asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Albert Hall bus stop for buses travelling towards Piccadilly is sited so near the Albert Hall gate to Hyde Park as to make it difficult for bus drivers to keep to the proper lane to allow cars to take advantage of the filter into Hyde Park; and what action he is taking in the matter.

The position of this stop will be reviewed very soon. I will let my hon. Friend know the result.

Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that even where the opportunity does arise, there is a remarkable disinclination on the part of bus drivers to get into the right lane of traffic? Will he draw the attention of the Chairman of the London Transport Executive to this problem, in which he can help bus drivers and the ordinary motorist?

I would not accept as an invariable rule what my hon. Friend says, but I have no doubt that the exchange of view on this subject which he has initiated will be brought to the attention of the Chairman of the London Transport Executive.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that until the beginning of the war, I think, the Albert Gate used to be open, so that it was a filter enabling people to go into the Park? Would he consider the possible reopening of this Gate in order to facilitate this traffic, because it is difficult, even for bus drivers?

The whole of the arrangements for traffic in this area are under review in connection with a possible one-way experiment, as my hon. Friend knows. We may have looked at it, but I will see that it is examined again.

asked the Minister of Transport how many officials of his Department are now fully engaged on traffic engineering in the interests of road safety.

There are 54 engineering staff in my Department wholly engaged on traffic engineering. Traffic engineering deals with traffic flow, road safety and many other allied problems but these 54 traffic engineers keep road safety principles well to the forefront when preparing or examining schemes.

Are these 54 officials available to give advice to local authorities? Many of the smaller towns are trying to grapple, but unsuccessfully, with traffic problems which come in from outside, and which the authorities are not big enough to deal with on their own.

Certainly if I in the central Government can help any local authority with any of its problems I shall be delighted to do so. I am bound to say that the one classic example of traffic engineering is Tottenham Court Road and Gower Street where, once we had one-way traffic, the traffic went twice as fast and the casualties among pedestrians were reduced by 30 per cent. If any local authority would wish advice and guidance I should be really grateful if it would get in touch with me.

Could I then advise my own Goole local authority to get in touch with the right hon. Gentleman in order to get traffic engineers sent up there to deal with the railway crossing across the main road?

The hon. Gentleman could certainly advise Goole local authority, but what Goole local authority would do with the advice is another matter.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement on the provision of an underground garage in Regent's Park, in view of the shortage of garage accommodation in St. Marylebone.

My right hon. Friend is still studying, in consultation with the Minister of Works, the problems of traffic and amenity which would be involved. We are asking the St. Marylebone Borough Council how far it would be prepared to participate in a project for a garage under Regent's Park if these problems can be satisfactorily solved. We should not in any case decide about such a project until we have seen how the Hyde Park garage turns out.

Would the Minister bear in mind that there is a grave shortage of garage accommodation in St. Marylebone and that it is very difficult indeed for the borough council to find any places for off-street parking facilities? Is he further aware that Regent's Park is ideal for this purpose, and will he make a great effort to expedite discussions on this problem?

We are certainly not lagging in this matter. As I said in my Answer, we are asking St. Marylebone Borough Council whether it will be prepared to take part in a project of this kind, and I think that we had better wait and see what answer the council gives us.

asked the Minister of Transport if he has now concluded his study of the various suggestions made to him in connection with the reduction of congestion in Oxford Street and the possible introduction of one-way traffic in Oxford Street and neighbouring streets; and if he will make a statement.

This is an intricate problem and I have not yet reached a conclusion on it. As soon as I have, I shall make a statement.

Could the Minister say whether he has received the views of Westminster City Council and of St. Marylebone Borough Council? Can he give any idea when he is likely to be in a position to make a statement, because he will realise that the present uncertainty is causing grave disquiet in that part of West London?

Yes, Sir. I have received the ideas of the Westminster City Council, the London Transport Executive, the Oxford Street Association, the Westminster Chamber of Commerce, the Grosvenor Estates, the Howard de Walden Estate, the Brook Street Residents Committee, the St. Marylebone Works Committee and many others as well. As they have given the most comprehensive thought to the matter, it would only be courteous and right for me to give the closest scrutiny to what they propose. Therefore, I am not in a position to say at what time I shall be able to answer the many constructive proposals which have been put to me.

asked the Minister of Transport when Her Majesty's Government will make a decision on the subject of the Channel tunnel or bridge in view of the possibility of the Common Market negotiations being concluded shortly.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet come to a decision as to the desirabilty and feasibility of some form of terrestrial link between the United Kingdom and France.

The Anglo-French official study of the Channel crossing proposals is making progress; but there are complex problems which must be thoroughly worked out before Governments can reach decisions. I make no promises at this stage about the timing of such decisions.

Will my right hon. Friend make a statement on this matter before we rise for the Summer Recess? The discussions have been going on for more than a year, and the matter must be brought to a head, particularly if we are to enter the Common Market.

I am sorry but I think that the real point here is that we must make the right decision and not a speedy decision. There are many complex problems involved in the study, We suggested to the French Government in December, 1960, that we should hold joint discussions on the Channel tunnel proposals. Unfortunately, for many reasons it was not possible to start the discussions until November, 1961. I believe that the House would like a comprehensive study and a conclusion reached after careful consideration rather than a hurried answer which was not the right one.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the intense interest that there is in this imaginative project, and will he state that no unreasonable delay will be allowed by himself and his Ministry?

There will be no unreasonable delay on this side of the Channel.

Can we get it on the record that at any rate the Government favour the principle of having a Channel tunnel and that the whole purpose of the discussions is to work out how best this can be achieved? Is that a clear statement of the position or not?

I am not going to be drawn into anything at this stage, even by so astute a cross-examiner as the hon. Gentleman. I believe it is better for me to be completely impartial until both French and British Governments have made up their minds and announced their decision. That will be at the earliest possible moment consistent with making a reasonable decision.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to receive from the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee its recommendations concerning the proposed alteration of the speed limits on the A.22 at South Godstone.

We have received and we accept the Committee's recommendation that this road should be subject to a 40 m. p. h. speed limit.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that, as a matter of common sense as well as courtesy, this decision should not have been reached without my hon. Friend or the Minister or the Traffic Advisory Committee meeting and discussing the recommendation with the local residents, among whom feeling on this subject is very intense?

I wrote to my right hon. Friend about this matter on 3rd July. Perhaps he will study my answer, from which I think it is clear that no discourtesy was intended. The members of the Traffic Advisory Committee were very fully aware of the situation at that place and many of them knew it from personal experience.

My hon. Friend states that the members of the Traffic Advisory Committee knew this area and this problem. Can he say whether they have visited it in their capacity as road hogs on their way to the South Coast or as unhappy pedestrians trying to cross the road?

I do not think either of those assertions is justified.

asked the Minister of Transport why he has refused to approve the provision of an omnibus station at Lower High Street, Cradley Heath, Staffordshire.

After examining the local council's proposal, I came to the conclusion that I would not be justified, on grounds of urgent necessity, in recommending sanction for a loan of £ 14,000 for this purpose at the present time.

Is it not the case that this proposal for an omnibus station was approved in principle by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government three years ago, and that the Rowley Regis Borough Council has incurred expenditure of £ 7,000 for land acquisition and preliminary work? Is it not most unfair that a local authority should be the victim of different decisions by different Departments in this way? Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to indicate that he will give this very sympathetic consideration as soon as possible?

In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I will look at this matter again. When it was looked into carefully, the scheme was considered desirable but neither essential nor urgent. But I will look at it again in the light of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said.

asked the Minister of Transport what reply he has given to the representations sent to him by the Federation of British Industries regarding road development in the south-west of England.

The Federation of British Industries has not made any such representations to me.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to prepare to receive such a recommendation, which was discussed with the Federation and with 18 hon. Members last Thursday, when there was general agreement that the Minister's priorities for road development shows that he regards the South-West as a "Cinderella" of the industrial life of the nation? Will he revise his priorities?

That is a very difficult question to answer. I think that it is desirable for regional offices of the F.B.I. to send their complaints to the headquarters of the Federation, which can then make complaints or suggestions on a national scale rather than on a regional scale— [HON. MEMBERS: "Why"?]— because if the south-west region starts making representations it will not be long before the north-east region does the same.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet considered the representations made to him on 26th March, 1962, by the hon. Member for Acton about the possibility of introducing one-way working in Standard Road and Gorst Road, Acton.

We have reached no conclusions yet. We have consulted the police and the highway authority. We are arranging a site meeting to discuss my hon. Friend's suggestion and other traffic problems on the Chase Road Estate. All interested parties will be invited to attend.

Does my hon. Friend realise that although his consideration of this problem so far appears to have taken a fairish amount of time, his reply will be regarded by Acton Chamber of Commerce and my constituents working in this congested area as encouraging? Will he press on with the matter and give full satisfaction to all by reaching the right decision as soon as possible?

We will certainly press on but whether we can give everyone complete satisfaction is not quite so certain.

asked the Minister of Transport by what amount in costs per mile the estimated cost of constructing new motorways has risen between January, 1959, and the latest available date in 1962.

The cost of constructing motorways varies widely according to the particular circumstances of each route, including soil conditions and the extent to which major structures are necessary. Average costs may, therefore, be misleading but some indication of the increase in costs is given by the following figures. The average cost of M.1, including land, was approximately £ 407,000 per mile. The estimated average cost per mile, including land, of the M.6 motorway from Dunston to Preston by-pass is approximately £ 699,000. This figure reflects the cost of three major viaducts, of poor soil conditions and improved design standards. It also reflects the general rise in tender rates since 1959.

But to what does the hon. Gentleman attribute these very substantial increases in the cost of making these motorways? Would he agree that one of the reasons is the uneconomic use of specialised equipment due to the lack of any steady continuous programme of construction that would ensure full and uninterrupted use of this plant?

No, Sir. I tried in my answer to give some of the factors which relate to this increase in costs. This old idea that it is uneconomic not to build a motorway except all in one piece and all at one time because otherwise plant stands idle has been exploded on a number of occasions. It just is not so.

Will my hon. Friend give some figures for the Maidstone bypass, including the cost per mile, since that by-pass appears to have been partly worn out in a very short time? Were we in Kent unfortunate enough to have a cheap job done?

I know that my hon. Friend makes use of that road frequently but I did not know that his use of it was so intensive as to wear it out. I cannot give details relating to the Maidstone by-pass without notice.

asked the Minister of Transport how many miles of the A.25 road have been improved in the past 10 years; haw many separate schemes this represents; how many miles are being improved at present, in haw many schemes; how many schemes are planned for the next five years, or other convenient period ahead; and what is the total cost of these schemes, past, present and future.

Some two and one half miles of the A.25 road have been improved in five different major schemes, all since 1958. One major scheme is in hand covering a quarter of a mile of the road. Nine major schemes covering seven miles are programmed for the next two or three years. The total costs of completed, present and planned schemes are £ 172,000, £ 32,000 and £ 918,000.

I am grateful for that Answer, but is my hon. Friend aware that very nearly seven and a half miles of the A.25 road still has double white lines? This road is the main trunk road from Kent to the west of England, avoiding London. If he could expedite work on the seven miles now to be put in hand, it would be extremely advantageous for members of the public living in Kent who have business commitments and wish to avoid London.

We shall get on as quickly as we can. Our intention is to bring this road to the standard of a good three-lane road.

asked the Minister of Transport when he intends to improve the street lighting in Amersham Road, S.E.14, now that it has been incorporated as a one-way street in the A.20 route to Kent; and if the lighting will be brought up to the normal trunk route standards for urban areas.

This is entirely a matter for the Deptford Borough Council.

Does not my right hon. Friend have responsibility for trunk routes?

My right hon. Friend has power to provide or contribute towards street lighting, but only on trunk roads. The A.20 ceases to be a trunk road at the point where it enters the L.C.C. area, near the western end of the Sidcup bypass.

Could not my hon. Friend make representations to Deptford Borough Council to bring its street lighting up to adequate safety standards?

I do not think that it is for my right hon. Friend to do that.

asked the Minister of Transport what sums are to be expended on the reconstruction and improvement of roads in the County of Durham contained in the road programme.

The estimated total expenditure on trunk road improvements costing over £ 100,000 each, in the geographical County of Durham— excluding the Tyneside conurbation area— is £ 6,840,000 in the next four to five years. This includes £ 5½ million for the Darlington by-pass motorway. The figure for classified roads in the years 1961-62 to 1964-65 inclusive is £ 1,567,000.

In view of the transport needs of this area, more particularly because of the closure of branch railway lines and the indication by Dr. Beeching of the possibility of further closures, is not this a comparatively small amount? In view of the time which will elapse before this programme is implemented, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of increasing the amount available?

It is not a comparatively small but a substantial amount. There are other hon. Members. on both sides of the House, who think that their areas are receiving less than that which the right hon. Gentleman has the honour to represent. In particular, his hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Cam-borne (Mr. Hayman) thinks that the North-East is getting more at the expense of the South-West. It is my difficult job to hold the balance among all these competing interests.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman take into account the population of the North-East as compared with the South-West? While no one desires to prevent the South-West from getting all that it is entitled to, surely the industrial needs of the North-East require greater priority.

I take into account not only the quantity of the population but the quality of the population and the varying desires and industrial needs in all parts of the country.

asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the opposition in Louth to the suggested wide highway through the town, if he will consult the local planning authority with a view to its producing its own scheme for immediate consideration as an alternative project; and if he will make a statement.

Our engineers have already had consultations with the county planning officer, who is at present preparing a draft town map for submission to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The planning of the future road system in Louth must be considered as a whole. Until we know the views of the Lindsey County Council we cannot decide what to do about the improvement of the trunk road.

Will my hon. Friend do his utmost to expedite these consultations, which have been going on for about three years? Secondly, is he aware that nobody locally wants this main highway through this ancient borough and that the local trustee savings bank— which, 'incidentally, is about the oldest in the country— cannot modernise its property because this trunk road, which nobody wants, will go right through its premises? Will he not say that this stupid scheme will be abandoned?

We will certainly do all that we can to expedite the consideration of this matter, but I think that we should have these further consulations before we make a decision.

Has the hon. Gentleman noticed from the contributions made this afternoon by his hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) that consultation between his Ministry and the county planning authority is not always enough, and that the viewpoint of the local authority has been somewhat neglected in many cases, one of which I hope to bring to his attention this afternoon?

When we get to the Question of the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), I will answer it, and I think that he will then feel satisfied that we have adequately consulted.

It is not a question of consultation not being enough, but of its not always being quick enough. Will my hon. Friend get something done quickly?

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make arrangements for a senior official of his department to accompany the hon. Member for Tynemouth to examine the dangerous access, for pupils, to the new Monkseaton Grammar and Technical School.

No, Sir. The responsibility for providing safe access to this new school is a matter for the local authorities and not for my right hon. Friend.

As the school was built at the request of the Ministry of Education, and as Northumberland County Council says that the Minister of Transport is not giving it sufficient money to provide a safe access, will my hon. Friend explain to me whether the lives of children are more important in his opinion? Does he mind whether children have safe access to the school? Why will he not allow someone to come with my experts to look at the whole site? It is absolutely disgraceful that the lives of children should be endangered in this way, and I am ashamed to hear such an Answer from my hon. Friend.

Of course, we are all anxious to see that the lives of school children are not endangered.

Then send up somebody to look at it instead of being so fatuously obstinate.

We are anxious to see that the lives of school children are not endangered.

They are endangered.

Order, order. The hon. Lady has been here so long that she must know that there are limits to permitted misbehaviour.

If I may conclude; if my right hon. Friend has no responsibility, I do not quite see how my hon. Friend can force the responsibility upon him.

Money, money, money.

asked the Minister of Transport why he did not inform the Newcastle Corporation of his intention to hold a public inquiry into its parking meter scheme before informing an hon. Member whose constituency is not directly affected by the scheme; and why he did not, at the same time, inform the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central after promising to do so in a letter dated 21st May.

This was a mistake, for which I apologise.

Of course we accept the Minister's apology, but his action appeared to be extremely discourteous. Will he see that in future when he tells the hon. Member concerned— and I was the Member concerned— that he will inform him, he does not inform an hon. Member opposite ten days before? Will he also see that in future when a public inquiry is to be held, he does not leave the local authority to read about it in the local Press?

I have apologised. I am sure that the House will agree that in my Ministry we have thousands of oases and that occasionally one or two go wrong. I accept responsibility, I have said so, and I am sorry.

asked the Minister of Transport why the Leicestershire portion of the London to Yorkshire motorway is to be built in two separate operations since it would be cheaper to finish the job at once when both men and machines have been assembled; what will be the estimated cost; if it will be on a cost-plus basis; and if he will make a statement.

Although the extension of M.1 is not one of the five major projects, we are proceeding as quickly as preparation and funds allow. By undertaking the work in stages, we can start earlier than would otherwise have been the case. Each stage will give progressive benefits.

Is it not true that the contractors on the first part of the M.1 stated that in their experience it would be better and cheaper to finish the job in one piece rather than in small parts? Is there any reason not to believe their opinion on that matter?

No, Sir. The main length of the first section of the M.1, covering 55 miles, was divided into four contracts. As it happened, one firm was the successful tenderer for all four contracts. But it does not necessarily follow that there has to be one contract to get the maximum speed and the maximum efficiency.

But when that operation was finished, if I remember rightly, the contractors said that from their experience it would be cheaper to use the men and the machinery then assembled to go on with the job. Is there any reason to disbelieve that estimate?

I have no recollection of the contractors saying anything of the kind.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the concern felt by the Rugeley Urban District Council regarding his decision to use the A.51 as the principal egress from Rugeley; and whether he will reconsider this decision in view of the Council's opinion that the Staffordshire County Roads and Bridges Committee's recommendation in 1958 is now erroneous, especially in view of the congestion caused on the road at the point of the railway viaduct in Rugeley.

Rugeley Urban District Council, with the hon. Member's support, has pressed us both to bring forward the improvement of A.51 in our programme and to include the widening of the alternative route, A.513, with a new link road to A.51. We hope to be able to bring forward the work on A.51 but for reasons which have been fully explained to the Council we cannot include the alternative road in our present programme.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has a long history, and that the financial repercussions of the improvement of the A.51 did not come to the attention of the local authority until rather late in the day, when it became apparent that the proposal to use the A.51 as a main egress was going to be very serious indeed financially? Will the hon. Gentleman consider either sending one of these traffic engineers, or worrying these people to examine the position from an economic point of view in the light of the new circumstances?

I will consider that. We are, and have been, in very close touch with the U.D.C. about this matter over a long time, but I will see whether we can do anything further to clear up this point.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the number of ships being built on Tyneside at present; whether this number is less or more than the number two years ago; whether the value of the ships now being built is greater than that of those being built two years ago; and what is his present estimate of the commercial prospects for the shipping industry.

At 30th June there were 23 merchant ships totalling 229,700 gross tons and three naval vessels under construction on the Tyne. At the end of 1959 the comparable figures were 29 merchant ships totalling 343,600 gross tons and four naval vessels. I have no information about the value of these ships.

Is it true that we, the British, are buying ships from foreign ports, and that in this process British buyers are subsidised to the extent of the investment allowance? How many ships have been bought in this way? Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that this is subsidising competition with our own people?

I could not without notice give exact figures of orders placed abroad, but I am glad to say that, while a year ago we were deeply concerned at the number of orders which were going abroad, the number this year has fallen to a mere trickle.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a further statement on Great Britain's future shipbuilding policy, following the Cunard Steamship Company's recent merger.

The policy of the Government towards the shipbuilding industry is not affected by the link between Cunard and B.O.A.C.

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman still accept Cunard as a reliable instrument for carrying out the policy which was embodied in the Bill that became an Act a year ago? Is he aware that in stating Cunard's attitude to the building of the replacement for the "Queen Mary", Sir John Brocklebank, last Wednesday, stated that it would be foolish at this juncture to embark on the building of a capital ship. If he regards the Government's policy as foolish, how can the Government expect him to carry it out?

I can only say that we have kept in close touch with the Cunard Company during these months, and, so far as I am aware, there is no direct connection in the mind of the company between this link with B.O.A.C. and the decision about a new liner. After all, the company's decision to buy aeroplanes, which was the principal investment that it had in the new link, had been made before we were discussing the Bill last year.

Of course there is a connection. It was my way of bringing it up. Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the position of Cunard is now somewhat unstable in the estimation of a great many people, and that that was the reason for the merger? In view of that, does he consider Cunard to be a reliable instrument for giving effect to Government policy?

I de not propose to comment on the Cunard Company's reliability. I would point out that, although there is an obvious connection between the development of air travel, on the one hand, and the wisdom of investing a lot of money in a new passenger liner, on the other, I do not consider there is any main connection between this particular agreement and the case of a possible Q.3.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to increase the segregation of pedestrian and, vehicle traffic.

It is in the towns and cities that this problem is most acute and I foresee an increasing need for the separation of pedestrians and vehicles. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and I myself are giving advice to this effect on specific redevelopment schemes throughout the country and we are about to issue a bulletin on the redevelopment of town centres which will emphasise this point. We expect to give further advice when the group studying the long-term problems of urban traffic has made its report.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability or otherwise of issuing standard patterns of advice about busy crossings in order to ensure that traffic is kept flowing on the roads and pedestrians kept safely on the pavements?

We have an advisory committee which we call the Long-Term Study Group on this particular point, with a steering group, whose chairman is Sir Geoffrey Crowther. I think that certainly within the next twelve months we shall be issuing to local authorities comprehensive advice on this problem, which I think strikes at the very root of the problem of how to cope and live with the motor car.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that a Birmingham firm, about which he has received details, is selling secondhand cars in an unroadworthy condition; and, in view of general anxiety on this matter, whether, under Section 248 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, he will hold an inquiry to establish the extent to which this and other firms are avoiding the operation of Section 68 of that Act.

We have no evidence which suggests that there is any widespread contravention of Section 68 of the Road Traffic Act. My right hon. Friend is writing to the hon. Member about the particular case of which he sent details.

Does this mean that the Ministry can do nothing in this case? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the dozen or so individual cases I sent to him, and the pressure on his Ministry from the motoring organisations about this firm trading as Unity Motors of Birmingham? Has he considered the identity of complaint in every case, namely, that cars are being sold that are defective in such things as brakes and gear boxes, and that these may be dangerous on the roads, and that most questionable sales methods are being used to get these unroadworthy cars sold — such methods as hire-purchase forms signed in blank, and registration books with the date of manufacture concealed for a time, and so on? Should not something be done to protect purchasers in cases like this?

I think that the hon. Gentleman had better await my right hon. Friend's letter, which goes into this matter in some detail.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many unroadworthy vehicles are on the roads as a result of insurance companies writing off vehicles as a total loss and then the vehicles being purchased by irresponsible motor agents? Could he possibly make an arrangement with insurance companies whereby, before the cars are reregistered, they have to pass a Ministry of Transport examination?

We have had this matter under discussion in Standing Committee in connection with the Road Traffic Bill. We take the view that a better way to deal with this kind of case is to bring down the age limit for vehicle tests as quickly as we possibly can. This catches far more cases than any ad hoc arrangement would do.

Having seen the correspondence between my hon. Friend and the Ministry, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman does not agree that in fact the complaint is both justified and fairly widespread? May we have an assurance that the Government will strengthen the law in the matter?

I do not think we ought to start arguing from an individual case to a general change in the law. With regard to individual cases, the present law, we are satisfied, is adequate to deal with the situation. What is important is to get concrete evidence of breaches of the law, and that is a matter for the police.

asked the Minister of Transport how much has been collected from parking meters in the London area during 1962; and what use has been made of the moneys so collected.

The administration of parking meter schemes, including the collection of meter charges, is the responsibility of the local authorities concerned. I understand that the gross receipts in London during 1962, up to 31st May, were about £ 257,000; after deducting expenses the net receipts will be about £ 86,000.

Would my hon. Friend, either today or on a suitable occasion, give instances of suitable off-road parking sites which are being developed by means of this money, because a great many motorists have the opinion that millions of shillings and sixpences are going down the drain and that absolutely nothing is happening?

I am very glad to refute that erroneous suggestion or impression. The fact is that local authorities in London have already a number of plans either in an advanced stage of preparation or actually going ahead for off-street car parks. For instance, there is a multi-storey garage in Audley Square which will be open this year. Another in Lower Thames Street is well advanced. Others are to be provided in Savile Row, Whitcomb Street, and Saffron Hill, Holborn. In addition, the House will remember that we have made it possible for a big garage to be built under Hyde Park, which should be in operation by the end of the year. That is where the money is going.

What is the reason for the enormous discrepancy between the gross takings of parking meters and the comparatively negligible net sum which results from the total operation?

If the hon. Gentleman had had a little more experience in business he would know how expenses are rather liable to reduce gross takings.

asked the Minister of Transport what were the estimated financial losses caused by accidents arising from travel by train and road, respectively, within the United Kingdom during 1961.

In a study of the cost of road accidents in 1952, the Road Research Laboratory estimated the loss to the community as a result of road accidents at £ 72 million. Allowing for the increase in the number of accidents and changes in the value of money since 1952, the cost of road accidents is currently estimated at about £ 160 million. No such estimate of the financial loss arising from train accidents is available.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman have in his Department any research workers who are studying how railways can relieve the danger and cost of accidents on the roads?

We have a number of studies on the subject of the railways going on, most of which are concerned with how much traffic which is suitable can be induced to come back to the railways. The question of road safety certainly comes into this, but we have no specific part of my Department looking into the question of how accidents could be reduced in this way.

Surely this is one of the fundamental weaknesses in the whole situation? If Dr. Beeching can study the possibilities of the railways, surely the Ministry of Transport has an obligation to study whether roads and railways can be integrated from the points of view of safety and economy?

That is just what I have said.

Is it not a fact that the annual loss from railway accidents is far less than the £ 160 million which the Minister estimates for road accidents? Is not the estimate of £ 160 million very modest indeed, and have not others made a much larger estimate? Is not this a factor which the Minister ought to take into account while he is forcing traffic on to the roads and destroying the railways?

I really must object to the right hon. Gentleman's saying that I am forcing traffic on to the roads. Traffic is going on to the roads because the people of this country wish to go on to the roads. I am not forcing it on to the roads. [Interruption.]

The right hon. Gentleman is. [Interruption.]

The very democrats who voted for the right hon. Gentleman—

Order. We have a daily struggle to get through a reasonable number of Questions. If the noise of answer and question is drowned by counter-assertions shouted, we make even less progress.

asked the Minister of Transport how many people were injured and admitted to hospital as a result of train and road accidents, respectively, within the United Kingdom during 1961.

The number of people admitted to hospital as a result of road and train accidents is not available. The number of people seriously injured in road accidents in Great Britain, whether or nor, admitted to hospital, was 84,936; 55,844 of these were drivers or passengers in motor vehicles. The number of persons seriously injured in train accidents in Great Britain during 1961 was 111, of whom 51 were passengers.

While I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern about road safety purely with regard to the roads, is not his whole attitude to coordination of rail and road from the point of view of reducing road accidents thoroughly flippant?

No, Sir.

But will the right hon. Gentleman please at any rate take it from us that his argument about profit on the railways must surely be measured against the safety of the railways? If one is to strike a balance sheet, is it not fair in the interests of the community that we should say that train travel is that much safer and that we should encourage people to go by train, rather than close down branch lines, as the right hon. Gentleman intends to do?

The choice is for the people themselves.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the fee for doctors attending road accidents has remained at 12s. 6d. since 1934; and whether, in view of the complications and delays which may be involved in the medical treatment of persons meeting with road accidents, he will take steps to arrange for this fee to be increased at an early date.

I am aware that the fee of 12s. 6d. has not been changed since it was introduced in 1934. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that an Amendment to abolish this charge altogether was discussed yesterday during the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill. The hon. Member will find that the Government's view was then expressed as being that the charge should be abolished when financial circumstances permit.

What on earth is the Parliamentary Secretary thinking about? Does he realise that the fee is dismally small and that it takes a doctor several hours to earn it? Is it not about time that it was increased instead of abolished altogether?

I advise the hon. Gentleman to study the proceedings in the Standing Committee yesterday, or to have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) who was there. This fee was fixed as long ago as 1934, before the National Health Service was ever thought of.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that every 12s. 6d. collected costs 11s. to collect, which makes the matter worse?

I have heard that said, but I cannot confirm or deny it.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the traffic congestion caused by the Earls Court motor show, he will enter into discussions with the organisers to hold the show further away from the centre of London.

We are aware of the traffic problems caused by the motor show. But a central site has advantages and I hope that the experiment in one-way working in the Earls Court Road-Warwick Road area, which is to start soon, will make things easier.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is being very optimistic to expect that one-way traffic working will do very much to minimise the enormous congestion which makes the motor show the worst week or two for London traffic during the whole year? Will he consider the advisability, in view of the lack of parking facilities and the fact that Earls Court is now too small for the exhibition, of asking the motor show people to hold their show at Farnborough, or somewhere like that, where there is plenty of room to put up tents and hundreds of thousands of cars can go there?

The hon. Gentleman is incurably pessimistic. I think that he should wait to see whether this scheme is as effective as we are quite sure it will be.

asked the Minister of Transport when he now expects to issue the promised regulations providing for more control over mobile cranes with projecting jibs and vehicles with abnormal overhanging loads.

Regulations and an associated revision of the Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) General Order, which deal with the matters to which my hon. Friend refers and many others as well, are in proof and I hope to make and lay them before Parliament very shortly. They will come into effect in the autumn.

That sounds fine, but as my right hon. Friend told us 18 months ago that he hoped to come to a decision on this matter very shortly and he said last January that the regulations would be in existence in February, will he agree that people may not feel too confident about that assurance? If there is any further hold-up, will he give an assurance that he will get a bit tougher with the interested parties whom by Statute he has to consult and who have managed to hold up the making of these regulations for about eighteen months?

It is difficult for a person of sensitive nature to be tough with people. The reason for the delay is not a question of toughness nor of obstruction by the interested parties but it is because of the complex and complicated nature of the problem. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that if any delay is caused by people being obstructive, we shall be very firm with them. But it is not that, and I should like to absolve them from blame. There is delay because this is complex and complicated and I hope to make and lay these provisions before Parliament shortly. They will come into effect in the autumn.

This type of answer has been given for a long time. Two months ago the right hon. Gentleman assured me that these regulations would be ready by the end of May. I was in telephonic communication with his Department and afterwards he expressed an apology for the delay and assured me that they would be ready some time pretty soon and that he would give me a date when he expected them to be ready. Is not this the same type of answer that he has repeatedly given and is he not aware that all local authorities are particularly disturbed about the delay in getting these regulations? We know that they may be complicated, but in view of the accidents that are taking place through overhanging loads he should urge his Department to come to a decision more speedily.

I have here some of the Questions asked by hon. Gentlemen. I cannot find any record of the hon. Gentleman asking me a Question. He may have had a telephone conversation but I have no record of it.

There was some correspondence.

I have given the answer to my hon. and gallant Friend that these provisions will be brought into effect in the autumn.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will issue a general direction to the British Transport Commission that under no circumstances must the departure of trains be held up for the convenience of any passenger.

No, Sir. The day-to-day operation of the railways is the responsibility of regional management.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what justification there is for holding up a train in Scotland for half an hour to enable the Home Secretary to return from his holidays? Can he say why on earth particularly Scottish Railways should in any way inconvenience themselves for a member of Her Majesty's Government at the present time?

The curious thing is that they did not inconvenience themselves. The train, although held back where it started, arrived at Stirling at the time scheduled in the timetable. Therefore, the passengers were not inconvenienced. In addition, they had the pleasure of the company of my right hon. Friend. Although Scotland may complain, England, too, has a complaint, because an hon. Gentleman opposite stopped a train going from Victoria to East Croydon at half-past twelve in the morning and inconvenienced English passengers, and the hon. Gentleman had to pay compensation.

Order. I am determined to invite the assistance of the House in getting on. We have not even managed to deal with 16 Questions by 3 o'clock today. Mr. Arthur Henderson, Question No. 16.

asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for maintaining effective transport facilities in the north-east of Scotland following the closure of railway services in that area, in view of the effect that reduced facilities would have on the prosperity of the area.

I know of no proposals for the closure of railway services in north-east Scotland. But under the procedure proposed in the Transport Bill I shall have power to require the provision of alternative services in the light of the report which the Scottish Transport Users' Consultative Committee will have to make to me on any proposed passenger closure.

Does the right hon. Gentleman never read the newspapers? If he has no other sources of information, will he educate himself on this subject? Will he consult the President of the Board of Trade in order to change their joint policy of isolating north-east Scotland— a policy which is so damaging to the trade, industry and employment of that area— for one which will be beneficial?

Reading newspapers is not necessarily the same thing as being educated. I read them frequently and I see more rumours in them than come from anywhere else, except from Transport House. As I have said, there are no proposals at the present time, and therefore the hon. and learned Member's supplementary question is hypothetical.

In considering proposals which will come to him in due course after the passing of the Transport Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Secretary of State for Scotland before taking steps to close any of the Highland lines and agree with him on what road adaptations, expenditure and equipment will be necessary in the Highlands to provide the travel facilities which would be necessary upon the closure of railway lines?

If and when proposals come to me I will certainly consult the Secretary of State.

The right hon Gentleman's answer is rather thin. Is he not aware that there are several proposals before the Transport Users' Consultative Committee to close some branch lines not only in Scotland but in Wales as well? As the final arbitrator of the decisions of the Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, before he agrees to any further closures, he will see that alternative transport is available for the inhabitants of these sparsely populated areas?

I said that I knew of no proposals for the closure of railway services in north-east Scotland. If and when they are proposed to me, the Consultative Committee will report on the hardship involved and on what alternative services may be necessary to alleviate it. That will be studied carefully.

asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the increase in road traffic which will be needed if the present proposals for cutting branch lines are carried out.

When proposals for the closure of branch lines come before me I take into account in each case the possible effect on road traffic. In most of the current cases the use made of the line is so small that the transfer of the traffic to road will have no appreciable effect.

In principle, would it not be unwise to decrease rail traffic, of which we have too little, and increase road traffic, of which we have too much?

It depends on the circumstances of each individual case.

Is the right hon. Gentleman denying, as he appeared to be doing in answer to earlier Questions, that the proposals of Dr. Beeching, if implemented, will mean an immense diversion of traffic from rail to road? Does he take into account in calculating costs the cost of road-widening and so on and the accident rate, which is likely to go up? Will he consider all that when this major operation takes place, as promised by Dr. Beeching and supported by himself?

We ought to wait until we know what the proposals are. The right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite are leaping to the argument as though they know exactly what Dr. Beeching is to propose. I do not know and he does not know, and how the right hon. Gentleman knows passes my comprehension.

Has the Minister read Dr. Beeching's report in which he talks of drastic changes, drastic cutting down of branch lines and stopping trains, and so on? Is it all bluff? Does it mean nothing?

I have said that it will go before the Transport Users' Consultative Committee which will decide on questions of hardship and make recommendations to me. We will then see what alternative services are needed. But until we get the facts, it is no good going on trying to prophesy what will happen when we do not know what lines are to be closed. It is a profitable exercise politically, but sterile economically.

asked the Minister of Transport how many protests he has received from Dorset against the proposed cutting of such local railway services as have been the subject of recommendations to him from the Central Transport Consultative Committee.

None, Sir. The Central Transport Consultative Committee have been considering no proposals for withdrawing railway services in Dorset.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are a good many in the pipeline which he will get?

I answered the Question on the Order Paper. The Central Transport Consultative Committee has been considering no proposals. As my right hon. Friend said, no one can yet see what the future will be with certainty, and I would not, therefore, like to say whether there are any in the pipeline or not.