asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider arranging for the despatch from command or divisional level of a letter of gratitude for past service coupled with regret at the necessity for the termination of their service to each Territorial who has to leave the Territorial Army as a result of the forthcoming amalgamation of Territorial and Yeomanry Units.

I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for raising this matter. I myself, and other members of the Army Council, have already addressed personal letters to every honorary colonel expressing appreciation of the loyal service given by all ranks affected by the recent reorganisation. I think I should leave it to their discretion to pass this on, as I am sure they would wish to do, to members of their own regiments and units who will be leaving over the next two years. In addition, I have decided to issue a special order of the day for circulation throughout the Territorial Army.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as a result of the current amalgamation of T.A. units, a large number of volunteers, some of long standing, must be dismissed from the Territorial Army? Does he further agree that these unfortunate people not only lose the comradeship which they have enjoyed, in some cases for many years, but also social and sporting facilities and perhaps an appreciable part of their income? Would it not be unfortunate if the Territorial Army were to expel so many volunteers without some official letter of expression of regret from either the War Office or other official channels, at a time when the Regular Army is experiencing difficulty in obtaining sufficient volunteer recruits?

I cannot accept all the expressions which my hon. Friend has used in his supplementary question, but it is for these very reasons that I have taken the action I have taken. I hope that that, together with what we have said today, will be widely known throughout the Territorial Army.

asked the Secretary of State for War why the pension of an ex-service captain quartermaster fixed in 1945 at £165 per annum has not been increased; and, in view of the increases given to retired police and other civil servants, whether he will take steps to increase the pensions of regular ex-Service men.

Service pensioners benefit from Pensions Increase Warrants when they reach the age of 60. In common with other public service pensioners, they do not qualify for pensions increase before 60 unless they were invalided or are permanently unfit for full-time employment.

The trouble is that these men will get a gratuity of about £65 when they are 60. That will not be of much value. If increases in pensions can be given to retired police officers, who can retire from their jobs long before reaching the age of 60, I cannot see the justification for not granting these people an increase. There seems to be an inconsistency between one Department and another.

Pensions increases of this kind are special measures to relieve hardship, so we limit the payments to those who need them most. According to my information, retired police officers and civil servants do not get pensions increases before they are 60, unless they are permanently unfit for work. I believe that the present policy follows the line that those most in need should have priority.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will undertake an inquiry into the economic and social consequences of reintroducing conscription on either a selective or general basis before completing his plans for meeting deficiencies in Army recruiting.

In considering the various courses of action which might be taken to meet such deficiencies, the Government will take into account their economic and social consequences.

While expressing gratitude for that Answer, may I ask the Secretary of State if he is aware that the call-up was highly unpopular and that a selective or limited call-up would be even more deeply resented because, for the unfortunate victims, it would be doubly unfair? If the Government cannot meet their commitments with more than 400,000 Regulars, would not the right course be to cut the commitments?

No, certainly not. I ask the hon. Gentleman to read very carefully what I said to the House in the debate on the Army Estimates last week. There is nothing that I want to add to that.

asked the Secretary of State for War (1) if he will appoint an independent committee to investigate and report on the training methods applied in the Army, on the methods of obtaining discipline and on the general treatment of the men;

There have of recent years been a number of investigations into training methods and discipline of the Army, including Sir James Grigg's Advisory Committee on Recruiting. Although the House knows my anxiety not to prejudice our recruiting drive by allowing outdated practices to persist, I do not consider that yet another independent investigation is needed at present.

We will leave the latter part of that reply where it is, because it is secondary compared with the other. Is the Minister aware that it was agreed in this House between the two World Wars that there was need for an investigation of this kind, and a need to put the relationship between officers and other ranks on a more modern basis? Is he aware that Mr. Hore-Belisha, as he then was, was very sympathetic, and that I believe that something would have been done had not the Second World War intervened? Just as we have put Service equipment on a modern basis, has not the time arrived to put the relationship between all these men on a modern basis?

I hope that the hon. Member will have read what I said in last week's debate about man management, but as this arises from a specific incident that he has seen fit to bring before the House, I must say that the reputation of the Household Brigade both for prowess and for pageantry is proverbial, and I hope that the hon. Member, who is a shareholder in our national pride, will not, at the same time, seek to tamper with the traditional routine which plays a considerable part in maintaining that tradition.

I would not have pressed this matter had not the Minister answered as he has done. Is he aware that I stood there and watched all this; that I saw the men standing there for a long time; and that I saw the officers walk about quite at leisure and the big, fat sergeant-major, with a big, out-of-date moustache—which I think is typical of the out-of-date methods still prevalent in the Army?

With the greatest respect, I do not think that I have ever heard such twaddle. I think that I must be allowed to defend the people whom the hon. Member is attacking and, if I may say so, what the hon. Gentleman has said is a lousy imputation on—[Interruption.]

rose—

On a point of order.

On a point of order.

rose—

May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the word "lousy" is a Parliamentary expression?

At the moment, I am on my feet. I do not think that it is a Parliamentary expression. I think that the Minister should choose, if anything, another and more seemly epithet.

At your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I naturally would like to choose a more seemly phrase—I can produce a more Parliamentary one but I do not think that I could produce a more seemly one. I think that the imputation that has been made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) about this particular warrant officer is totally undeserved.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When a word has been de-clared unparliamentary, is it not the usual custom for the Member to withdraw it?

I understood the Minister to be withdrawing the epithet, which is what I declared to be unparliamentary. I do not quite understand why the hon. Member did not have the same impression. I thought that he did.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that we did not get the same impression, because the Minister said that he could not find a more seemly word. That hardly seemed to us to be a withdrawal. Although we are used to these synthetic bursts of indignation from the Minister, could he not conduct these matters on a more appropriate plane?

I do not want speeches on this. The question of fact is whether, aye or no, the Minister withdrew the particular word. I must say that I had the impression that before he said those words the Minister had, in fact, withdrawn the particular epithet—but do let us get on.

I withdraw the unparliamentary epithet but not what is behind it, because my indignation is not synthetic. This sergeant-major is a first-class man and the hon. Member ought not to try to cast aspersions on him. If the hon. Member knew more about what was happening, he would know that these parades are carried out before the drill season in order that the whole of the Scots Guards, which has a recruiting record as high as any other in the country, should carry out the duties which it has to undertake.

Reverting to the question of discipline, I think that the Minister recently observed that when one National Service man was asked whether he would care to volunteer for additional Regular service he said that the trouble was that he objected to being constantly shouted at. Is there not too much of that in the Service?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows my views about man management. Man management, or discipline, and "bull" are quite different things, and one cannot really have a mumbling sergeant-major on parade. He naturally has to shout.

asked the Secretary of State for War when he expects to receive the report on wastage of Army recruits from the Army Operational Research Group.

In about a year's time. However, I expect an interim report in the late autumn.

In a year's time there may be as many as 3,000 men purchasing their discharge from the Army. What is the Minister's view of the reasons for this high rate of wastage, and what proposals is he making to check it?

I do not think that, at the moment, I have anything to add to what I said in the debate last week. This examination that I am having undertaken must take a long time, because it is part of a major examination of the long-term problems of the Army. That is why I held a quick examination, and I told the House last week what we had found and what we are trying to do meantime. We ought now to wail for the full report.

When will the interim report be ready? Shall we have a chance to see it?

I hope that the interim report will be ready in the autumn, and if there is anything significant in it I will, of course, let the House know.

Is not the rate of wastage in the Brigade of Guards lower than that in other units, and is it not the fact, therefore, that the offensive remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) are not only stupid but wrong?

Remember how you treat our lads.

Order. I am afraid that if there is much noise the Chair might be reduced to making "sergeant-major" noises.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, consequent on the letter sent to him by the hon. Member for Carlisle, he has any further information about the case of the late Guardsman Nugent.

In the Adjournment debate on 2nd December, my hon. Friend said that Guardsman Nugent's father had had no notification of the inquest upon his son until he read of it in the Press. I replied that there had been a misunderstanding about what actually happened and that Mr. Nugent was notified by the police on 21st March. Following representations by my hon. Friend and Mr. Nugent, I have made further inquiries. It is now clear that the statement I made was wrong. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity to say so, and to apologise to him and to Mr. Nugent, and to the House.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that I am— and, I am sure, my constituent will be —most grateful for the way in which he personally has dealt with this matter? Is he also aware that in looking again at this case after an Adjournment debate has taken place, he is not only maintaining confidence in good government in general, but also maintaining the confidence of parents of Service men that their complaints in regard to their sons in sad incidents like this will be fairly and honestly treated?

asked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of bagpipes used by Scottish regiments is made in Scotland, in the United Kingdom, and elsewhere, respectively.

Eighty-seven per cent. of the total value of orders placed for bagpipes for Scottish regiments over the last four years came from Scotland. The rest came from elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Is the Minister aware that that news will be widely welcomed in Scotland? Will he consider increasing the figure to, perhaps, 100 per cent.? It seems but reasonable that the home of the bagpipes and of the music should be capable of manufacturing them in competition with any other part of the British Isles.

Any monopoly, even a Scottish monopoly in bagpipes, puts the wind up me.

asked the Secretary of State for War what consultations he had with the local authorities before selling Cairnryan military port to Mr. H. G. Pounds.

Representatives of the local authorities came to see my predecessor at the War Office before we disposed of the port. My right hon. Friend told the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) last week that other Government Departments which had an interest were also concerned in our discussions.

Is it not the case that the undertaking given to Stranraer County Council that it would be consulted before any contract was entered into was not fulfilled'? Will my hon. Friend say why it was not fulfilled? Is it not the case that Mr. Pounds, the purchaser chosen by my hon. Friend, has not put in an appearance in Stranraer for eighteen months with a view to providing the industry and employment promised in the area?

In regard to the second part of that supplementary question, my right hon. Friend indicated the other day that inquiries were proceeding. I cannot accept that an undertaking in the terms mentioned by my hon. Friend was given to the local authorities, because tender documents are dealt with confidentially and it would not have been possible to tell local authorities details of the bids received or of those who made them.

asked the Secretary of State for War (1) how much he intends to spend on the production of pamphlets to aid recruitment to the Army in the next year; and what increase this will represent over the comparable figures for each of the last three years;

Next year I intend to spend £45,000 on the production of pamphlets to aid recruitment. This represents an increase of £1,400 over the current financial year; of £4,400 over 1959–60; and of £2,000 over 1958–59. The magazine "Officer" had its first issue last spring, and the Army's first number will be issued this May and will cost £2,900.

How does the right hon. Gentleman assess the efficacy of this method of recruitment, or is it simply a shot in the dark and one does not know how many recruits are obtained for this expenditure? In relation to Question No. 13, has the right hon. Gentleman read the evidence given last year to the Estimates Committee, when it was shown that the cost of a single copy of the "Officer" pamphlet was more than 8s. and that the comparable cost of a pamphlet issued for the Board of Trade to attract industry to under-developed areas was rather less than 2s.? Can the Minister say whether when the "Officer" pamphlet is produced for the Army, the cost will be much less than the 8s. that was stated in evidence to the Estimates Committee?

I recognise the hon. Member's interest in this subject. In reply to the first part of his supplementary question, it is difficult to quantify the impact of any particular enterprise, but in publicity we have a right, and, indeed, a duty, to try all possible channels in their right proportions. The cost of "Officer" will, I think, be 6s. 8d. I know that by this time the hon. Member will have read the Treasury comments on the Select Committee's Report and that a review will be undertaken.

asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent Commonwealth citizens wishing to enlist in the Army can get assistance from Her Majesty's Government in respect of their passage to this country.

A man can enlist only in a British Army Command. But in countries where we maintain staff who can form a preliminary judgment of a man's suitability, we pay the passage to this country of those who are considered to be suitable for enlistment in the British Army when they get here. In other cases the man must come here at his own expense.

In these countries in which there is preliminary examination, is it well known that this procedure exists? In particular, is it well known in the West Indies? Secondly, if the Secretary of State, as he obviously does, wants to get recruits for the Army, would he not be well advised to consider whether more assistance could be given to encourage people from the Commonwealth to come and enlist?

The Question refers to Commonwealth countries, so I do not think that I can deal with the West Indies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I did not know that the hon. Member meant Colonial Territories as compared with Commonwealth Territories. I have answered the Question on the basis that I thought he meant independent countries in the Commonwealth. If he means Colonial Territories, the answer is substantially the same. As far as I am aware, we have not done any particular advertisement in regard to this matter, because every Commonwealth country has its own military manpower problem and we have to look carefully before we attempt to take away people from Commonwealth countries to bolster up our own Armed Forces.

What inquiries has the Secretary of State made in, for example, the West Indies about the manpower situation there? We are always told that there is extreme unemployment in many parts of the West Indies. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, on the best possible forecast of his manpower and recruiting, there will always be a critical shortage in such trades as cooks, drivers, ambulance men, and so on? Why not take positive steps to recruit in places like the West Indies to get men for jobs of this kind?

I went into this matter, and so did my hon. Friend, in last week's debate and I do not think that I have anything further to add. As the hon. Member has said, it is not simply recruits that we need, but specific types of people who are, if possible, already trained in the trades for which we want them.

asked the Secretary of State for War for what purposes the Vickers machine gun is still retained in the Army.

The Vickers machine gun is the standard medium machine gun of infantry battalions. It will remain in service until the issue of the general purpose machine gun, which will come into production in 1961–62.

Is the Minister aware that when I was first embodied or mobilised, whatever it is called, in 1939, one of the first things that I was assured was that the Vickers machine gun was about to be replaced? Twenty years have passed and the Vickers machine gun is still about to be replaced. Would it not be as well if the Government made up their mind about this weapon? In particular, if they are publishing information about the weapons that are available to the Army, is it not better to talk about the weapons which are in existence and not those which, it is hoped, may come into existence 4, 5, 10 or 15 years hence?

No, Sir. I have been fairly precise about when the Vickers machine gun will be replaced. If the hon. Member looks at the report of last week's debate, he will see that I was as clear as I could be. If the hon. Member was misled when he was embodied, I am sorry, but it may be because the Vickers machine gun has turned out to be one of the best weapons of its kind in the world.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that the funnel restrictions on development adjacent to aerodromes create increased difficulty and expense to the local electricity authorities in carrying out their duty to provide electricity; and if he will assist financially, or otherwise, the electricity authorities to enable them to give equal service to the residents in such areas.

It is the established practice in matters of this kind that any extra expense should be borne by the second corner to the area.

Is that not a manifest injustice? Here is a situation in which the house came first and then the aerodrome; and because of the aerodrome, the electricity people have to charge more to those who dwell in the original houses. Surely, this is an injustice. Should not my right hon. Friend try to put this injustice right, even though it has been going on for a long time?

I do not think that we could be liable for a financial responsibility where we are not the second comer. If an airfield is held, whether in reserve or on active service, we have to safeguard the runway approaches.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what arrangements exist in his Department for consultation with the National Parks Commission and the Dartmoor National Park Committee when extra facilities are wanted in that Park outside the militarised zones.

We consult whichever of these bodies is appropriate when facilities are needed.

Will the Minister give a direction to his Department to ensure that this practice is observed?

Yes, indeed. If the hon. Member knows of any instance in which it is not observed, I will be grateful if he will bring it to my attention.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if the pigs at Melksham Royal Air Force Station which recently contracted foot-and-mouth disease were fed on kitchen waste which included scraps of imported meat; and what measures are taken at Royal Air Force stations to ensure the proper sterilisation of kitchen waste by boiling as required by law.

The kitchen waste included scraps of imported meat but I am assured that it had been properly sterilised in accordance with the Diseases of Animals (Waste Foods) Order, 1957.

How can that be? If these unhappy pigs contact foot-and-mouth disease when living on this swill, containing scraps of South American meat, they can only have got the infection from the meat. Will my right hon. Friend issue special instructions to all Royal Air Force stations which keep pigs that if they use kitchen waste, especially if it contains scraps of South American meat, it must be thoroughly —underlining "thoroughly"—boiled, as a good example to other people who keep pigs?

I understand that the stuff is boiled in the technical sense of the word. It has not been possible to trace the source of infection in this case. I cannot say for certain that the imported meat was the source of infection, although it may well have been.

Will my right hon. Friend issue such instructions? Surely, it should be right for the Air Force to give a lead to other people who keep pigs.

We are always glad to give a lead, but I will have to look into the exact considerations that flow from my hon. Friend's suggestion.

asked the Minister of Transport what advantage has accrued from the responsibility of his Department for shipbuilding, as well as shipping, as regards savings of money and manpower.

My Department was made responsible for shipbuilding as well as shipping not to save manpower but because both industries were facing difficult times and their fortunes are closely tied.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research Report on shipbuilding points out that this country has become a net importer of ships recently for the first time, at the very moment when our own shipbuilding yards need more orders? Cannot he use his persuasive powers, and perhaps a little financial inducement, to get more orders for British yards and from British ship-owners?

The great point about our shipbuilding yards is that they must be competitive with yards abroad. We have, as my hon. Friend knows, a Sub-Committee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee which has made a report on the question of shipbuilding. It is referred to in a later Question.

Surely the Minister is aware that his Department can be judged only upon results, and that at the moment its results for the British shipbuilding industry can only be said to be absolutely deplorable, and that most of us consider that his Department is just not equipped to do this sort of work?

I entirely disagree with the hon. Member, and I am sure he would expect me to disagree with him.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only have we become a net importer of ships but we have also become a net importer of shipbuilding facilities for the first time in our history, and that these two things coupled together cannot help but cause us serious disquiet about the policy of the Ministry of Transport? In view of the anxieties on these two factors, will my right hon. Friend convey to the Americans the impression, which I think is felt on both sides of the House, that their practice in both shipping and shipbuilding is a considerable disservice to the free world in general and to Britain in particular?

As to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the General Council of British Shipping is sending a representative to Washington shortly and my Department has made arrangements, through the Ambassador and various people, for him to make representations directly to the Americans. I hope that that will have effect. As to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I disagree with my hon. Friend because I think that the shipbuilding industry, which is private enterprise, really ought to be prepared to face up to competition from other private enterprise industries in other countries.

Will the right hon. Gentleman please be not quite so flamboyant about this? Does he not realise that the difficulties of shipping and shipbuilding come from outside their control and demand Government action—on flags of discrimination in particular—in order to get our shipping and shipbuilding a fair deal in world trade? Does he not realise that subsidies given by other countries for their shipping and shipbuilding make it impossible for our own people to compete on a fair competitive basis? Does he not realise that it is Government action which is the answer to this?

As far as shipping is concerned, as distinct from shipbuilding, as the hon. Member well knows, the General Council of British Shipping has made certain recommendations which have taken eighteen months to get out and which I am considering with the Council very closely. We have had four or five meetings. I saw the chairman yesterday. He is satisfied with the progress we are making with our joint consultation. The hon. Member may not be, but the industry itself is. With regard to shipbuilding, for the first time for many years a Sub-Committee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee has been able to get a joint report from the various interests concerned, that is, the employers and trade unions. That, as I said before, is the subject of a later Question.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a statement about the production of a nuclear propulsion reactor for a prototype British merchant vessel.

I cannot yet add to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend on 1st March.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been a number of reports in the Press that he does not intend to go ahead with this project? Can he say when he will make a statement? Will he bear in mind that there is a strong body of opinion which believes that if we are to attain the technical "know-how" required to build up this new branch of the shipbuilding and engineering industries we must get practical experience at sea?

I cannot start confirming or denying newspaper reports, because the newspapers stated all manner of things and every possible combination and permutation of what might have happened. I cannot deny or confirm them all. I will promise to make a statement absolutely as soon as I possibly can.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received the Report of the Sub-Committee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee which is considering the reasons why new orders for shipping tonnage are not being given to the United Kingdom, including the reason why Norwegian ship-owners have recently allocated their orders to other European countries; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Transport when he now expects to make a statement on the Report of his Advisory Committee on shipbuilding and ship-repairing matters.

I have now received this Report, and I will make a statement about it as soon as possible.

In view of the urgency of the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman say when he proposes to make a statement? How much time will he take about it? Is he aware, for example, that of some 856,200 deadweight tons of shipping for thirty-six ships which Norway has ordered within the last few months, not a single vessel has been ordered here? Will he take into consideration whether that may not be partly due to the fact that we are not prepared to give proper credit terms in respect of shipbuilding orders? Will he consider whether something can be done in that direction?

I do not think that the question of credit terms is always a reason why orders are not placed in this country, because shipping owners in this country have in the recent past placed their orders abroad and there is no question of credit terms in those cases. The point is that the Report of the Sub-Committee—it is only a Report of a Sub-Committee—will go to the main Committee, and I must wait and listen to what the main Committee has to say. It would be very discourteous of me to make a decision before the Report had been referred to the main Committee, because a number of distinguished men in shipping, outside interests and the trade unions, serve on it.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we have had leak after leak in shipping and shipbuilding matters? Is he aware that in the case of almost every committee advising him the delays seem to be abnormal? Will he take a little time away from railways and roads and really get down to doing something about the needs of this very great industry?

It absolutely grieves me to disagree with my hon. Friend. There have been no delays at all on the part of my Ministry. As to the leaks in the Press to which she refers, she will find if she looks at them carefully that—if I may coin a phrase—they cancel each other out.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the delay caused to the extension of the London-Yorkshire Motorway to Doncaster on account of the present procedure for dealing with objections and arranging for the necessary acquisition of land, engineering design and other matters; and whether he will give an undertaking that he will in the very near future take all possible steps to streamline the procedure with a view to expediting construction work.

As stated in reply to the hon. Member on 25th January, we are proceeding with the preparation of the Crick to Doncaster Motorway as fast as we can within the confines of the procedures laid down by Parliament. This is a major engineering project and the detailed design, as well as the land acquisition, must necessarily take some considerable time.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that this has been going on for some seven years? Surely in seven years something effective could have been done, and much more speedily, to give facilities for the motorway? Will the right hon. Gentleman state categorically that at the present time there is no intention of starting the next portion of the road building from Yorkshire towards Leicestershire so that the roads shall not converge in Leicestershire and so make the position there even worse than it is at present, and that he will carry on the job quickly?

I will carry on with the job as quickly as the procedures which this House has laid down allow.

Will the right hon. Gentleman please given an assurance that that section of the M.1 will be completed before 1964 to enable early commencement of the Yorkshire section of the Motorway?

Hear, hear.

I cannot do that, because priority has been given to the five major projects announced to this House.

In view of the extremely unsatisfactory reply, I propose to raise this matter on an early occasion on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) what conclusion he has reached from the census of traffic over Boothferry Bridge taken in October last;

asked the Minister of Transport (1) what conclusions he has reached on the recent census of traffic on Boothferry Bridge; and what action he plans to relieve congestion on this part of a main route between Hull and the West Riding of Yorkshire;

The main purpose of the traffic census taken last October near Booth-ferry Bridge was to enable us to determine whether it would be worth while to use the abandoned Barnsley-Hull railway track for a new road between Howden and the Great North Road. The examination of the information obtained has not yet been completed but we hope to be able to reach a conclusion shortly.

Is the Minister of Transport taking as long over this as he did over improving the road situation? This census was taken last October. What are the factors which are delaying any result which may be obtained from it?

The census was taken last October. We received the informa- tion just before Christmas. To analyse the complicated data which we get from these traffic censuses inevitably takes some time. We have pressed on with this as quickly as we can. We are about to announce our views about it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that ten months ago, in answer to a Question by me, my right hon. Friend replied that he was at that time making investigations into the possibility of using the disused railway line as a roadway, and that in answer to a further Question, on 9th November last, my right hon. Friend replied that he would look at the matter? Is it not time that some action was taken on this proposal?

That is exactly why we took the traffic census. We wanted to find out whether the proposal to use the abandoned railway line was worth while.

asked the Minister of Transport how many resolutions and suggestions have been received by him from the Bristol Road Safety Committee on matters connected with road safety; and what action has been taken to put them into effect.

The only ones I can trace are those adopted by the Bristol Watch Committee and sent to me on 16th February, 1961. The Committee requested me to introduce maximum speed limits and all possible practical control over pedestrians. These matters were already being studied in my Ministry; more investigations and experiments are necessary before final decisions can be taken.

How many resolutions or suggestions have been received from Bristol Watch Committee and the Road Safety Committee which have been implemented by the Department or even looked at?

If the hon. Member wants to know precisely how many have been implemented—

Yes I do.

—perhaps he will put a Question on the Paper.

That is part of my Question today.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the Accident Prevention Committees spend much time in the study of road problems; and if he will give an assurance that their recommendations which are sent to him will be given close attention, with a view to the introduction of early legislation where appropriate.

I can assure the hon. Member that any recommendations sent to me by Accident Prevention Committees receive close attention and consideration, and I am glad to acknowledge the valuable work which these Committee do in the field of road safety.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a general feeling among members of those committees, who spend a large amount of their time considering road problems, that the resolutions and recommendations sent to his Department are pigeonholed? The fact that he says that any recommendation will have consideration now is proof that they are pigeonholed and do not go to him.

In which case I will arrange for a deputation from the committee the hon. Member has referred to in his Question to meet myself or the Parliamentary Secretary and the Director-General, Brigadier Stoney, of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and then they will be certain that what the hon. Member implies in his supplementary question is not true.

asked the Minister of Transport what consideration has been given to the improvement of the main Biddulph Road to Brindley Ford, Stoke-on-Trent, about which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, has written to him.

A limited improvement scheme was submitted to us last year by the Stoke County Borough Council, but owing to the pressure of more urgent schemes, we see no prospect of including it in the programme for the next three years. I understand that the Council is now investigating a more extensive scheme. We will gladly consider this when it is submitted.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider it very favourably? This is an extremely dangerous road with very heavy traffic on it. Is he aware that it is now a main road and there are two large housing estates nearby, that a large number of children have to cross the road, and that the colliery itself is on a very narrow bend on the road?

I saw a letter which the hon. Lady wrote to my right hon. Friend about this the other day. The other scheme to which I referred in my Answer and which we understand the council is about to put forward would cover that exit from the colliery.

Will the hon. Gentleman see whether it is at all possible to expedite this scheme? This is one of the main roads out of the City of Stoke-on-Trent into Biddulph village in my constituency, the inhabitants of which have been asking for this improvement for a number of years.

It does not rest with us to expedite it at the moment because we are awaiting a further and bigger scheme which the county borough council wishes to put forward. When it puts it forward we shall consider it quickly.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will reconsider his decision respecting the widening and improvement of Westfield Lane, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire; and if he will give his approval to the highway authority for an earlier commencing date.

This road is used mostly by local as distinct from through traffic. We cannot therefore give its improvement high priority, and I am afraid it will be some years before we can consider making a grant towards the cost.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this lane has become very dangerous as a result of the development that is taking place? Is he aware that the highway authority is so impressed with this that it is not only ready but very anxious to carry out this improvement which I understand will cost only £30,000?

I will take account of what the hon. Member says. My information is that the traffic on this road is almost entirely that which serves the residential area. As far as I know, the highway authority has made no formal application to us for a grant, nor have we invited one. If the authority makes an application we will look into it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is now a bus route and that two buses cannot pass on the road because it is so narrow? Is he aware that one fatality has already occurred on this stretch of road and that there is some apprehension among the inhabitants of the district that if something is not done to widen it and proper protection provided there may be a repetition of fatalities?

I will look into this matter and will write to the hon. Member.

asked the Minister of Transport what considerations, apart from the number of people regularly crossing a road, are taken into account when authorising the making of a pedestrian crossing.

The site should be one at which pedestrians normally cross. It should be easily visible to a driver and not too near another crossing or stopping place. The number of pedestrians should be sufficient to ensure that the crossing is in fairly constant use. Vehicular traffic should be considerable and persistent.

While I appreciate that there may be objections to an excess of pedestrian crossings, might I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would agree that in various towns and villages there are a number of places where crossing the road is a very dangerous adventure and there is no nearby pedestrian crossing? May we have an assurance that in those circumstances authorisation would not be refused merely because statistics did not show a sufficient number already crossing or attempting to cross?

Crossing the road is, I am afraid, a fairly hazardous business almost everywhere in the country with the very high traffic volumes that we have, but we have to be extremely careful not to have a multiplicity of pedestrian crossings. There is no doubt that if we have too many—this has been our experience in the past—they are just not observed by drivers.

asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has to speed up the provision of refuges in Harrow Road, Wembley, near Sudbury and Harrow Road Station.

A road widening scheme to provide refuges has been deferred until the trolley buses are withdrawn early next year. We are investigating whether any interim measures can be taken.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, might I ask him to bear in mind that the discussion about whether to have refuges or pedestrian crossings there has been going on for about two years? Will he expedite the matter as much as possible, because it is a difficult road to cross?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to give all facilities to local authorities desiring to build office and housing accommodation over their goods yards, sidings and other properties.

On a point of order. I raised with you yesterday, Mr. Speaker, a point of order about a Question which was couched in terms identical with those of this one, except that that was with particular reference to London. You promised me that you would give your view on that point.

I have written to the hon. Member about the question he raised with me yesterday. This, manifestly, on the face of it, is a different Question, governed by a different principle.

The answer to the Question is, No, Sir. The British Transport Commission is willing, where railway operations permit, to discuss the leasing of sites to local authorities or other developers, for building purposes.

While accepting that, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend will make sure that at local levels applications are not turned down out of hand but are referred to such higher levels as may be in contact with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, as I was told yesterday in answer to a Question?

If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, perhaps he will write to the chairman of the British Transport Commission. I have no doubt that the Commission will look at the case.

But will the right hon. Gentleman resist all attempts to use the Order Paper and the procedures of the House to put pressure on the British Transport Commission to unload valuable development land for the benefit of speculators, because many of us on this side of the House think that that is the sort of racket that is developing?

Any hon. Members opposite who think that that sort of thing is happening are entirely mistaken.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many worth-while schemes for building over goods sidings in London and elsewhere have come to nought because the British Transport Commission cannot make up its mind whether or not it wants to use the land? If the Commission cannot use these facilities usefully and economically, should it not make them available, for a financial consideration, to those who can?

My hon. Friend will find that when the reorganisation envisaged in the White Paper and accepted by this Parliament is completed, that sort of consideration will be taken into account.

Has not the trouble been that the Government have, so far, denied the Commission the right to develop property itself, and that the Commission has been properly chary and unwilling to let valuable land to a private speculator who would make large sums out of it which should accrue to the Commission?

The right hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate. The restrictions on property were placed on the Commission by the Act passed by the party opposite. We are the Government who are removing those restrictions.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the British Transport Commission (Railway Merchandise) Charges Scheme, 1957, made under the authority of the Transport Act, 1953, operates harshly on trade and industry in north-east Scotland; if he will arrange for it to be further considered, in order to devise a means of spreading its effects more evenly and and fairly over the whole of Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

Subject to the maximum charges fixed by the Scheme the Commission have an unfettered discretion as to the actual charges made to consignors. It is the Government's intention, as stated in paragraph 56 of the recent White Paper, that the railways should be freed from statutory control over their charges, except for fares in the London Passenger Transport Area. In these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by a review of the present charges scheme.

Does the Minister realise that he is not addressing himself to the real point of the Question? Is it not part of the pernicious policy of the Government deliberately to break down co-ordination between the various types of transport and is not this causing confusion and expense and jeopardising British trade and industry in their competition with foreigners?

I answered the Question. The word "co-ordination" does not appear in the original Question. As for Aberdeen, this scheme is framed so that the rate per ton mile decreases as distance increases.

asked the Minister of Transport what advice his Department offered to the chairmen of the Transport Users' Consultative Committees during the recent conference with his Department, with regard to the balancing of economies and social amenities when proposals for the closure of branch railway lines were before their committees.

The meeting which the hon. Member presumably has in mind was an informal one, arranged at the request of the Chairman of the Central Committee, to discuss generally the White Paper on the Nationalised Transport Undertakings. The question of Departmental advice having been given does not therefore arise.

Could not the right hon. Gentleman say what advice has been given to the chairmen on how the economic, social and amenity values of a railway could be balanced against a small loss? Is it not a fact that in the case of the Barnard Castle—Penrith Railway the North-East Committee emphasised that there were strong economic and social arguments for keeping the line open and that it was running at a profit, but the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Central Advisory Committee's recommendation that the line should be practically closed?

I think that these committees should operate without advice from the Minister himself.

asked the Minister of Transport what report he has received from the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee regarding the inquiry made by the North-East Transport Users' Consultative Committee concerning the proposed closure of the Barnard Castle to Penrith railway line, with particular regard to the profitability of that line, the local feeling aroused by the proposal and the efforts of the management to operate the line economically.

The Central Transport Consultative Committee has sent me copies of its Minutes recording the consideration which is has given, but not yet completed, on this proposed closure.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that by accepting the advice of the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee he has made absolutely ridiculous the subsequent proceedings? In other words, one bite was taken out of the cherry and the Committee then took two or three more bites, making the situation quite untenable. When the official recommendation comes from the Committee, will he look at it from that point of view?

That is a distortion of what happened, and it is not complimentary to the Central Committee. It has not completed its consideration. It will consider the matter further at a meeting on 21st March. I cannot add anything until it has considered the matter further.

When the right hon. Gentleman gets the Committee's recommendation, will he bear in mind what I have already told him in a letter, that this is not a branch line but the only cross-Pennine route in the 100-mile stretch from the Tyne Valley southwards? Will he try to halt this contraction of the railway system in the North of England?

When the Central Committee makes its recommendation to the British Transport Commission, I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's letter is borne in mind.

asked the Minister of Transport if, in the interests of reducing noise and annoyance, he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to cease using loudspeakers in suburban stations in residential districts.

No, Sir. It is a matter for the management of the British Transport Commission.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a station like Twickenham is a very nice one in the middle of a residential area, that 99 per cent. of the passengers who use it are commuters who could find their way to the train blindfold, and that the loudspeakers call out, "This way to Waterloo"? Also, on rugby football days when the crowds are hurrying to the stadium the loudspeakers bawl out, "Hurry along please". Is this not really quite absurd?

I am very well aware of the attractiveness of Twickenham Station and of the inhabitants of Twickenham, but here the British Transport Commission is in a dilemma. If it does not give the information to passengers, it is criticised for the lack of information, and if it does give it, it is criticised on the ground of too much noise. It is really a question of degree and balance, and I will ask the British Transport Commission to see that the loudspeakers give only that degree of noise which is necessary and desirable in the case of Twickenham.

Has not experience shown that the people going to and from Twickenham are of a pretty low standard of intelligence, and that they do require guidance, whether by loudspeakers or otherwise, or complete chaos would result?

I must not enter into that controversy, but clearly the people of Twickenham have great political sagacity.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his hon. Friend is asking a little bit too much? Further, would he not agree that his hon. Friend is built for speed, and ought to accept the invitation of the loudspeakers?

Perhaps he will.

In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of that supplementary question, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied that sufficient powers exist to prevent lorry drivers working excessive hours; and what plans he has for strengthening the law in this regard.

I think that existing powers are adequate for this purpose.

May I point out that I still represent the constituency of Stoke-on-Trent, and not Sedgefield as would appear from the Order Paper? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that some employers bring very heavy pressure to bear on lorry drivers to work excessive hours and, because of that, log books are very often not properly filled up? Is he aware that this is unfair to the lorry drivers and to the people who use the roads because these men who travel for very long hours are a positive danger on the roads?

I think that the penalties and the powers are adequate and the licensing authorities have a last extreme penalty for frequent and wilful breaches of the law. The authority can suspend or revoke the carrier's licence of the owner of the vehicle. If the hon. Lady has a case in mind which she thinks ought to be investigated, I hope that she will send me details.

I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) was translated in brackets on the Order Paper, but I am sure that it would not deceive her constituents who know her so well.

Is the Minister aware that the unions are very much concerned about this problem? They do not argue about the penalty so much, but they say that there are not enough inspectors employed by the right hon Gentleman's Department on the roads to follow up offences. Will the right hon. Gentleman please look at the matter again and consult the unions concerned?

The unions came to see me the other day. They made representations on this general subject, but I will certainly ask for their specific views. In 1960, there were 3,500 convictions for offences relating to hours and 8,200 convictions for offences relating to records and, therefore, I think that the enforcements must be reasonably adequate.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that there is often a considerable variation in the reading of tyre pressure gauges on tyre pumps at public garages; and what action he proposes to take in the interest of road safety to ensure that such gauges give an accurate reading.

I have no evidence of danger arising from this source which would justify me in seeking powers to control the equipment of garages.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that nowadays when high speeds are possible it is most essential in the interests of road safety to have tyres correctly inflated, and if cars are to be tested for other mechanical defects, ought we not to be quite sure that it is possible to know what tyre pressure one has? I have heard of variations up to 10 lbs in certain cases.

Some variation in tyre pressure is acceptable because manufacturers recommend for individual types a range of pressures varying with the load carried. However, if my hon. Friend has any instance in mind in which he thinks that a garage is defective in respect of its equipment, I shall be delighted to hear from him about it.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that on very fast roads like the M.1, even where the surface is perfect, it is believed that some accidents have been caused by incorrect or too low tyre pressures? Therefore, is it not particularly important that this should be kept in mind and that garages on the M.1 in particular, should have the correct machines for measuring tyre pressures?

I have no reason to think that they have not the correct machines. What is missing in most cases is that the motorist himself has not looked at his tyres to ascertain the pressures.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that neither he nor his two hon. Friends are correct? The pressure inside an air line or air pump, about which they are talking, is incorrect in any event. The pressure that one wants is the pressure inside the tyre, and the only way to ascertain that is by the direct application of a gauge to the tyre valve.

I think that it is incumbent upon the individual motorist to make his own test of his tyres. We really cannot mollycoddle the motorist to this extent; he himself has a duty. A very tragic accident has been reported in the newspapers this morning which indicates that every motorist who travels on the M.1 at high speeds ought to look at his tyres regularly.

asked the Minister of Transport why renewal notices are issued in respect of driving licences but not in respect of road vehicle excise licences.

The holder of a driving licence has to examine it to ascertain the date of its expiry, and an official reminder warns him of a requirement which he might otherwise overlook. A vehicle excise licence, which is displayed in a conspicuous position on the vehicle, and shows the date of expiry in bold print, is itself a constant reminder.

Has my hon. Friend noted that, judging by the penalties which the courts deem fit to impose, the failure to renew a vehicle licence is regarded as a far more serious matter than the mere failure to renew a driving licence? For that reason, will he change the procedure and issue renewal notices in respect of vehicle licences and abandon them for the comparatively trivial matter of driving licences?

I was not aware that that was the view of the courts.

It is.

If it is, I expect it is because a great deal of money is involved.

Yes.

I cannot agree to change the procedure, because it would involve a great deal of extra work for taxation offices, they are extremely costly to operate, and there are large numbers of motor vehicles which change hands each year. It would be extremely difficult to keep a check on the owners so that the necessary advisory notices could he sent out.