic signal control. Meanwhile, the advance warning signs and carriageway markings near the junction are being improved.

asked the Minister of Transport what considerations he took into account before giving his approval to the proposal to erect parking meters on both sides of Jermyn Street.

Section 85 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, requires my right hon. Friend, when determining what parking places should be designated in a Parking Places Order, to consider both the interests of traffic and those of the owners and occupiers of adjoining property, with particular regard to the need for maintaining the free movement of traffic and reasonable access to premises. These were very carefully considered in relation to Jermyn Street.

Is my hon. Friend aware that when I wrote to him in 1959 asking whether alternative parking could not be permitted in Jermyn Street on alternate days, he replied, giving very good reasons, that it would be dangerous to relax the waiting restrictions; yet we have since been given parking facilities on both sides, which causes the moss hopeless congestion in Jermyn Street?

I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend, but the impression I have, supported by the information available to me and that from the Metropolitan Police, is that the installation of parking meters on this one-way street has enormously increased the flow of traffic and has made it much easier for vehicles to park and to obtain access to premises.

asked the Minister of Transport what is being done to improve trunk road communications in North Wales.

Work on the Queensferry bypass, which will remove the chief bottleneck on the main access route to North Wales, commenced last July. Consulting engineers have been appointed to prepare a scheme for a flyover at Llandudno Junction. Work has lately been completed on the improvements between Portmadoc and Trawsfynydd. This road gives access to the nuclear power station, and also serves tourist and other traffic in the area. Work is in progress on nineteen smaller schemes at a total cost of £340,000, and further improvements are in preparation.

asked the Minister of Transport how many miles of dual carriageway are now open to traffic on the Great North Road between London and Newcastle; and how many are at present under construction.

There are 91 miles of dual carriageway now open to traffic between London and Newcastle. This is over one third of the total distance. Another 70 miles of dual carriageway are at present being constructed.

Are there to be any motorways on the Great North Road, or are all the plans to be confined to dual carriageways?

This is a little difficult, Mr. Speaker. The position is that some of the by-passes will be constructed to motorway standards, and for all practical purposes, except for the type of traffic that may use them, they will be motorway. Other stretches will be ordinary all-purpose dual carriageway. But there will be no motorway as such.

asked the Minister of Transport when he anticipates that work can commence on the by-pass at Swanley on the A.20.

I hope that work on this by-pass will commence next year.

While thanking the Minister for his Answer, may I ask whether he will give an assurance, in view of the very serious accident rate on this road, and the fact that it is one of the five worst bottlenecks in the country, that whatever economies may be necessary this year this project will not be among them?

This is not a problem of economy, but is another reflection of the problem I mentioned in reply to an earlier Question: that we are obliged by Parliament to go through certain statutory processes which inevitably take time to complete.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to publish the draft orders for the diversion of the A.2 at Dartford.

We deferred publishing a draft Order so that we could consider proposals put forward by the Dartford Rural District Council. We hope to complete consultations and publish draft proposals by the spring of this year.

asked the Minister of Transport when he proposes to authorise the diversion of Route A.4119 from Mwyndy to the Ely Valley Road so as to open up a new route to the Rhondda Valley avoiding the present narrow, constricted and dangerous hills south of Llantrisant Town.

Whilst I recognise the need for the Llantrisant by-pass, there are many other schemes which have even greater priority. I regret that I cannot say when we shall be able to authorise it.

Can the Minister give us sufficient reason why the traffic needs of the Valley regions are ignored in the execution of these schemes?

I do not think that that is really fair. We are not ignoring the needs of any part of the country. There may be argument as to whether or not we are doing enough at a particular time but, as I said in my reply, we recognise the need for this scheme and will do it when we can; but there are so many demands from all over the country that have to be reconciled that some order of priority has to be established.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now sanction the carrying out of the road improvement schemes at Primrose Hill, Llantrisant, A.473, and at Newbridge Road and Brynteg Hill, Llantrisant, B.4270, in view of the fact that approval has been withheld from these major improvement schemes for several years.

Whether these three small schemes can be included in the grant programme for 1961–62 will depend upon the priority which they are accorded by the highway authority, and on the funds available for works of this kind.

asked the Minister of Transport what were the results of the operation of the Pink Zone during the recent period; and what lessons have been learnt from it.

Traffic volumes were 7 per cent. greater than in 1959 but the arrangements worked satisfactorily. Within the zone, traffic moved faster than in the previous weeks; and London Transport reported a notable improvement on the access routes, which were given special attention this year.

Despite the rude things said by the Press about the Pink Zone, will my hon. Friend agree that it freed traffic during the Christmas period? Will he also agree that its success is entirely dependent upon having parking space available in the parks to take the overflow of cars?

I think this has undoubtedly been a valuable experiment, not least in ensuring that we were not completely overwhelmed by the increased traffic which has been experienced this year as compared with last year.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has analysed the road accidents over the Christmas period in order to show what were the most prevalent errors either by drivers or pedestrians: and what has been the result.

The police reports on all accidents occurring at Christmas, 1960, are being analysed and we shall publish a statement shortly. The police reports give a great deal of useful information but do not enable us to say what were the most prevalent errors by drivers or pedestrians.

Should they not, in fact, give this information? Would it not be desirable to give all the publicity possible to the errors which are made?

The police prepare their accident reports on the basis of what happened, and not who was responsible. It is, therefore, difficult in some cases to say what was the particular error which caused the accident. Nevertheless, what they do give us provides us with very valuable information.

asked the Minister of Transport when the Swansea East Side approach road will be completed; what will be the cost; and what will be the Government's contribution towards it.

The scheme is due for completion by March, 1963. The total cost will be some £2,431,000 of which the Government contribution will be £1,708,000.

Is my hon. Friend aware that when this scheme is completed it will give greatly improved facilities for access to Swansea Docks and that the people of Swansea, while appreciative of this work, will be glad if my hon. Friend will bring it along a little more quickly?

We are very glad to hear that compliment from my hon. Friend. About three miles of the total of four and a half miles of this road are completed and in use. Most of the remainder should be completed by the end of this year.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he proposes to take to deal with the growing congestion on the roads in the south-west of England.

We authorised works in Devon and Cornwall in 1959–60 involving Government expenditure of over £1 million; and in the present year the figure will be about £1½ million.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the highway authorities in the South-West are still very concerned about the inadequacy of trunk roads and classified roads? Will he take that into consideration when making the next allocations?

Those highway authorities are not unique. Practically every highway authority would like to do more, and so would we, but we have to limit what we can do because of money and other considerations. We certainly get on as best we can.

Is the position about money for this development being revised, in view of the statement which the Minister of Transport made, that these roads pay for themselves in eight years?

We always believed, and are pretty confident, that the motorways would prove to be a great economic benefit to the nation. That is one of Dile considerations we had in mind in allocating money for the road programme. The progressive increase in the total for the road programme is another example of how our minds are working on this matter.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to consult the Forestry Commission as to the availability of home-grown supplies before the placing of large orders for imported timber either directly or through contractors.

No, Sir. I understand that substantial sample orders have been placed for home-grown supplies as a result of consultation between the British Transport Commission and the home timber trade.

Is it not important that home producers should have an equal chance with producers of imported timber? Is my hon. Friend aware that this does not always happen?

Of course, they should have an equal chance, provided the wood is comparable with imported timber for the needs for which the Commission requires it. In his Question, my hon. Friend asks for a general direction. I am advised that this is not a suitable subject for a general direction, but the Commission is placing sample orders and has the wood under test.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the proposals submitted to him by the Transport Committee of the Leicester City Council and other organisations for legislation to be introduced to deal with the increasing danger to road users caused by mobile cranes; and, in view of public concern at the increase of accidents involving such cranes, what action he proposes to take to deal with the matter.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce regulations controlling the use of vehicles with projecting loads and mobile cranes with projecting jibs.

asked the Minister of Transport when the statutory regulations covering the movement on highways of mobile cranes with overhanging jibs will be completed and introduced.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the nature of 'his reply to a letter dated 4th January from the town clerk of Nottingham asking for an early implementation of the draft regulations he has prepared for providing more control over mobile cranes with projecting jibs and vehicles with abnormal overhanging loads.

My right hon. Friend has received and is considering representations received from organisations and bodies affected by the proposed regulations on long, wide and projecting loads and mobile cranes. He is arranging for discussions with those principally concerned before deciding finally what should be embodied in these regulations, and he is replying to the Town Clerk of Nottingham accordingly.

Is the Minister aware that, or 9th December, he stated that he shared the concern felt by the Leicester City Council's Transport Committee about the danger likely to be caused to other road users by these vehicles? Surely he has had an opportunity by this time to examine the proposals which are being put forward. In view of the fact that the same letter states that it is for the Minister to give a decision, why has not a decision been given already?

The answer is quite simple. We circulated proposals on 11th August and particularly asked for replies and comments to be made by 21st October. A number of organisations did not reply by that date, and we have only just received the last replies. We are now looking into the representations which have been made, and we shall announce a decision as soon as we can.

These talks have been taking place for nearly three years. This time-lag in this important matter is unpardonable. Is the Minister aware that, during the last two years, there have been seven accidents in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, involving trolley buses, with these overhanging jibs? Will the Minister see—now that he is getting a move on—that he arrives at a decision and introduces these regulations during this Session of Parliament?

We are well aware of the dangers, and I have no doubt that we shall be able to announce proposals within a very short time. I must defend my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport from any accusations that we have been in any way dilatory about this. We acted as quickly as we could as soon as the problem became acute, and we are now on the point of announcing our decision.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that since he has received communications from the Association of Municipal Corporations there have been a number of fatal accidents and that the longer this matter is delayed the greater is the danger to human life? Will he treat this as a matter of great importance?

That is absolutely implicit in what I have told the House.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we in Nottingham first made these representations three years ago after two very serious accidents had occurred during the course of six months, one of which proved fatal? Will my hon. Friend, therefore, urge upon the Minister to bring these regulations into force as soon as he possibly can?

Hon. Members know the great interest which my right hon. Friend and his Department have in road safety matters and I can assure them that he needs no urging.

asked the Minister of Transport what discussions he has had with motor manufacturers designed to ensure that the interiors of motor cars are such that, if an accident should occur, the drivers and passengers are as fully protected as possible.

We are constantly in touch with the motor manufacturing industry on this and all other aspects of vehicle safety. A great deal of attention has been given in recent years to vehicle design, including interior design, in relation to road safety.

Does my hon. Friend know how many hon. Members have fitted safety belts in their cars? Would not that be a very good example?

I do not know how many have done so. I know that my right hon. Friend has in his car; I have in mine, and my noble colleague in another place has done so in his car. I hope that we are setting a good example.

Should not the question of the design of the interior of motor cars for safety purposes be examined by the Road Research Laboratory in great detail? Is that not an essential first step before making progress in this matter?

In fact, that is done. A number of organisations devote a great deal of time and money to this investigation, including the Road Research Laboratory, M.I.R.A.—the Motor Industry Research Association—and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

asked the Minister of Transport, what progress is being made in the compulsory 10-year-old car tests; in what respect it has been found neces- sary to amend the regulations; how many cars he estimates will be required to undergo the test; how many testing stations are available for the purpose; and what the prospects are of completing the operation by 15th May.

The test will be made compulsory for vehicles of various ages over ten years in accordance with the programme my right hon. Friend gave on 21st December in reply to Questions by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson). The necessary Order will be made this week; it has not been necessary to amend the regulations: about 1½ million vehicles will be required to undergo the test, and latest returns indicate that about ¼ million of these have already been submitted. There are now 14,348 testing stations available in Great Britain. Given the co-operation of the owners of vehicles coming within:the scheme, I see no reason to suppose that the operation will not have been completed by 15th May.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the conflicting views in garages as to what the regulations require to be done, and that some garages are claiming that they have been told to ignore the regulation regarding the size and position of rear lights? In view of the costly experiences of some motorists, can garages be told that the scheme is not an excuse merely to extort money unnecessarily from motorists?

I say quite sincerely that I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that information to my notice. I shall have it examined.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce legislation to increase the superannuation allowances of all retired members of the clerical and supervisory staff of British Railways by the same method as that operated for civil servants under the Pensions (Increase) Acts.

No, Sir. The British Transport Commission already has powers to increase pensions of superannuitants of British Railways.

Will my hon. Friend at least consider the case of people who retired before 1948 and were exempted from contributing to the National Insurance Fund, and therefore do not receive National Insurance? Will he also consider the case of very aged people who retired before 1946 and whose £70 a year war bonus was not taken into account in assessing their income? Does my hon. Friend consider that the income of people in Class 3 under the super-annuitants' pension arrangements, whereby a retired person receives £178 a year and no National Assistance, which is less than £247 a year on National Assistance, is enough?

My hon. Friend asked if my right hon. Friend would introduce legislation to increase the superannuation allowances of these grades. I have answered the Question on the Order Paper by saying that the Commission already has the power, if it wishes, to increase the pensions. There have been increases on a number of occasions in the past. The possibility of further supplementation is under discussion with the B.T.C. at the moment.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there is a very strong moral claim? Whatever the financial difficulties of implementing it, will he do his best to help the British Transport Commission to do something for these men?

Yes, we have never been in any doubt as to the moral claim of many of these pensioners. It has been largely a question of finance. As the House knows, the finances of the British Transport Commission have recently been widely reviewed and we are to debate these matters next Monday. I hope that hon. Members will be prepared to leave the matter there far this afternoon.

asked the Minister of Transport which organisations have asked him to make the Stedeford Committee Report public; and if he will make a statement.

We are aware of none, Sir. As my right hon. Friend made clear when the Special Advisory Group waft set up and in subsequent statements, it is not intended to publish the Group's recommendations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members will be in a far stronger position to debate the Government's White Paper within the next two days if this Committee's report is made available to the House?

As has been stated before, the Government take full responsibility for the proposals in the White Paper, which is really the point with which the House is concerned. The process by which we have reached the conclusions presented in the White Paper is, in our view, something which we are quite entitled to keep to ourselves, particularly as all the way through the story we made it perfectly clear that the advice of the group would be confidential to the Government.

Whilst recognising that some of the evidence may be very private and confidential to the Government, surely the House is entitled to have the main Stedeford recommendations? Let us have those in detail and, at any rate, let the House know what were the final conclusions of that Committee?

Once again, the hon. Gentleman has fallen into the trap of saying that this was a committee, as though it were a committee of inquiry. It was not. It was a special group of four advisers, with particular knowledge and experience, reporting jointly both to the Minister and the British Transport Commission.

asked the Minister of Transport what capital expenditure he has authorised for the building of new railway stations during the last five years.

Until February, 1960, individual projects of the British Transport Commission were not submitted to us for consideration. As my right hon. Friend said in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) on 21st December last, he had since February last agreed to major station works involving total expenditure of about £5¼m.

Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to prevent the Transport Commission from building any more railway stations such as the one they have just completed at Macclesfield? Is he aware that this station is regarded as a public disgrace and a sheer waste of public money? Will he look into the matter?

There are likely to be quite a number of opinions about any railway station, and I hesitate to take part in a discussion of that kind. All I can tell my hon. and gallant Friend is that, as the House knows, my right hon. Friend now oversees all projects by the Commission costing more than £250,000, and this sort of matter could possibly be looked at in that context.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement on the inquiry into the failure of the newly-electrified lines round Glasgow.

asked the Minister of Transport what was the cause of the recent breakdown of newly designed electric trains; and to what extent the cost of re-designing and re-making will be borne by the manufacturers of the parts found to be faulty.

The Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways has now made an interim report to my right hon. Friend on the accidents which occurred on 13th and 17th December, 1960, in the Glasgow suburban electric trains. This report was published on 18th January and a copy is available in the Library. A further report covering all factors affecting these accidents and all other matters relevant to them will be made as soon as possible. This will take account also of certain other failures on newly electrified services. The cost of re-designing and re-making any faulty equipment is a matter between the Commission and the manufacturers.

While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, because of resultant delay, may I ask whether he will urge all those responsible to expedite the other modernisation services, particularly the placing of contracts for the new diesel electric locomotives? Will he appreciate that the tenders are now out of date and that "omnibus" competitors can tender unrealistic costs? Will he therefore advise that the contract for the 88 diesel locomotives Mark IV authorised and for use in Scotland be placed with the North British Locomotive Company? Will he encourage this, since a very large grant from public funds was made to this company just before the election?

I will take note of what my hon. Friend says and will bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Can the Minister give us any idea when this work is likely to be completed and the new locomotives reinstated on the line? It is a great tragedy for British engineering that this mishap has taken place. We should like to know when the electric trains will be back.

It was, of course, a great disappointment to all of us that this happened, and particularly that it happened when it did. In any event, I cannot forecast the exact date when the service will be completely resumed, because we have still not received the final report of my right hon. Friend's Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways. The Commission wishes to get the service back again as quickly as it can.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now reached a decision about the construction of the Victoria-Walithamstow underground line.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement about the proposed Victoria underground line.

asked the Minister of Transport why he has refused to finance the cost of the Victoria Line extension to the London Underground Railway.

The British Transport Commission has sent us a further memorandum, with up-to-date estimates, on the construction of the Victoria-Walthamstow underground line. This is now under discussion between the Commission, the London Transport Executive and ourselves.

May we have an assurance that there will not be a further delay of years before some decision is made on this all-important project? Is it not a fact that the matter has been before the Government for a very long time and that decisions have always been postponed? Will that happen again, or shall we have a final decision on the matter in the next month or two?

Obviously, I cannot without notice give any date for a decision on this matter. My right hon. Friend is most anxious to get a decision on the matter as soon as he can—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman understands what I mean.

Is the hon. Member aware that the Minister of Transport himself said that the restriction on private motoring in Central London would lead to more passengers being carried on public transport? That is what he said to the T.U.C. deputation the other day. If that is the Government's policy, surely it ought to be a Government decision to finance the cost of this Victoria line extension, otherwise it will never come to pass.

I was present when my right hon. Friend saw the members of the T.U.C. deputation and, from my own recollection, I know that he made no such statement. The second part of the question, therefore, does not seem to arise.

Does the Minister's reply to me mean that the Minister of Transport is in favour of this proposal and that the Treasury is against it?

"In vain is the net spread in sight of the bird."

asked the Minister of Transport if he has now made his decision about the Euston to Crewe electrification scheme; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing at present to add to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) on 14th December last. My right hon. Friend expects, however, to be able to announce a decision shortly.

Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that this is a shocking reply? The announcement by the Minister to hold up this scheme was made long before the House rose for the Christmas Recess. Surely there has been ample time to make a decision in this matter?

No time has been lost by my right hon. Friend or his colleagues in considering this matter. As I said, he hopes to be able to announce a decision shortly, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will await that.

How long is "shortly"?

Will the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House that, as far as he is concerned, he is going to press forward in this matter? Is he aware that according to the evidence given to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, if the scheme is not proceeded with the British Transport Commission will have to spend £75 million on repairs to existing arrangements which are not nearly so efficient as a modernisation scheme would be?

The hon. Gentleman had better await the announcement which my right hon. Friend intends to make.

Is this another example of a most desirable scheme being held up by the Treasury? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the damage done to the electrical industry by the hold-up of orders? Is this another example of the way in which the Government have been dithering about and damaging the railways' prospects?

No, Sir. I entirely repudiate that suggestion. That is quite untrue. We have not been dithering at all. We have asked for detailed information about the scheme and we have obtained it from the British Transport Commission. Our officials and theirs have entered into lengthy discussions to obtain the full information that we wanted. We are now in a position where, I think, we shall shortly be able to announce a decision. There has been no dilatoriness on the part of the Government.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied with the administrative arrangements far overseeing the shipping and shipbuilding industries.

We are always glad to consider possible improvements. The General Council of British Shipping in its recent report made certain suggestions which my right hon. Friend will discuss with the General Council.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary really telling the House that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is still capable of looking after shipping, shipbuilding and what have you in view of the new commitments that he is to undertake in relation to the reorganisation of the railways? Is he to be chairman of the new board, to run the railways, and at the same time still to deal with shipping and shipbuilding?

The hon. Gentleman has obviously not read the White Paper with the assiduity we expect of him, If he reads the White Paper, he will see that my right hon. Friend is not taking on any fresh powers; indeed, far from running the railways, he is hiving off that responsibility to an independent body having that as its single-minded purpose.

Does my hon. Friend remember that when we debated the transfer of functions about a year ago his right hon. Friend said that if he found the load of his office too heavy in relation to shipping and shipbuilding he would go to the Prime Minister and recommend a transfer? Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a very considerable body of opinion that believes that the Ministry of Transport is now too big? Can I ask him specifically whether any consideration has been given to the establishment of a separate Ministry of Ship- ping to look after the maritime policy of our maritime nation?

My right hon. Friend has shown no difficulty in carrying the heavy weight of his office in the last twelve months, and I can assure the House that his absence today is only temporary. The other matter raised by my hon. Friend ought not to be dealt with at my level. Perhaps he will address it to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has studied the report sent to him by the General Council of British Shipping regarding British shipping policy; and what reply he has made.

asked the Minister of Transport if he has concluded his examination of the proposals sent to him by the Chamber of Shipping regarding British shipping policy; and what reply he has made.

My right hon. Friend is studying the report. He will consider it with his colleagues and discuss it with the General Council.

If his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is carrying his burden with such élan, can my hon. Friend tell me what his right hon. Friend has managed to achieve in the matter of flag discrimination and the advancement of this policy by the American Government?

That does not appear to arise out of the Question on the Order Paper.

But is not that the crux of the problem that affects our shipping industry at the present time? What do the Government intend to do about it? Are they merely to look at this report and then have meetings and then tell us that there are difficulties which stand in the way of coming to a decision? And what is to happen to the shipping industry in the meantime?

The first job we had to do was to find out the facts of the matter and get the views of the industry. That we have now done, and the way is now open for us to reconsider our whole policy on the subject and announce our proposals to Parliament in due course.

Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to bear in mind that he has always said: "If the shipping industry will tell me, the Minister, what it wants, I will be able to act"? Am I to understand that now he has received information of what the industry wants he will carry out that pledge?

That would be the implication.

Is the Minister aware that unless the Government soon adopt a constructive policy aimed at assisting shipping and shipbuilding there will be very heavy unemployment and a consequent loss to the economy and to our export trade, both visible and invisible?

We are in no doubt whatever as to the importance to our economy of the shipping and shipbuilding industries.

May I ask the Minister whether, in considering the general shipping problem, it is also intended to produce a policy for coastwise shipping, where the tonnage has fallen off by one-third in the last four years? Can we expect to have an early statement of Government policy on that section of the industry?

The problem of coastwise sipping is, as the hon. Gentleman says, indeed difficult, and a most important section of the General Council's document is devoted to it. We are giving as much consideration to that part as we are to the remainder.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the continuing harmful effects on British shipping caused by ships sailing under flags of convenience; and if he will make representations to the Government of the United States of America in regard to this matter.

Yes, Sir; we are aware, of course, of this problem, although it is not exclusively a question of the policy of the United States. It is one of the problems which my right hon. Friend is examining in the light of the Survey sent to him recently by the General Council of British Shipping.

Why are we again examining this matter? Surely this question has been receiving the Government's attention for long enough to enable them to make a decision? Everybody knows that the United States shipping interests are the bugbear in this matter, and surely it is time the Government did something about it.

The hon. Member will remember that my right hon. Friend, when in America last year, made personal representations to the United States Government about it. Since then we have been in touch with them, in conjunction with our friends and allies in other parts of the world who have an equal interest in this matter. It is really a question to which I do not think there is a short or simple answer, and I hope that when my right hon. Friend is in a position to make a statement to the House about shipping generally he will be able to introduce matter on this particular point.

In view of the general impression that there is now a more liberal-minded Administration in the United States, would it be desirable for Her Majesty's Government to make further representations to that Government with a view to removing what is undoubtedly a very serious problem for the maritime interests of Britain and other countries?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the new Administration in the United States has been in office for only a few days. I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition chose to raise this matter when he saw President Kennedy. We have really not had time to ask for their views on a matter of this kind.

Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to ask the Prime Minister whether he will raise the question with the new President when he goes there?

I will bring that to the attention of both my right hon. Friends