asked the Secretary of State for Air how many juveniles in his Department aged 15 to 18 years, in industrial grades but not apprenticed, attend day release classes; and what percentage this forms of this category of employee.

Nineteen; this is equivalent to 9 per cent.

These figures are very small. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he has an obligation to his other colleagues, notably the Minister of Education, to get this figure up to nearly 100 per cent. and ensure that Civil Service Departments, his own in particular, give every encouragement to day release?

The hon. Gentleman has a Question down about what we are trying to do. On non-industrial grades it is as high as nearly 50 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps his Department takes to encourage juveniles aged 16 to l8 years to attend day release classes.

On joining the Department, young people are interviewed, given full information about the day release scheme, and encouraged to attend classes. If a young person is interested, then or later, we help in the choice of classes, pay any necessary fees, provide books and help with travelling expenses.

Fifty per cent. is very much lower than the figure for other Departments. What is to stop the Air Ministry making attendance at classes compulsory as is done in one or two other Departments?

I have looked at that question. I do not think it would work in the Air Ministry. These are, on the whole, voluntary classes. If they are overloaded with people who really do not want to attend them it holds back those who do.

What is the difference between the Air Ministry and the Home Office, for example?

Ours is a rather better Ministry.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether Transport Command proposes to use some of the Britannia aircraft now available from British Overseas Airways Corporation.

No, Sir.

Is it true that there are quite a number of Britannias surplus to requirements lying at London Airport in the present ownership of B.O.A.C.? Is it also a fact that trooping overseas is now done entirely by air? Would it not be in the interests of the taxpayer if these two facts could be related?

I have been into this in considerable detail. The saving, because of the time scale, would be almost negligible. It would mean retraining crews. They are not quite the right type of aircraft. They are rather old. I have looked at this matter most carefully and at the moment I must say that I see no advantage in taking these aircraft.

Has any definite offer been made by the Chinese Government for any of these?

That is a matter for the the Minister of Aviation.

I accept that it may not be necessarily the right policy to buy second-hand planes, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's answer is not to be construed as meaning that he is complacent about the very great deficiencies in Transport Command and our total inability to provide the mobility we need.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take back some of that statement. It is slightly exaggerated. I am not complacent. The V.C.10, the Belfast and other replacements will meet most of the need.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will give instructions, now that the Brussels talks have broken down, that meteorological temperatures given by the Meteorological Office should be given only in Fahrenheit.

No, Sir. The introduction of centigrade in weather forecasts had no connection with the Common Market negotiations.

I do not always accept what Government spokesmen say about the Common Market. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, apart from one letter, I have had a great number of letters and communications from people who ask me to state on behalf of the public as a whole their disgust and unhappiness at and inability to follow the temperatures given by the Air Ministry in centesimal? Does the right hon. Gentleman know what the correct Fahrenheit reading is for 39 degrees centesimal?

I will have to ask my Department. In point of fact, they are given in both scales. The decision was the result of a recommendation by the Meteorological Committee. There was wide consultation with industry, public utilities. and industral and research organisations. I think that on the whole this is satisfactory, certainly for young people, rather than for the hon. Gentleman and myself. Young people are being Instructed in centigrade/Fahrenheit conversion and I am sure that this is the best method to pursue.

May I have an assurance that Fahrenheit will never be completely dropped?

That is a wider question. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that will be done only when it is acceptable to the general public.

In view of the public interest in this matter, I should like some time to raise this matter on the Adjournment?

I wish we could adhere to the usual formula.

asked the Secretary of State for Air how much pension, including all increases, is received by a 55-years-old widow of a wing commander who retired after maximum service in 1958 and died on 3rd November, 1958; and how much it would be if her husband had retired this year and died today.

£233 a year and £380 a year respectively.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the widow of a chief executive officer in the Civil Service who retired this year and died today would receive much the same pension as the widow of a wing commander, but if both husbands had died on 3rd November, 1958, the widow of the civil servant would receive £79 more? Does my right hon. Friend think that it is right that widows of officers whose husbands died before 4th November, 1958, should be left on this obsolete code while, at the same time, we are being constantly assured that there must be equal treatment for all public servants?

As my hon. Friend knows, this is a most complex question. The rate of pension is governed by the conditions that applied at the date of widowhood. This necessarily involves line-drawing as between pre-Grigg and post-Grigg widows. However, I should like to point out that, owing to the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1962, the theoretical widow to whom my hon. Friend referred received a pension starting at £180 which, by a variety of increases, has now reached £233.

Am I to understand from my right hon. Friend's Answer that he does not think that the present arrangements for elderly Service widows are satisfactory? If I am right in my interpretation, when does he intend to ensure that the Cabinet understands that a great many hon. Members are absolutely annoyed beyond grief at the continuous plight of these elderly widows? When does my right hon. Friend propose to do something about the matter?

There has been an improvement, but I would point out that this goes wider across the field than Service widows. A whole variety of pensioners are involved and this is a wide problem to which I cannot possibly give a satisfactory answer at Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for Air how much Service pension would be received by the widow, who is between 40 and 60 years of age, of a sergeant in the Royal Air Force discharged after 22 years' service before 1st September, 1950, between 1st September, 1950, and 4th November, 1958, assuming in both cases that widowhood occurred before 4th November, 1958, and at the present time, respectively.

None, none and one-third of her husband's pension or £1 2s. 5d. a week whichever is the greater.

Can my right hon. Friend give the number of widows in the first two categories or, if the figures are not available, can he find them out? What consideration has been given to doing something to help those widows who get no pension whatever although their husbands had very long service in the Forces?

If I may, I will certainly write to my hon. Friend on the first point. On the second point, I must point out that in 1953 there was the first measure of improvement made for 100 years; and it was made by the present Government.

Owing to us.

In addition, there has been wide improvement made since 1958; and to say that our record is bad would be incorrect because, on the whole, our record has been remarkably good. Of course, there are anomalies and these are being considered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will state the increases in the ordinary armed forces widows' pensions, on 1st January, 1963, for the over-60 but under-70 widow of a group captain, a sergeant and an aircraftman, pensioned under the 1950 Code, where the husband gave full-time service since 31st August, 1950, bereavement occurred after 4th November, 1958, and rates drawn are maximum rates.

£42 5s., £13 Os. 10d. and £9 bs. 11d. a year respectively.

When will the Service Ministers and the Minister of Defence produce a worth-while pension scheme for the widows of other ranks, more commensurate with the present-day Tory, expensive, affluent society and give these poor widows more pennies and halfpennies before giving further large increases, as advocated by hon. Members opposite, to senior officers' widows?

I must remind the hon. and gallant Member that these are occupational and not subsistence pensions and must be paid on the basis of service and of rank. I would also remind him that the last Pensions (Increase) Measure was the most costly and generous in the history of this kind of legislation. In particular, we introduced the aged-70 supplement for the benefit of the most elderly.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will state the increases in ordinary armed forces pensions on 1st January, 1963, for an over-60 but under-70 group captain, a sergeant and an aircraftman, pensioned under the 1950 Code, where the rates drawn are maximum rates.

£126 10s., £38 18s., and £27 12s. a year respectively.

When will the Service Ministers and the Minister of Defence produce a pension increase scheme for other ranks with the same increases as for the "brass hats". observing that the aircraftman has to shop in the same markets and suffers from the same cost-of-living increases but the lowest pensions get the lowest increases, in pennies and halfpennies, as they did in the time of William IV and Queen Victoria? Is it not high time to stop this nonsense of talking about the good pension increases on a percentage basis when the average pension of an aircraftman is £1 a day and an N.C.O.'s 30s., which was what was decided upon after the First World War in April, 1919?

I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his remarks, but I must point out that before 1953 and 1958 a great many ex-Service men received no pensions at all.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the reliable forecasts put out by United States weather forecasts of British weather in January, he will seek guidance from United States forecasters as to the possibility of predicting any severe weather conditions next winter.

The Meteorological Office has close contact with the United States Weather Bureau.

The weather bureau considers that its 30-day predictions have shown "some modest success", but warns users that too much weight should not be given to one forecast, particularly for a specific area.

Experience over a number of years has not so far shown that these "Outlooks" for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole can be relied on as a guide to forthcoming weather in this country, which lies in an area of particularly variable weather.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the 30-day forecasts issued by the Americans for these islands for December, January and February have been remarkably accurate? As I understand that the Meteorological Office produces 30-day forecasts for its own use, would it not be a good thing for it to produce, next October or November, a similar 30-day forecast for this country to give us warning should another severe winter be threatened?

I wish I could, but one must be cautious about these things. If one takes a wider range of statistics one finds that of 108 cases of United States outlooks checked on London data, 32 proved correct. We are, therefore, at the moment at the stage of improving the system, but the present method of long-range forecasting is by no means perfect. It may have been a fluke but certainly it was extraordinarily accurate over the last cold spell.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the great service rendered by the men engaged in this work, questions of this character are to be deprecated?

Is there a British weather satellite programme in being? If not, why not and what are we waiting for?

There are better ways of spending money. I agree that there should be other satellite programmes in being, but I feel that we are still being well served by the weather ships and other methods of collecting the information.

Before we get involved in a discussion on the sort of weather we may expect next winter, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us, from his expert advice, when the present winter will come to an end?

asked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent he anticipates redundancy in the Royal Air Force following the reappraisal of air strategy contemplated in the Nassau Agreement.

I do not expect any.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman has heard of the Nassau Agreement? Surely that- means running down the Royal Air Force? Does the Secretary of State not look far enough ahead to see that there will probably be an unemployment and redundancy problem? What is he doing to safeguard his job and the jobs of those employed in the Air Force?

I look a good deal further ahead than does the hon. Gentleman. I can assure him that the strength of the Royal Air Force is continually under review from the manning point of view. The V-Bomber force will maintain the deterrent until the end of the 1960s.

asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that crews of V-bombers carrying hydrogen bombs in round-the-clock patrols at times of world tension do not release their bombs through misinterpreting signals or through other kinds of mistake;

(2) if, in order to reduce world tension, especially at times of crisis, he will reverse the decision that V-bombers should carry hydrogen bombs in round-the-clock patrols.

No decision has been taken that V-bombers should carry hydrogen bombs in round-the-clock patrols.

The most stringent precautions are taken to exclude the possibility of a hydrogen bomb being released from a V-bomber either through misunderstanding or accident.

Is the Secretary of State aware that I am very pleased to hear that, because it conflicts with the widespread Press reports to the contrary? Does he not think that such flights being put into operation would heighten world tension at the very moment when the Government should be doing everything possible to reduce tension? Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten the instance when the radar screens somehow picked up the rising of the moon and bombers were dispatched towards the point of no return?

I am certain of one thing: measures to increase the effectiveness of the deterrent will reduce, and not increase, the possibility of tension.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that only in extreme circumstances should there be any live bomb patrols? If Fylingdales does its work properly and can give four minutes' warning—and since Bomber Command has been practising the 90-second takeoff—surely there is no reason at all why live bombs should be carried, except in extreme circumstances.

I was talking about the extreme situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied with the security situation at Gan, and that he will be able to maintain the Royal Air Force staging post there indefinitely; and if he will make a statement.

By the Agreement of 14th February, 1960, between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Maldive Islands, we enjoy until 1986 the unrestricted and exclusive use of Gan Island and the associated defence facilities elsewhere in Addu Atoll. I see no reason why these arrangements should not run their full term, or beyond should both Governments wish to extend them. I am fully satisfied with our measures for the security of our installations.

In view of this welcome assurance, will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to bring pressure to bear on his right hon. Friend to settle the political differences there are between the different factions on these atolls?

I hope that these negotiations can be successfully concluded.

asked the Secretary of State for Air how many employees have been declared redundant, and how much money has been saved as a result of the decision to put the cleaning task at the Royal Air Force Record Office, Gloucester, out to contract.

Eleven full-time and 62 part-time employees, all women, were declared redundant. Alternative employment was available for all the full-time employees who wanted it. The part-time employees were given the opportunity of applying for jobs with the cleaning contractor, and the majority took it.

As regards savings, these are likely to be about 25 per cent.

Does the Secretary of State think that the present time is the most appropriate for a Government Department deliberately to increase redundancy by its own direct action? Does he think that his reply about a saving of 25 per cent. gives any information at all? One has not the foggiest idea of what 100 per cent. is. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what the saving is in £ s. d.? The Question has been down on the Order Paper. Will he at the same time explain how it comes about that, instead of using direct labour, a private contractor is employed who has to make his own profit in addition to paying the wages of those employed and yet a saving is made, unless there was inefficiency in the Department earlier?

The hon. Member knows full well that figures of £ s. d. in contracts are not revealed, and I do not propose to reveal them. As for the remainder of the question, the principles which the hon. Member has enunciated are not accurate. We have seen again and again that it is possible to employ these people and in this type of work to reduce the expenditure, even granting that there is a profit to the company concerned. The hon. Member, as one employed in many private industrial companies, knows that this is perfectly possible.

On a point of order. I regard the Answer as wholly unsatisfactory and beg to give notice that I will seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if, in view of the change in Her Majesty's Government's nuclear policy, he will organise a series of refresher courses for officers of Bomber Command.

Training in Bomber Command is continuous.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a statement made recently by the chairman of the Conservative Party Defence Committee that the morale of Bomber Command has never been lower? How far does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that?

My hon. and gallant Friend was a distinguished member of the Royal Air Force, but on this point am in day-to-day contact with Bomber Command and I take an entirely different view.

By how much will Bomber Command be reduced when Polaris is in full action?

That remains to be seen. It will be a question obviously for after 1970. Up to 1970 Bomber Command will carry the main weight of the British deterrent. After that, we must look at the world situation and decide accordingly.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will abandon his attempts to evict the Cardiff family about whom the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, wrote to him on 2nd February, 1963; and whether he will make a statement.

The airman concerned was warned last April that his family could not remain in their present accommodation when he went to Sharjah. He was told they could move to a surplus married quarter elsewhere and this offer is still open. Formal notice to quit was served shortly after he was posted in July and as several offers of alternative accommodation were not accepted a court order for eviction was obtained this month. As there is a waiting list for married quarters at St. Athan, I would not be justified in abandoning the eviction proceedings.

Is the Minister aware that I regard the letter which he sent to me about this case as particularly callous in view of the fact that he considers that men who have served in the R.A.F. must take the risk that when their children are going to take the school certificate examination they might be shifted about overnight? As this family are paying the full economic rent of over £5 a week, and four children are involved, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is likely to put them out on the street if he goes ahead with the order? Since even bad landlords do not behave like this, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will give this young lad a chance to take his school certificate examination this year in the school which he has been attending?

I hope that I have not been unsympathetic about this case. The fact is that Service personnel have to move about the country and about the world. This is inevitable. Their families have to move when they move so that their accommodation can be occupied by other families. We have a waiting list of 250 at St. Athan, and I am afraid that I cannot give the case of an individual family priority over the rest of the Service. I am sorry about this.

If this family refuses to go to Cheshire, where there is the alternative accommodation, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to put the mother and four children out on the street? Will he answer that question?

I feel unable to abandon these proceedings.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the number of married quarters his Department has at the disposal of Royal Air Force personnel in South Wales.

Six hundred and seventy-nine, including hirings.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these are empty at present or how many have been empty for any given period?

No, Sir. We have a waiting list of 250 at the moment. We are planning to build another 143 married quarters in the area.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply given to Question No. 14, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

It is too late to give notice with respect to that Question but giving notice now does not affect it one way or the other.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the policy of his Department in regard to the release of men who become convinced conscientious objectors after having entered the Service.

An airman who has received a court-martial sentence of three or more months' detention or imprisonment for an offence against Air Force discipline committed on grounds of con- science may appear before the Appellate Tribunal of the Ministry of Labour.

Is it not unsatisfactory that boys of 16, many of whom are very immature, should be obliged to commit themselves for a 12-year period? Would it not be possible, and in the best interests of the Service as well as the boys, to enable them to be considered by a tribunal without having to go through this procedure of committing an offence, being court-martialled and discharged?

This is a very difficult point. I would put it this way to the hon. Lady. There is a danger that persons who wish to get out the Service for various other reasons may wish to say that they are conscientious objectors. This is a very serious problem in the Service.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman could take steps to ensure that it was a responsible tribunal with experience that considered this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will state the present location of his Department's headquarters, and the number of persons currently employed at those headquarters.

The Air Ministry headquarters staff totals about 7,400 Service and civilian personnel of whom 6,100 are in Central London, 400 on the outskirts of London, 660 at Harrogate and 240 at Worcester and Gloucester. In addition, there are about 900 staff of the Meteorological Office at their headquarters at Bracknell.

Since these figures show that by far the greater number are in Central London, may I ask whether there is any reason why they should be? Is not this a way in which the Government could help to provide employment, say, in the north of England or in Scotland? Will the Minister give some serious consideration to taking part of this work to one of the areas where unemployment is so heavy?

As the hon. Lady will know, on 25th February my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary announced that we are setting up a committee to look into the question of departments and their locations. So far as Scotland is concerned, in our out-stations we employ over 2,300 civilians.

Are all of these 7.000 people doing a grand job of work?

Grand, and I am glad to say that we have reduced the staff by some 700 over the last five years.

asked the Secretary of State for Air how many air marshals of various grades are now serving; and how this figure compares with the total last year.

There were 95 on 1st January, 1963, compared with 99 on the same date last year.

Whilst offering congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman for the slight reduction in the number, may I ask whether the Royal Air Force really needs 95 people of that rank? Is it not top-heavy, just the same as the other two Services?

No, Sir, we need these men. Fourteen of them are serving in international and inter-Service appointments and eight of them in medical and dental branches, which are of great importance.

May we take it that the introduction of Polaris will not produce any redundancy amongst air marshals?

asked the Secretary of State for Air, if he will make a statement on the future of Greenham Common Royal Air Force station now that the United States Air Force has announced that the B47 bombers are returning to their Texas base; and if he will give a renewed assurance that, Service requirements allowing, intensive operations will be limited to certain periods of the year and Sunday flying will be avoided in the interest of the people of Newbury and neighbourhood.

B47 aircraft will continue to be based at Greenham Common which is still required by the United States Air Force. As in the past, every effort will be made to limit disturbance to local residents.

Has my right hon. Friend not read the Press statement put out by the United States Air Force saying that these aircraft are going back to Texas and will be replaced by a number of some other aircraft—I do not remember what—which sounded more noisy and more powerful than those already there now? May I take it that the statement is incorrect?

The official announcement says that the number of B47s at Greenham Common has been reduced and that only one Strategic Air Command Bomber unit was involved. The Americans still require the station, which is vitally important to them. I hope that the disturbance to people in the neighbourhood will be kept to a minimum.

May we have a clear statement from the Air Ministry on what is, in fact, happening?

I have just given a clear statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the total sum spent upon aircraft and equipment since March, 1958; and what percentage of this total has been devoted to aircraft and equipment for Bomber Command, Fighter Command and Transport Command, respectively.

The total actual and estimated expenditure on aircraft and technical equipment from April, 1958, to March, 1963, is about £1,150 million of which 35 per cent. was for Bomber Command; 25 per cent. for Fighter Command; and 10 per cent. for Transport Command.

Does not this Answer indicate the error of Government policy, in that they have got their priorities completely wrong, that they have spent only 10 per cent. of the money on aircraft for Transport Command which has a vital rôle to fulfil and 35 per cent. on Bomber Command whose future, to say the least, is very doubtful?

I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. I could not disagree more. For example, Bomber Command includes forces which are not part of the deterrent, such as the Valiants assigned to S.A.C.E.U.R. the tanker force. photographic reconnaissance squadrons and so forth, and, as he knows, we are proposing in the next few years to spend a very large sum of money on Transport Command.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if a decision has now been taken and orders placed for aircraft to fulfil O.R. 351.

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation said on 25th February.

Is it not time that a decision was made and announced to the House? Is it not time that the Secretary of State took an interest in these matters on behalf of the Royal Air Force so that this time the Royal Air Force will get an aircraft that it deems to be the best and not one that the Minister of Civil Aviation or the Minister of Defence thinks is the one to buy for quite other reasons than the requirements of the Service?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for encouraging me to be more forceful in my job, but I assure him that we are getting the aircraft we want. The actual announcement, however, will not be made until next week.

Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the announcement will be made during the course of the defence debate or early next week? Why is the announcement not being made earlier?

As I have said in the White Paper, it is coming. The decision has been taken, but the details have still got to be worked out.

Will the right lion. Gentleman "come off it"? Is it not about time that the Minister of Aviation told the House of Commons what has been told to every aircraft manufacturer in the country? Is it not time that the House was told what the Government decision is?

I have told the hon. Gentleman that the decision has been taken. The details are being worked out and there will be a statement next week, I hope, by the Minister of Aviation.

Would it not be a good thing if the Minister would say that this specification should be taken up, in part, at any rate, in Belfast in place of the Beverley? This would give a lot of employment in an area where there is very high unemployment and would produce a first-class aircraft for Transport Command.

My interest is in getting the best possible aircraft.

Is it not a fact that Whitworth-Gloster at Coventry has got the contract and the Minister of Aviation has not got the "guts" to tell the House that himself?

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will exercise his powers under Section 27 (7) of the Transport Act, 1962, to obtain from the British Railway boards the mileage of disused lines in each region at the vesting date; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. But if the hon. Member writes to the British Railways Board, it will give him such information as is available.

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman say "No" because he considers this to be a day-to-day matter with which he will not deal, or because he thinks that it is not important enough for a special request to be made?

The normal practice in the past has been not to answer a Question seeking to obtain information from a nationalised board on matters of day-to-day administration, except when it raises matters of urgent public importance. I think my hon. Friend will agree that the information for which he has asked in this Question is hardly included in the category of urgency.

Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that this is not a question of day-to-day administration? This is a question of specific information. The information ought to be given to the House and not in private correspondence.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman look at this again? Surely this is not a question of day-to-day administration. This is a question of national importance. What is required is that the nation should be informed of the extent to which these closures have taken place. They are an accomplished fact, and surely there is nothing to be gained by the Ministry hiding the facts with this secrecy. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman have another look at this point and publish the information necessary to enable us to reassess the transport situation and its development?

I will bear in mind what hon. Members have said. But I must point out that the question of how much of the railway network is not in regular use is a matter for the railway management.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Minister of Transport what was the average number of heavy vehicles at the last census travelling between London and South Wales, Birmingham and South Wales, and Birmingham and Bristol, respectively.

No recent figures of through traffic are available, but an origin and destination survey taken in 1957 showed that the number of heavy vehicles travelling between these areas each day was 373, 176 and 150 respectively. The actual numbers of heavy vehicles using these roads in August, 1961, lay between 1,300 and 2,300 per day, but, of course, this included local and short-distance traffic.

Do not these figures show that there is every bit as much need for a motorway between Birmingham and Bristol as there is for one between London and South Wales or London and Birmingham? Will my hon. Friend look at this matter again? Why is he holding up completion of the M.5? Will he, please, take a decision to bring it forward urgently?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have accepted the need to extend the M.5 southwards as soon as completion of the statutory processes, the availability of funds, and so forth, permit. A draft sdheme for this length of the M.5 which will bypass Tewkesbury and Gloucester will be published later this year.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the number of motor accidents on British roads during each of the last 10 years, indicating how many each year were due to excessive speed on ordinary roads, how many were due to excessive speeds on roads without a speed limit such as M.1 and North Anderson Drive, Aberdeen, and how many were due to repairs to or alterations in roads, respectively; and what steps he plans to take to obviate the dangers caused in these ways.

I regret that not all the information requested is available. I will, with permission, circulate those figures which are available in the OFFICIAL REPORT. They do show, for the years 1952–58, the number of personal injury road accidents, including bicycle accidents, in which excessive speed or the presence of road works were mentioned in the police report as a contributory factor; that is shown in the figures. From 1959 onwards there was a change in the accident reporting system and the only figures available are for the numbers of drivers and riders reported by the police in fatal and serious injury accidents as going too fast having regard to the conditions.

These statistics are not available for different types of road.

Speed limits are being reviewed continuously to ensure that they are realistic having regard to the nature of the road and the traffic using it. A 40 m.p.h. speed limit has been in force on North Anderson Drive, Aberdeen, since 1961. Every effort is made to minimise the dangers associated with road works.

Do not the figures which are known to the Minister of death and injury caused to countless people on the roads show that the elaborate regulations which the Department publishes are merely tinkering with a matter of life and death? Is not the proper way to deal with the problem for the Minister to issue a regulation providing that all motor cars should have a gadget fixed to them to prevent them from exceeding the speed limit?

I do not think that I can agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not for a moment underestimate the importance of excessive speed as a factor in road accidents. Neither do we view the present figures with complacency. But I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that in 1900 some 1,570 people were killed in traffic accidents by horse-drawn vehicles whose average speed, I suppose, was 8 m.p.h.

asked the Minister of Transport what, in the financial year 1961-62, was the yield of all road taxation, the total spent on construction and maintenance of roads, and the loss incurred on the railways.

In 1961–62, total expenditure, by central and local Government, on roads in Great Britain was £222·9 million. Total receipts from motor vehicle licences and motor vehicle fuel tax were £544·8 million.

The loss incurred on the railways on revenue account for the calendar year 1961 was £150·7 million. I regret that a figure for the Exchequer financial year is not available.

Do not the figures show that there is no doubt whatever that, whereas roads make a considerable profit for the Exchequer, the railways make a considerable loss, and does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that his right hon. Friend's policy in this connection in reducing the number of railways is absolutely justified?

I agree that my right hon. Friend's policy is justified, and I agree also with the proposition as my hon. Friend stated it, but I do not consider that the figures I have stated by themselves give any guidance as to the right level of expenditure on either form of transport.

Will the Minister remember that, while many places were inaccessible by road during the recent severe winter conditions, they were still accessible by railway?

Yes, we shall bear that in mind, although I am bound to add that the reverse was the case sometimes, too.

In view of the appalling damage to the roads through the bad weather, is it Government policy to step up road maintenance in the future both for this reason and in order to provide employment?

That is another question. If my hon. Friend will put it down, we will see that he has an answer.

asked the Minister of Transport how many applications he received in January to move loads exceeding 14 ft. wide or 90 ft. long; in how many cases he gave permission; and in how many cases he varied the proposed day and time of travel.

During January, my right hon. Friend received II applications for the movement of the largest category of loads, that is, those over 20 ft. wide or over 90 ft. long; 3 were approved and 7 rejected. My right hon. Friend also received 185 applications to move loads between 14 ft. and 20 ft. wide; 165 were approved and 11 rejected.

In no case did he vary the proposed day and time of travel; the power to do this is vested in the police.

In view of the traffic congestion very frequently caused by these heavy loads, will the Parliamentary Secretary do all he can to encourage the police to vary the times so that such loads may be on the roads at times when there is the minimum of other traffic?

Yes, Sir. My information is that the police endeavour to do this.

Is the Minister aware that these huge loads are preceded through every city by a posse of police? The services of the police have to be paid for by the local authority and not by the people who are carrying the commodity. Will the Minister put upon those who are carrying the commodity the responsibility for paying for the posse of police in these circumstances?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that this particular matter was referred to and discussed in the House during the last Parliament on the Report of the Estimates Committee. The feeling of the House at that time was that it was best to leave the arrangements as they are.

Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that these heavy loads and badly shaped loads are causing more and more inconvenience to other road users? Would it not be better to get many of them back on the railways, which would help the railways and cause people on the roads a good deal less inconvenience?

I entirely agree with the sentiments which my hon. Friend expresses. Normally, road movement is not approved in the following circumstances. We never approve it if the load is capable of being redesigned and broken down. We do not approve it if the journey is a long one and it is reasonable, both geographically and economically, to use rail or sea. We do not approve it if the load can safely be tilted and loaded vertically to reduce the space. However, as I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates, many of these big loads are far too big to go on the railways.

But does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that, before he authorises these out-of-gauge loads to go by road, the senders should be advised to get in touch with the railways to find out whether such loads can be taken under the special precautions laid down where movements are conducted and one can have the full width of the loading space and carry lengths greater than that mentioned in the Question, thus avoiding damage to the roads and possible danger to other road users?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that those particular points are looked into by the Department very carefully when applications come in.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the number of new appointments to boards under his control, which are full time and part time, respectively what are the qualifications of those appointed and their emoluments.

As the Answer is rather long and detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman include in the Answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT the number of people appointed either to part-time or full-time jobs who have been superannuated and retired from their previous occupations and have reached the ages of 65 and 70? Will he give at the same time the reasons for appointing these superannuated people?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there are many people who think that people who have reached these ages are still in full possession of their faculties.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that he is a Daniel come to judgment on that matter? Of course, there are superannuated people who retain their faculties, even in this assembly. What I am asking is how many people appointed to these important jobs at very high salaries have reached these ages.

I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question offhand, but if he will table a Question we will answer it.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the results of the experiments in persuading motorists to use dipped headlights in the less well-lit urban areas.

asked the Minister of Transport what action he will take in view of the success which has attended the dipped headlights experiment in Birmingham.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the success of local schemes, he will consider making the use of dipped headlights mandatory in all street-lit areas.

Dipped headlight experiments are being conducted in various parts of the country and will continue until the end of March. In Birmingham, there has been a welcome reduction in the number of road accidents this winter compared with last. It is, however, too early to say in what way and to what extent the experiment there has been a contributory factor. The results of this experiment will be fully studied by the Road Research Laboratory.

Will my hon. and gallant Friend take some early steps to see how far he can encourage the use of dipped headlights in urban districts, and will he particularly look at the British Standards specification for the optical beam and consider the use of yellow headlights as well?

We shall certainly look at both those points.

Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that this voluntary experiment in Birmingham reduced accidents by 18½ per cent. and fatalities by 56 per cent.? If he wants further evidence of the success of this campaign, is he prepared to make this practice compulsory in the City of Birmingham and, if possible, over a wider area?

I have seen statements making the claims which my hon. Friend has repeated, but the view of the Road Research Laboratory is that they are premature until a much more careful analysis has been carried out. Therefore, they may be misleading.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary try to make it known as widely as possible that this is an important experiment which can lead to useful results and may help to prevent rude remarks such as those made by drivers when they pass a car with dipped headlights in a town.

I agree.

Is not the trouble that the headlights of so many cars when dipped look as bright as when they are not dipped?

That may be so.

I think that in the United States some cars are made with lights which dip automatically on the car meeting another lamp or light. Has the Parliamentary Secretary heard of those experiments, and, if so. has he considered them?

I cannot say that I have heard of them, but I will certainly look into the matter.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that considerable unemployment is caused in Aberdeen shipyards by the fact that the largest shipyard there is limited to the building of a ship of about 500 ft. long or 18,000 tons dead weight, while tankers now required are at least 775 ft. long and 55,000 tons dead weight; and if he will take steps to subsidise the enlargement of Aberdeen shipyards to conform to modern requirements.

Any Aberdeen shipbuilder who has a scheme which is commercially sound and which would provide employment can apply to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade for assistance under the Local Employment Act. 1960. But an assessment of the commercial prospects would be bound to take into account the fact that several British yards which can already build very large ships are short of work.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that the scheme I am referring to has been dragging on for far too long and that the great natural advantages of Aberdeen could be much enhanced in the national interest, for the purpose of reducing unemployment and also for the purpose of attracting bigger and more modern ships to the Aberdeen shipyards, by the method suggested in the Question, namely, greatly improving the amenities of the harbour and the shipyards?

Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, Aberdeen has not done too badly lately with ship orders. I do not think that, at the present time, the shipbuilding industry would be helped if additional capacity were to be created with Government aid for building large ships.

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

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the announcement by the Japanese Government of the decision to build a nuclear-powered survey ship, he will reconsider his decision not to proceed with the building of a nuclear-powered merchant ship in this country.

asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the fact that Japan is now laying down a pioneer nuclear-powered surface vessel, he will make a statement on the development of such a British vessel.

I would refer the hon. Members to the Answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harrow. East (Commander Courtney) on 13th February.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what technical developments have taken place since the decision was last made not to proceed with such a ship and whether the stage has been reached when the ship can be considered so economical that the shipping and shipbuilding industries should be asked to contribute? In view of the highly experimental and even controversial nature of the project, has consideration been given to whether the Government should bear the whole cost?

We prefer first to hear what the ship owners and shipbuilders have in mind with a view to working out a suitable partnership with the Government. I think that the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question was slightly loaded, because the decision which was made was that we would wait before proceeding until we felt we had a good chance of developing an economic ship. As soon as that moment was reached—judging from some quarters, some people think it was too soon—we made the decision and announced it.

How does the hon. and gallant Gentleman reconcile his Answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) with the fact that the "Savannah" and "Lenin" have already been going for two years?

As has often been explained, it has never been suggested that the "Savannah" and the "Lenin" were either economical or could ever become economical. Where we differed from the other countries was that we decided not to go for a prestige ship but to concentrate our efforts and resources on trying to develop an economic reactor, and that we think has been achieved.

Would not my hon. and gallant Friend agree that, prestige considerations aside, the great thing from the long-term point of view is to get a suitable partnership between the Government and the building and operating industries so as to get a practical commercial ship on the sea?

That is so. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary say why this change of policy was first announced by the Prime Minister in his speech connected with the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations? Is he aware that authorities in the shipping and engineering industries feel strongly that there is a large element of political stunting behind this pronouncement and that this new declaration of policy was not justified by the known facts and was quite untimely? In view of the conflicting and strong critical views held by these authorities, will the Government consider issuing a White Paper or some other informative document stating exactly what the present position is and what the prospects are?

On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I would not accept for one minute that there was any political stunting here. The very brief reference made to the intention to go forward with the project, subject to all being well in the next six months with the final stages of the research work, was made in passing by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in a part of his speech in which he was referring to various steps which Britain must take to keep herself up to date, and it fitted in very naturally indeed.

I entirely disagree with what the right hon. Gentleman said in the second part of his supplementary question. I am quite satisfied that the moment has come when we must go forward, if possible. I understand the disappointment and even bitterness on the part of certain other interests which have been developing rival schemes which we do not consider are up to the same standard. I am not pretending for one moment that we can be certain that our present line of development will succeed and be economical. But we can be sure of one thing, and that is that if we wait until we are certain, we shall lose the race.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Atomic Energy Authority will not be ready until September even to decide which of three designs it is to judge the best? Was it not rather ridiculous and pointless—except for political purposes—for the Prime Minister to choose such a moment for an announcement that the Minister of Transport is to have discussions with the shipping industry about the building of a ship to incorporate a design which is still unknown?

The right hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The reason that it became necessary to make a public statement at about this time was that, if we are to be ready in September, we must complete the financial arrangements with the industries on the basis of which we shall go forward. From my experience—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has had similar experience—of negotiations involving two industries and the Treasury, I do not think that we have allowed ourselves too much time.

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman recollect that on 2nd March, 1957, when he took part in the debate, we on this side of the House urged the Government to build a nuclear-powered ship? Why has it taken the Government six years to consider the matter?

I recollect the point of view expressed by many people. Indeed, I held it myself at one time. I am very glad that a very distinguished body of experts, appointed to advise the Government on this matter, warned them against taking that action, however, because had the Government taken it we should have diverted rare scientific talents to doing something which really would have been only a prestige stunt, like the "Savannah", and we should not have achieved our lead in the production of a really economic system.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the irrelevant nature of the reply, I shall seek to raise this on the Adjournment at the first possible opportunity.

I should remind the House again that the formula of giving notice to raise a matter on the Adjournment includes the words, "in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply". Any different form of words is liable to convert the notice into a speech.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will arrange for the construction of a subway on the A.46 Leicester to Coventry road at Narborough, in place of the existing zebra crossing.

The use of the present crossing is small and expenditure on the provision of a subway would not be justified. We will consider the possibility of making this a panda crossing when the effectiveness of this type of crossing has been assessed in the light of the present experiments with it.

Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the views he expresses are entirely contrary to those expressed by the Leicestershire County Council, the chief constable of Leicester and Rutland, the Narborough Parish Council and the chairman of the Narborough school board of governors? In view of that united expression of opinion on the need to put a subway or a bridge at this very dangerous spot, will my hon. and gallant Friend consider the matter again?

The fact remains that the average number of pedestrians using the crossing—which was watched the other day—is only 27 per hour, less than one person every two minutes. Furthermore, out of, I think, 29 accidents in this area since the beginning of 1959, only three are known to have had any direct relation with the crossing at all. We realise that the crossing is used largely by schoolchildren, and for this reason we have suggested to the parish council that it might introduce a school-crossing patrol.

asked the Minister of Transport if he has given consideration to permitting parking meter users in London the right to utilise residual time.

The parking meters in use in London are of a cumulative type, up to a maximum period, which is usually two hours. Users who buy less than the maximum get the benefit of any residual time. My right hon. Friend is considering whether motorists should be allowed to use residual time without payment.

Is it not clear that it is economical to allow the residual time to be used by another motorist? Why should the time be paid for twice? Is it not a fact that those who use residual time would on many other occasions give residual time?