asked the Secretary of State for Air how many arts graduates in the Education Branch of the Royal Air Force were promoted to the rank of wing commander on or after 1st January, 1959.

Six squadron leaders with degrees in arts have been promoted since 1st January, 1959.

While I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a rate of promotion six times greater than the total for the previous eight years, may I ask if he thinks that offers a satisfactory career for highly qualified candidates?

When the new careers structure was introduced in 1959, the officers concerned had an opportunity to reduce their retiring age from 53 to 48 or to elect to retire after 20 years' service. The majority of them decided to go on until the age of 53.

asked the Secretary of State for Air how many arts graduates holding the rank of squadron leader in the Education Branch of the Royal Air Force have less than ten years to serve before retirement; and what are their prospects of promotion.

Forty squadron leaders with degrees in arts subjects are due to retire within the next ten years. Our plans for these non-specialist graduates allow for a steady flow of promotions, but individual promotion prospects will naturally vary with ability.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he thinks that that Answer is fully in accord with the Answer given to me by the Under-Secretary of State on 3rd August, 1959, when he wrote to me and told me that the prospects of promotion to the rank of wing commander for these officers were good, provided they came up to the required standard?

Yes, Sir. I think that my hon. Friend represented the position correctly.

asked the Secretary of State for Air upon what criteria he bases his decisions on applications for commutation of pensions in cases where personnel propose to purchase houses for owner-occupation by themselves and their families.

The Army Pensions Office advises me on these cases. I have to be satisfied that commutation would be to the definite and permanent advantage of the pensioner. The maximum a pensioner may commute for house purchase is £350.

While it may be absolutely necessary to dissuade personnel from making decisions which may prove improvident and which they may well regret, cannot my right hon. Friend agree that in cases of house purchase a different view could be taken of applications? Does not he feel that in some cases too restrictive a view is taken of such applications and particularly so in the case of a constituent of mine about whom I have been in correspondence with him recently?

These arrangements are of long standing. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a faintly paternalistic flavour about them. I should like to find time to consider this with my colleagues in the other Service Departments before I put forward any views about how they could be improved.

Can my right hon. Friend say that this limit will be reviewed, as it seems extremely low in the light of the present cost of houses in most areas?

I do not want to give any commitment today to my hon. Friend. As I say, I think there is something here which perhaps ought to be considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what investigations he has made into the distinction between senior experimental officers in the Meteorological Office serving overseas with the Armed Forces and senior executive officers of the Air Ministry whom a Royal Commission recommended in 1956 should be placed in the same rank with the same remuneration and standing; and why the recommendations of the Royal Commission have not been followed.

I am not aware of any such recommendation.

If the right hon. Gentleman had studied my Question he would have seen that this is not a matter of a recommendation. Is not he aware that, when these officers are in this country, no distinction of any kind is made, but that when they are sent abroad a little paper is given to each of them which makes a distinction which the Royal Commission does not allow for? Will he investigate this problem once again?

I will investigate anything which the hon. Member asks me to. But his Question referred to a recommendation, and I was not aware of any such recommendation.

asked the Secretary of State for Air when he expects to be able to dispose of the former Royal Air Force Station at Pucklechurch, and for what purpose; and whether he will make a statement indicating the cause of the delay and how it is proposed to dispose of the buildings.

I have suspended disposal of this station for the time being in view of a proposal by the Prison Commission to use part of it for a remand centre.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this air station has been unoccupied for over a year? In view of the anxiety locally about its future, will he try to expedite his decision as much as possible?

We had already gone some way towards arranging its disposal when the Prison Commission put forward its latest proposal.

asked the Secretary of State for Air when the Lightning fighter aircraft will be fully operational; and what further improvements he has requested for future Lightning aircraft.

The Lightning is fully operational now. The Mark 3 Lightning will have better performance in range, speed and altitude, more advanced electronic equipment, and will carry an improved air-to-air guided weapon.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him to take steps to improve the development of fighter aircraft, bearing in mind that the Russian interceptor fighter squadrons are nearly all equipped with MiG 21s, which are, in some respects, superior to the Lightning?

We are moving as fast as we can.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps he has taken to improve the design and layout of new married quarters in the United Kingdom.

Improved designs and layouts have been produced and are now being studied.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reassurance, may I ask if he will bear in mind that there has been considerable dissatisfaction in the past few years about the layout and general design of married quarters? Will he ensure that this improvement in design is maintained?

I hope to be able to give the hon. Gentleman satisfaction.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he has taken during the last twelve months to counter the effects on British shipping of competition from flags of convenience fleets; and what has been the result of those steps.

This is largely a matter of taxation. The United Kingdom shipping industry has enjoyed a 40 per cent. investment allowance since 1957 and under present conditions flags of convenience have temporarily lost much of their competitive tax-free advantage.

As a practical matter, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the wisdom and experience of the National Union of Seamen would be a guiding lighthouse for him? Will he say how often he has discussed this problem with that union?

I personally have not discussed this with the N.U.S., but I know that it is interested. The General Council Survey of British Shipping—that is, the industry itself—said that under present conditions tax-free advantages of flags of convenience have temporarily lost their significance.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that conditions of freight markets may improve some day, and that, if they do, the advantages of tax-free ships will return in force?

At the present moment, quite a few allowances have not been absorbed by profits, so tax has not been paid.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, unless profits accrue as the result of operations of shipping companies, the question of allowances does not arise?

I agree, but broadly speaking the industry is doing quite well with this 40 per cent. investment allowance, which is twice what any other industry gets. The Government are considering important matters like the problems of tramp steamers.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the shipbuilding and ship-repairing position in the Tyneside area, compared with what it was a year ago, with particular reference to the Wallsend shipyards.

The position of shipbuilding and ship-repairing in Wallsend and on Tyneside generally has not changed significantly in the past year.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that that position does not constitute the best possible climate for employment? Will he keep his eye on the Tyneside district and see if he can do something to improve conditions?

The fact that the situation has not deteriorated in the last year, considering what has been happening in shipbuilding and ship-repairing generally, is not to be sneezed at. We are not complacent about the situation, either in that area or elsewhere. We will do what we can to help.

It is a curious thing to say that if a situation has not got worse then that makes it rather good. Has the Ministry any particular plans? What are its ideas and hopes for the future?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question about that.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the shipbuilding industry all over the country is suffering from severe competition from the Continent, as shipyards there are undercutting our prices? Does not he agree that if our industry and the trade unions in it do not look out, there will not be any employment in the industry at all?

My hon. Friend has pointed out the absolute necessity for the shipbuilding and repairing industries to be competitive.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will publish the list of shipyards approved by his Department to which the Cunard Steam-Ship Company are about to send invitations to tender for a new Cunarder.

The Cunard Steam-Ship Company will invite tenders from Messrs. John Brown, Cammell Laird, Fairfield, Harland & Wolff, Swan Hunter & Wigham Richardson and Vickers-Armstrongs. I understand that the last two propose to submit a joint tender.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that information, may I ask if he can say whether the Cunard Steam-Ship Company, Limited, in asking these yards to submit tenders, will, in fairness to them, make it clear that as yet no Parliamentary sanction for the expenditure of public money has been granted?

I think that my hon. Friend will see something happening very soon.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, before introducing legislation to give a subsidy to the Cunard Company, he will satisfy himself that the company is not a member of any price-fixing association.

No, Sir. The Cunard Company, like almost all liner companies, belongs to one or more Shipping Conferences.

Is not this very unsatisfactory? Is it not wrong that public money should be given to a company which is a member, for example, of the North Atlantic Shipping Conference, which exists to maintain freight and passenger rates across the Atlantic?

A formal investigation on more than one occasion has confirmed the value to shipowners, shippers and the public of the conference system.

By whom were these investigations carried out? Should not the matter be looked at again?

It has been looked at. It was quite satisfactory. If my hon. Friend puts down a Question, I will give him full details of the whole inquiry.

In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. Friend's reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Minister of Transport what requests he has received for a subsidy from shipping companies other than the Cunard Company.

None, Sir.

Has my right hon. Friend consulted other shipping companies? If so, can he say whether they agree that if any subsidy is to be given to the shipping industry it is right for it to be concentrated on this one route and this one company?

They were seen about this in the early stages and made no comment. But this point forms one of the recommendations in the survey of British shipping which has been sent to me, and we are now discussing it with the General Council of British Shipping.

Will the right hon. Gentleman qualify that answer? The Government have received constant requests from shipping companies in Scotland, especially from the Orkney Steam Navigation Company. The Government have passed a Measure enabling a subsidy to be provided. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, this Bill having been passed, no comprehensive scheme has so far been produced to give assistance to a shipping company whose services are absolutely essential to some of the people in the North of Scotland? Is he aware that these people will very much resent it if the Government give a large subsidy to the largely luxury traffic across the Atlantic before looking after the needs of people much nearer home?

Questions of subsidies for shipping companies in Scotland should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any other passenger routes where British passenger liners are subjected to the same degree of subsidised competition as exists on the North Atlantic route?

The North Atlantic route is the most heavily subsidised shipping route in the world.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, before approving the placing of a contract for a new Cunarder with assistance from public funds, he will satisfy himself that the shipbuilding industry is taking action along the lines of the recent Department of Scientific and Industrial Research Report on the industry.

The industry has undertaken to collaborate with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and my Ministry in implementing the recommendations of this Report, and good progress is being made with the further studies it called for.

Will my right hon. Friend satisfy himself that this collaboration is reaching the stage of practical action before he provides any subsidy?

Yes. My hon. Friend can be assured that we shall press on with the Report of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on the industry.

Before giving any subsidies in this case, will the Minister take care not to offend his hon. Friends, who are against subsidies from public funds in principle, except for their own industries?

It ought to be made clear that I cannot give a subsidy. It is this House which will approve the subsidy.

Can the Minister say whether there is still no hope of having atomic energy in time for this great venture?

There is absolutely no hope at all.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to ensure the concentration of the shipbuilding industry into fewer and larger units before he asks for tenders for the new Cunard liners.

The yards which will be invited to tender are already large.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that an element of subsidy is being injected into the shipbuilding industry, and does not he think it reasonable that if they are going to subsidise an industry the Government should take some responsibility for encouraging greater efficiency?

The negotiations with the Cunard Company and the Chandos Committee's Report took account of the shipbuilding yards as they then existed, and no representations were made that the shipbuilding yards should be altered. Each of the shipbuilding yards asked to tender is in a place where employment is needed.

Is it the policy of the Government that the shipbuilding industry should be concentrated in a smaller number of larger yards?

We had better wait until we see what the Advisory Committee says.

Can the Minister say when he expects the return of these tenders?

I cannot even say at the moment when they are going out.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make it a condition of tenders for the new Cunard liner that they shall only be sent to shipyards in which restrictive practices do not occur.

Competition for this order will be very keen, and I do not propose to interfere with the Cunard Company's plans, for the reason my hon. Friend has suggested.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the mounting misgivings among the other shipping companies, and also in this House and in the country generally, at the prospect of taxpayers' money being given to one company to produce an obsolescent, if not obsolete, national status symbol? Is not he aware that these misgivings will be translated into resentment if the taxpayers' money is used in shipyards where it will lead to inflated costs, owing to the prevalence of restrictive practices?

In the matter of restrictive practices, such as demarcation, the employers and the employees are now getting together in a reasonable spirit, and I do not want to do anything to exacerbate the situation while the negotiations are in progress. As for the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, his assessment of the situation does not agree with the recommendations of the Chandos Committee.

Does my right hon. Friend recollect answering my Question on this subject, when he talked about further developments occurring before very long? Can he give an assurance that these developments will be announced verbally in the House before we rise for Easter?

My hon. Friend must wait to see what these developments are.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of us believe that the building of this ship will provide a tremendous shot in the arm to the British shipbuilding industry, and that it means a great deal to the shipyards? Will he not be put off by hon. Members opposite, who are quite willing to accept a £200 million a year subsidy for the farmers?

asked the Minister of Transport whether in view of the effect upon trans-Atlantic passenger traffic, he will consult the chairman of British Overseas Airways Corporation before final arrangements are made to subsidise the new Cunard liner.

No, Sir.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that since British Overseas Airways Corporation made a loss last year and the Cunard Company made a profit, and since to some extent they will be in competition over these routes, it would be advisable to get the views of the Corporation before these arrangements are put into effect?

I do not think so. The Chandos Committee demonstrated in its recommendations that shipping and air transport were complementary rather than competitive, and that what really happens is that a great number of business people go by air one way and by ship the other way, for health reasons.

asked the Minister of Transport what consultations he has had with the Chamber of Shipping on the proposed subsidy for a new Cunarder.

At my request, the General Council of British Shipping last June commented on the proposals which the Chandos Committee had made for Government assistance towards the replacement of "Queen Mary". These comments were given in confidence. Subsequently, in its recent survey the General Council included a recommendation bearing on this subject.

Do I understand, therefore, from my right hon. Friend that the Chamber of Shipping approves of this subsidy to one line for one venture and feels that this is the best way to help the British shipping industry?

As I have said, the comments were made in confidence but in its recent survey, the General Council of British Shipping included as No. 10 of its recommendations one relating to the paying of a subsidy to the Cunard Company. That recommendation is now being discussed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us on this side of the House and give us some information about this extraordinary lobby on the benches behind him, which is pretty near widespread, against giving any help towards the building of the liner? We are entirely in the dark as to why there is this sudden opposition to giving a Government subsidy to private industry. There must be something behind it. Could the right hon. Gentleman please tell us?

It is not for me to say what motivation my hon. Friends have.

asked the Minister of Transport if he has now received the Report of the special sub-committee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee set up to investigate the need for Government assistance to British shipyards to enable them to compete on equitable terms with their foreign competitors who are receiving financial assistance from their respective Governments; if he has yet reached a decision on the proposals contained in the Report; and if he will now state in detail his plans to deal with the relevant problems.

asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the interim Report from the sub-committee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee, if he will now state what steps he is taking to help meet the threat of heavy redundancy in British ship-building yards; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add at present to the Answer I gave on 15th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir. B. Janner).

Does the Minister realise that he is far too complacent about the state of the industry which vitally affects the economy and the unemployment problem in Britain? Will he consult the Leader of the House with a view to having a day set aside for a debate on this urgent and important problem?

Personally I would welcome a debate. I think that it could have taken place yesterday with more advantage to the nation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the extreme urgency of this problem in view of the imminent threat of heavy unemployment throughout the shipbuilding industry in this country and particularly in Belfast? Will he do all that he can to expedite the reference to the main Committee in order that its Report may be acted on with speed?

I can see that the Report is obtained but whether it is acted on depends to a large extent on the industry itself. As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) pointed out in a supplementary question a few moments ago, the crucial task is how to beat foreign yards in both price and performance. Here the industry itself has an important task. All I can say is that I hope that management and men in this industry, who are now consulting together, will see that the best use is made of modern techniques on both sides of the industry.

If the right hon. Gentleman is all that concerned that the House should debate this subject, why does not the Government find time for it? Why should he merely criticise the Opposition and what they do in relation to Supply Days? I am sure that from our point of view we should very much welcome a Government initiative in order that we could debate this industry.

The point which I made was that it would have been better if the Opposition had yesterday chosen this subject for debate.

On a point of order——

Is the Minister aware that 300,000 tons of shipping was constructed in yards on the Continent for British shipowners last year? What is he doing about that problem?

The point is that foreign yards have been quoting lower prices and early delivery dates. Any assistance which the Government may give to an industry which cannot compete in world markets will be of use only on a temporary basis and never on a permanent basis.

Mr. Cyril Osborne.

On a point of order. I rose earlier to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the shocking complacency of the Minister I hereby give notice—

Order. The hon. and learned Member departs from the traditional formula and makes a speech. He appeared to me, by sitting down again, to have abandoned his previous point of order, and he is now out of time.

On a point of order. I sat down, Mr. Speaker, because I thought that you called my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery). I rise on a point of order, and I hereby give notice, in the time-honoured fashion, that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that for the first time in history British ships carried less than half Britain's overseas trade amounting to 49 per cent. for 1960 against 51 per cent. for 1959, 54 per cent. for 1956 and 57 per cent. for 1938; what is the reason for this loss of trade; what further help he proposes to give to British shipping; what discussions he has had with the shipping interests on this subject; and if he will make a statement.

The percentages quoted apply only to imports: the corresponding figures for exports are considerably higher. All these matters are now being discussed with the General Council of British Shipping in connection with its recent recommendations.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Council of Shipping feels that a good deal of its troubles arise from certain aspects of the American interests where there is discrimination against our own shipping? Would he pass on to the Prime Minister the idea that he might raise this in Washington with President Kennedy when he goes there, in order to see how far it is true that American interests are unreasonably undercutting our British shipping interests?

I have seen the president of the Council of Shipping on this very point. He is now in Washington. Quite a number of representations are being made to the Americans at the moment.

Why is not my right hon. Friend in America instead of asking the Council of Shipping to deal with matters which are the concern of the Government and over which the shipping industry in this country has no control? Is it not true that the Minister has so much on his plate at the moment that he simply has not time to deal seriously with shipping problems?

The answer to the last part of that supplementary question is "No, Sir". In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, I am not in America because I am here answering Questions in the House of Commons, which is normally my duty. I did not ask the Council of Shipping to go to America. Its representatives went there and the Government gave them all facilities to see our ambassador and to make all proper representations which they themselves thought fit. Both my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and myself have made representations in person in Washington.

asked the Minister of Transport what conclusions he has reached following his examination of proposals made by the Chamber of Ship- ping on the needs of the Mercantile Marine.

I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the right hon. Member on 1st March.

Am I to understand from a previous Answer to a similar Question earlier this afternoon that all the right hon. Gentleman has done so far arising from his examination of the proposals of the Chamber of Shipping is to provide facilities for shipowners to go to Washington? Is that the position? Does he agree that the time has come to ask the Prime Minister to create a Ministry of Shipping?

The answer to the second part of the supplementary question is "No". Referring to the first part, we have done a great deal more than facilitate—not make—arrangements with the chairman of the Chamber of Shipping. We have entered into negotiations with it. As far as its main recommendations are concerned, one of them, Recommendation 4, says:

"Commercial treaties and trade agreements should embody the strongest possible antidiscrimination clauses."

"The new Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development should include a committee comparable with the Maritime Transport Committee of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation."

Is the Minister aware that, in spite of that long rigmarole, there has been a further deterioration in the shipping industry?

No. The members of the shipping industry do not share that view, as can be seen from the quotations of shipping shares on the Stock Exchange.

asked the Minister of Transport how many of his staff are occupied with dealing with the affairs of the Mercantile Marine and the shipbuilding industry.

One thousand nine hundred and twenty-one, Sir.

What are they doing?

They are working very hard. That accounts for the improvement in shipping in the last three months.

Is the Minister serious in making that reply? Is he not treating with contempt not only the shipbuilding industry and the Mercantile Marine but hon. Members who are rightly interested in the future of British shipping?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman's second supplementary question was not extremely serious. In the Question I was asked how many staff were occupied dealing with the affairs of the Mercantile Marine and the shipbuilding industry. My answer was 1921, and they are occupied dealing with the affairs of the Mercantile Marine and the shipbuilding industry.

As there is genuine concern on both sides of the House about the state of the shipping industry today, is it not right that the Minister of Transport and Shipping should now take the initiative and come forward and state what the Government have in mind in a specific way either by a debate or some form of White Paper rather than have the delaying tactics which have gone on month after month?

They are not delaying tactics. We have achieved something in the last twelve months which has not been achieved before—that is, to get the Sub-Committee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee to get the shipowners and the men together round the table to consider a report. It took years before they could get together round a table to make a joint committee to go into the question of shipbuilding.

asked the Minister of Transport what arrangements have been made about the maintenance of lighthouses in the southern part of the Red Sea.

I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the lighthouses on the islands of Abu Ail and Jabal-at-Tair which have been maintained by this country since the First World War. At our request, a meeting will be held in April under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation to consider the question of sharing the future cost of the lights among interested Governments.

Obviously my Question has done some good. Will the hon. Gentleman encourage his right hon. Friend to go a little further and to hand the care and maintenance of these lighthouses over to the Suez Canal Commissioners, particularly as the right hon. Gentleman already has an enormous job at home looking after surface transport, shipbuilding and shipping in this country, and he might quite well leave the Red Sea to other people?

As far as I am aware, my right hon. Friend has no intention of going to visit these lighthouses in the near future. It would be far better to see what I.M.C.O. says about this when it meets in April.

asked the Minister of Transport when work will be started on the Broughton-Hampson Green motorway between Preston and Lancaster.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) on 25th January.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if he will consider developing the road from Preston to Warrington simultaneously with this? Is he aware that we think that it is necessary that the A.6 should be completed as well, because of the great congestion there will be in Lancashire if that is not done?

My hon. Friend's Question referred to the motorway between Preston and Lancaster. His supplementary question concerns a different matter. If he cares to put down another Question about that, I will consider it.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now announce when Selby Toll Bridge will be freed from tolls, and when work will be started on the Selby by-pass.

As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, negotiations with the toll owners showed that the probable cost of acquiring the tolls would greatly exceed the amount we feel the scheme would justify, and we are accordingly not prepared to proceed with it. As regards the second part of the Question, it is still too soon to forecast when work on the by-pass can begin.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in failing to free the Selby toll bridge his Department has a quite disgraceful record stretching back over a period of nearly a quarter of a century? Cannot he persuade his right hon. Friend to take action now to get rid of this antiquated anachronism, which has handicapped trade and industry in Selby for far too long a period?

I cannot accept, in the slightest degree, the strictures of my hon. and gallant Friend about the action of my right hon. Friend's Department. They are quite untrue. As far as we are concerned, we conceive that the correct solution for Selby's problems is the by-pass referred to in his original Question, and we believe that that is the best way of handling the problem.

asked the Minister of Transport what conclusions he has reached on the construction of an East Yorkshire motorway to link the port of Hull with the Yorkshire motorway.

On present plans, the Lancashire-Yorkshire Motorway will terminate near Ledsham on the A.1. Through traffic between the A.1 and Hull will be served by improvements of the all-purpose roads. As my hon. Friend is aware, a number of new schemes are in hand or in prospect on this part of the trunk road system. We do not consider that any extension of the motorway will be called for.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if he will, when occasion arises, give urgent consideration to this matter of an eastern limb for the Yorkshire motorway and to other proposals which may improve the road communications to and from the Port of Hull?

Yes, Sir. We always bear these considerations in mind.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the progress made, and the decisions taken, in respect to tolls on future motorways.

I have now received the report of the group which has been studying this question and I hope to make a statement shortly.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of dismay about the possibility that people will have to pay tolls on future motorways? Is he really serious about this business? Does this mean that the M.1 might be free, while tolls will have to be paid on other motorways? Or are all roads to have tolls in future? How can that be done without holding up progress in a modern age?

Perhaps the hon. Member will await the statement. I can assure him that in my Ministry we are serious about all the matters that we tackle.

asked the Minister of Transport where he intends to re-erect the present overpass bridge now in use near Hyde Park Corner when it is no longer required on its present site.

This bridge belongs to the contractors, but I am sure that the London County Council is alive to any possible further use which could be made of it.

Now that we have had some experience of this comparatively inexpensive but very effective form of overpass, will my right hon. Friend consider using it or something similar to it on some of the other road networks where, particularly in the summer months, we have immense traffic problems?

As I said in the Answer, the bridge is not ours but at the moment belongs to the contractors. It is for the London County Council and the contractors to decide whether it could be used elsewhere. We have investigated the possibility of using this temporary type of fly-over construction, but I am afraid that there are a number of difficulties involved, not least the fact that this type of construction is too light to carry the heavy types of traffic for which most of our all-purpose roads are designed.

asked the Minister of Transport when he will announce his next list of priorities in important road projects.

I shall be informing local authorities within a week or so of the classified road improvement schemes which I can accept for grant within the next three years.

I take it from the Minister's Answer that the list has not yet been prepared. While appreciating the special problem of London and other big towns and cities, may I ask whether in the next few days the Minister will bear in mind Norfolk's problems and especially the urgent need for a by-pass of King's Lynn which, after all, is the main trunk road from Norfolk to the Midlands?

I take note of that. Of course, there are hundreds of schemes throughout the country which have to be considered in priority, one being measured against the rest. I will look at the matter.

Will the Minister indicate that he has been urged and even pestered by the hon. Member for King's Lynn for action on the King's Lynn by-pass? As the expectation that this plan will be included in an early stage in his report grows every day as the publication of the document is delayed, will he satisfy public opinion in the area that he will get on with this project very soon?

When my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) make representations it is not considered that he is pestering the Ministry. We are always delighted to see him or anybody else. I will take account of all the wishes of my hon. Friend and others. Those we please will not thank us and those we do not please will curse us.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is still prepared to consider giving approval to experimental parking schemes submitted by a local authority; and whether, in view of doubts which exist in this matter, he will make a comprehensive statement on the subject.

I assume that the hon. Member has in mind experiments such as the disc parking scheme. I have made an Order which brought into force as from 20th March, the provision of Section 11 of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960, under which such schemes may be made by local authorities. I am prepared to discuss with any local authority which wishes to make such a scheme the conditions under which it should operate.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present parking system, with people rushing from one parking meter to another, is creating an ulcerated nation? Is he prepared to do something to ease the position of those who require to park cars while carrying on their vocation?

We are finding that the parking meter system in London is the fairest all round to the motorists. This is the first I have heard about its causing ulcers. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we are still prepared to consider giving approval to experimental parking schemes. If Leicester has an experimental parking scheme in mind, I shall be perfectly prepared to consider it.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he has now finalised the line of the Kelvedon and Feering by-pass; and when he anticipates work will start on this improvement to A.12;

The line of the Stanway by-pass was laid down many years ago, though a small amendment at the eastern end was advertised in August, 1959. In view of the growth of traffic, however, it has been thought necessary to redesign the junction to provide grade separation. When this work is completed we shall re-advertise the line of the by-pass and also publish draft side-road Orders.

While thanking my hon. Friend for his Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that for the last thirty years people have been waiting for the line of the Stanway by-pass to be fixed and for work to start? Can he not get on with it very soon, because there was a 13-mile traffic block last summer and the present indication of the traffic is that the road will be blocked practically from London to the East Coast unless something is done quickly?

We certainly recognise that the Stanway by-pass is very urgently required, and we also appreciate the heavy traffic volumes. That is why we are now re-designing the junction to provide grade separation. It is only in comparatively recent years that we have had sufficiently large sums of money available to carry out these highway schemes.

Can my hon. Friend get our right hon. Friend to pay a personal visit one week-end in July or August to this road, for he might then understand the desperation we feel in East Anglia about money being spent on the road as early as possible? If necessary, we are quite prepared to have a toll road to provide the money to make it possible.

If my right hon. Friend accepted that invitation, perhaps someone would complain that he was not in Washington.

asked the Minister of Transport what action he is taking to deal with the inconvenience caused to many local residents by the all-night parking of heavy goods vehicles in residential areas of London.

The primary difficulty is the absence so far of sufficient off-street parking accommodation. I am in touch with the Metropolitan boroughs, and other bodies concerned, about this and other aspects of the problem.

This is not good enough. Is the Minister not aware that with these great ten-ton and twenty-ton diesel lorries starting up every morning at 4 o'clock it is just like hell let loose in some of the residential streets of Brixton and other parts of London? Has not the time come for him to take some drastic action, because the law on the subject is absolutely inadequate?

If the hon. Gentleman will send me details of the streets involved, I will communicate with the Lambeth Borough Council, which is the parking authority for the area under the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act, 1960.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in London there is a very severe problem and that details have already been sent by a number of borough councils to the Home Office and to his Ministry? Surely it is a fair point to say that the law on the subject seems to be rather difficult. Will he seriously examine what can be done to prevent private citizens from having to lose a great deal of their rest at night because of this shocking nuisance?

There are two aspects of this question—the traffic amenity aspect and the aspect of annoyance to residents. The permanent solution is off-street parking, which is primarily the responsibility of the Metropolitan boroughs, and in that I will help all I can. With that, one can get adequate enforcement by the police. There is difficulty about enforcement by the police when there is no other place where the trucks and heavy lorries can go. If the hon. Gentleman will send me details of the situation in Brixton—I have already had some details from Bermondsey—I will go into the matter with the authorities.

Is there not another aspect? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that private enterprise is providing quite insufficient garage accommodation and is using public thoroughfares for all-night parking of these vehicles when it should provide garage facilities at its own expense, as is common place with private road users?

I think that in most cases the vehicle owners should find their own parking places. Whatever happens, a local authority might also provide parking places in its area and the private owners should pay for them.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the hardship caused to the users of invalid carriages who have to use parking meters as a result of being unable to leave their cars outside the parking area because they cannot walk; and if he will take steps to exempt the users of these vehicles from such charges.

We have the greatest sympathy with the disabled and have, therefore, provided in all the parking meter orders so far made that the local authority should have power to give an exemption from paying charges. A disabled driver should apply to the council for exemption.

May I take it that the Minister has given instructions to local authorities to exempt cases of this character? I have in mind a man who lost two legs, and when he goes into a parking place he has to pay to park his car there, which is equivalent to charging him for stowing his crutches while he is doing his job. If the Minister has given instructions to the local authorities to exempt these people, I shall be perfectly satisfied.

No, Sir; we have not given the local authorities instructions. We have given them power to exempt disabled drivers. It is for the local authority itself to decide whether to give a general exemption to all disabled drivers or to give exemption only to those who apply for exemption and can justify it being given to them. That is the precise position, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will study my answer.

Why not give instructions?

What is the good of the Parliamentary Secretary saying what he has said when he knows only too well what the situation is? I have today had a letter from a constituent of mine who is badly disabled and will have to give up his job in the St. Pancras area because he cannot afford to pay the meter charges there. Ought not Parliament to be doing something in this respect for disabled people?

No, Sir; I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The operation of parking meters under parking meter orders is for the local authorities, for they are the parking meter authorities. We see no reason to give general exemption, but we say that if people can satisfy local authorities that they deserve exemption because they are disabled, that is the correct course to follow.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is aware of any local authority which has refused to give exemption or of any case where there has been any difficulty? If a local authority has refused, might there not be a case for Parliament taking further action?

I know of no local authority which has refused to give this exemption to genuine disabled people. There are cases where people claiming to be disabled have applied for exemption and have been refused.

Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment, together with the case to which I have just referred.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the danger to children going to school crossing the main Ninian Park Road and Tudor Street Highway, Cardiff, at the Clare Road junction and the Plantagenet Street junction; and what action he intends to take to protect children at these points.

Neither we nor the Cardiff County Borough Council, which is the responsible authority, have received any representations regarding danger to children crossing Tudor Street. Where numbers of children have to cross a busy road, the normal practice is to provide a school crossing patrol, but this is a matter for the local education authority.

In view of that inadequate reply, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that this Question is a representation? Is he further aware that there is a growing opinion in the locality that unless a child is injured or killed nothing will be done? Will he make representations to the local authority and indicate that there is concern by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West about this matter?

The hon. Gentleman has far greater influence with the local education authority than we have.

I do not dispute that, but may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, as the lives and well-being of children are concerned, he will make representations for a watch to be kept on these spots during the next few weeks?

I will go this far with the hon. Gentleman. I will ask the divisional road engineer to let me have a report on conditions here and we can then see if any representations are needed.

asked the Minister of Transport if he can now say when he will introduce a Road Safety Bill; and if he will make a statement.

A Bill to make further provisions on road safety and other matters was presented in another place yesterday. Copies of the Bill are available in the Vote Office.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will be congratu- lated on finding time for such an important Measure in his crowded programme? Will he say whether in the Bill he intends to make provision to put right something that went a little wrong in the Road Traffic (Driving of Motor Cycles) Bill by which persons trying to learn to drive a motor cycle and sidecar were prohibited from doing so on a motor cycle of over 250 cc.?

I think that was the Bill promoted by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett). Provision is made in the Bill for that.

Is the Minister aware that the proposals in this Bill have been bandied about the House and that a number of Conservative hon. Members knew about them and were discussing them, yet at no time were any Members of the Opposition consulted on a matter which is clearly a non-party one? Does he not understand that this is the sort of thing which causes grave affront to many of us on this side of the House?

I have not consulted any of my hon. Friends on this. This is purely a Government matter and the Government are responsible for the publication of the Bill.

Will the Minister ensure that something is put in the Road Traffic Bill to deal with the parking of heavy commercial vehicles in residential areas in London? I am sure that there is nothing in the Bill about that.

We dealt with that in the Bill passed in 1960, and the hon. Gentleman could have taken part in the debate if he so wished.

asked the Minister of Transport where the proposed improvements to the road B.4055 between Barry and Cardiff via Dinas-Powis are sited; and if he will state the nature of each such proposal.

The proposed improvements are, first, a diversion from the Merry Harriers Public House to the roundabout at Cogan Hill, which would serve as a link between A.4055 and A.4160; secondly, a diversion of the road through Eastbrook village; and, thirdly, the widening of Harbour Road, Barry.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will state the percentage increase or decrease in road fatalities per 1,000 licensed vehicles comparing 1938 with 1960.

Between 1938 and 1960 there was a decrease of 64 per cent.

While there are still far too many acidents, does not the figure show that there has been a really substantial improvement in road behaviour?

The figure must be treated with some reserve, not only because there are still far too many accidents, as my hon. Friend points out, but because I am advised that a simple comparison of the kind asked for in the Question does not reflect a number of points which are somewhat too lengthy and detailed to go into now. But the figure shows that there has been a fall.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce legislation to make the use of dipped headlights compulsory on a moving vehicle after lighting-up time.

The power to do this is included in the Road Traffic Bill which was published today. If and when Parliament approves the Bill, the precise use of the power will need more study.

While I thank my right hon. Friend for going part of the way, he could, in my view, have gone much further. Is he aware that at least two coroners—one in Bolton and one in Coventry—have criticised the use of sidelights only in two instances where fatal accidents occurred? Should not some legislation be introduced? If it saved only one life, it would be of great benefit.

I quite agree with my hon. Friend. At the moment there is no statutory requirement that vehicles should be fitted even with headlamps. We are proposing to ask Parliament to give us that power in the Road Traffic Bill, and I can assure my hon. Friend that as soon as Parliament gives us the power we shall act upon it.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that motor cars which are being assembled, the major portion of which are parts taken from motor cars made more than ten years ago, are not subject to the test for vehicles of over ten years of age; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that such assembled cars are fit for the road.

We are aware of the situation to which the hon. Member refers, though not all cars assembled in this way are outside the scope of the testing scheme.