asked the Secretary of State for Air how many officers are at present serving in the Education Branch of the Royal Air Force; and how many of them are of air rank.

Seven hundred and twenty-five, of whom three hold air rank.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that an advertisement appeared earlier this year in the Daily Telegraph inviting qualified teachers to join the Education Branch of the Royal Air Force, holding out as an inducement the prospect of advancement to air rank? Does he not feel, in view of the figures he has just given me, that there is some risk of their having been misled, in the same way that officers were misled when they were told that their prospects of promotion from squadron leader to wing commander were at least 50–50?

I will certainly look at this point. On the whole, I think that there are pretty good promotion prospects in this branch. In fact, it is rather well off in officers of air rank, group captains and wing commanders. There is always the possibility of transferring at the age of 38 back to the civil education service and enjoying a pension from the Air Force of something over £400 a year.

asked the Secretary of State for Air how many radiation detection posts have been built to date; and when he expects completion of the whole network.

One thousand, three hundred and nineteen. About 98 per cent. of the total programme should be completed by the end of this year. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works expects the remainder to be completed early next year.

What is now the estimated total cost of building these radiation detection posts? What estimate has the right hon. Gentleman in mind for their maintenance? What success is he having in recruiting Royal Observer Corps personnel to man them?

The total cost is about £2¼ million. I cannot without notice tell the hon. Gentleman the maintenance cost. I will write to him about that. As to manning, we obviously need more men. We are not fully up to strength. However, in an emergency we should be able to man these posts fully.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what progress is being made in the dismantling of the Thor missile sites; and on what date he expects the operation will be completed.

The work is proceeding as planned, and should be completed by the end of the year.

What plans has the right hon. Gentleman in mind for these sites when they ate cleared? What future is planned for the trained Royal Air Force Thor Squadron?

The sites vary. There are a number of them. There are a number of other Questions on the Order Paper on this very point. We shall retain some sites. We shall dispose of others. We have provision for absorbing the trained personnel into the rest of the Air Force. There is no real problem here. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have reduced recruiting thin year to a very low level, so there is no problem of redundancy.

Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the desire of some hon. Gentlemen that some of these sites which may be near to built-up areas where unemployment still persists should be passed over to the Board of Trade for use as industrial sites?

That is a matter for the Board of Trade. Other Government Departments will have first claim on such sites.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what consultations he has had recently with the Government of the United States of America regarding United States Air Force bases in Great Britain, with particular regard to the recent United States Air Force statement that their rundown is to be reversed.

No such statement has been made. I was, however, consulted about the announcement which the United States authorities made last month that Air Force units in England were to be transferred from the command of the 17th Air Force in Germany to that of the 3rd Air Force in this country. No move of operational units is involved and the effect on United States Air Force manpower in this country is negligible.

I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does it not involve, first, technical nonsense, and, secondly, the increased risk that our country will become very vulnerable and number one priority target in the event of a world war starting?

No, I do not think either of those statements is true. It is merely a matter of command structure. No units have been moved to this country. It is merely the transferance of control from one American headquarters to another.

Does that mean that the air support of the N.A.T.O. Forces in Germany is now being based on Britain rather than on France?

It was never based on France. It was based on Germany. It is a transfer of control from Germany to this country.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the presence of the United States Air Force in this country not only strengthens our own defences but also does a certain amount to provide civilian employment?

I quite agree.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what plans he has for rehousing the headquarters of the 1903 (Penge) Squadron of the Air Training Corps.

Alternative plans for rehousing this squadron are still being considered, but I hope to reach a decision shortly.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this is a very go-ahead squadron with a very good record and that there is strong local feeling that it should be rehoused in the Territorial Army headquarters in Parish Lane?

Yes. I will certainly bear that consideration in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Air why he has decided to close Royal Air Force, Tangmere, as an operational station; what expenditure has been incurred in building works for the station, the Joint Services Language School, and married quarters in the last three years; how many civil servants and employees of civilian contractors are now employed at the station; and how many will be required in its new rôle.

The decision was taken on grounds of economy. Over the last three years capital works expenditure has amounted to £125,000 for the station, £585 for the Joint Services Language School and £3,000 for the married quarters. At present there are 218 civil servants at Tangmere and I understand that the contractor has about 190 employees. A few civilians will probably still be required when the station assumes its new rôle, but the precise details have yet to be worked out.

Was not this station designed to be a permanent station? At any rate, the employees there were so told. Is not the Minister a little concerned at the fact that over the last three years a considerable capital development for a small station of this sort has been carried out, but now on the grounds of economy it is decided to close it? Does not the Minister pay some regard to the expenditure of capital and the loss this decision will obviously entail?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been the rundown of the Thor squadrons, and other movements inside the Air Force at other places have come up. If we had kept Tangmere, it would have entailed a capital expenditure of nearly £600,000.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what reorganisation of personnel and stations is to be made consequential to the decisions not to acquire the Skybolt missile for the Royal Air Force and to take the Thor missile out of service; and if he will make a statement.

The cancellation of Skybolt does not of itself call for any changes in our present organisation: Bomber Command will continue to provide the strategic deterrent until about 1970. The rundown of the Thor system will enable us to close a number of stations and will yield manpower savings of between 3,000 and 4,000 men.

Recruitment has been restricted where necessary to take account of this. The men released by the Thor rundown will be given suitable employment elsewhere in the Service.

I thank the Secretary of State for that Answer. Can he not give us a little indication of his thoughts on the development of the Royal Air Force? Surely he is not now planning on exactly the same lines as when it was proposed that we should acquire Skybolt and when we had the Thor missile in use? Surely some recasting of the Air Force's personnel requirements is bound to flow from this situation, and possibly some new requirements in terms of equipment? Can he not give us some idea of the lines along which he is working?

The hon. Gentleman has invited me to make a very long speech. I could speak for about half an hour on many of these points. The development of an armed Service, which is as flexible as the Air Force must be, is a continuous process.

Does not the Minister realise that the Prime Minister gave us to understand that when we spent large sums on providing Polaris for the Navy we would be compensated by a reduction in the Air Force? Does the Minister mean that we shall continue to spend large sums on the Air Force and large sums on the Navy at the same time?

We propose to continue to maintain an independent deterrent here, and that is going to cost a great deal of money.

asked the Secretary of State for Air when he expects to formulate a requirement for a new maritime reconnaissance aircraft for Coastal Command to replace the Shackleton, as announced in this year's Defence White Paper.

My Department is actively engaged on the formulation of this requirement, in close consultation with the Ministry of Aviation.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Can he bring these decisions forward, in view of the anxiety in the aircraft industry about unemployment and the importance to such firms a; Short Brothers and Harland of keeping design teams together in the national interest?

I am aware of this problem, but I am glad to say that this year we have confirmed three major requirements for the Royal Air Force—the TSR2, the OR351 and the P1154.

How long does the Secretary of State expect the Shackleton to remain in useful operational service? Will he take steps to speed up the decisions as to operational requirements for new aircraft, because one's recollection is that there has been an enormous gap from the time a project is started until an order is placed and then a period of about five years before the Royal Air Force gets the planes in actual squadron service? Is the Secretary of State doing something to shorten these very long periods?

I am doing everything I can.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what progress has been made in aircrew recruiting this year.

Aircrew recruiting is going well. Applications for cadetships at Cranwell for the coming September entry have been some 17 per cent. higher than the comparable figure for 1962 and over 80 per cent. higher than that for 1961. Applications received during the first four months of the year for direct entry commissions are also above the comparable figures for either of the last two years. Quality is holding up well.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Cmnd. 1936 said that recruiting of pilots was below the desired rates. It also said that there were deficiencies in other trades—in professionally qualified engineers, in scientists, and in technologists. What is he doing to get the necessary recruits for these grades?

There again, we are not doing too badly. The Question is about aircrew. The Air Force is doing very well in its recruitment of aircrew at the moment.

Is there any substantial element of wastage immediately after training has taken place when men, having been trained, leave the R.A.F.?

I should like notice of that Question, but I should have thought that it was very small.

asked the Minister of Transport how the additional road expenditure which will be necessitated by rail closures in country areas, is to be financed, in view of the fact that the rate burden in these areas is already heavy.

Any highway improvements that may prove to be necessary will be financed in the usual way, according to the category of road. This means that the greater part of the cost would fall on the Exchequer.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a great deal of the cost will fall on the local authority? In counties like Dorset the rates are simply not in a position to bear this. This affects very much the attitude of many parts of England towards the whole of the Beeching Plan. Will he consult his right hon. Friend with a view to getting a new Government statement on this very fundamental question?

We are at the moment engaged on the preliminary stages of discussions with highway authorities about classifications and the percentage grants. We ought to continue with these before my right hon. Friend is asked to make any further statement.

Would he consider saving the money by allowing rail buses to run on existing permanent ways, thus obviating the need for extending roads in country areas?

I hardly think that arises on this Question.

Is not this an example of losses on the railways being passed over for local authorities to bear? Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that is right in principle?

I think there is a fallacy here. The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members perhaps have forgotten that the local authority's own share of highway improvement costs receives support through the general grant and, in the great majority of cases, through the rate deficiency grant as well. All these things have to be taken into consideration, which we are doing in our consultations with the local authority associations.

asked the Minister of Transport when he intends to publish a road plan to show the new roads and road improvements which will be necessitated by the proposed railway closures in rural areas.

We do not think it will be necessary or practicable to publish such a plan, but each proposal will be carefully examined from this particular point of view.

When can we have some evidence that something is being done and that this problem is being thought about? This again is a very vital question to all areas like my own. We are losing eleven out of thirteen stations. Will my hon. Friend give serious thought to producing something to allay public apprehension?

My hon. Friend has accepted that the proposals which are contained in one of the appendices to the Beeching Plan will automatically become operative. As my right hon. Friend made clear in last week's debate, the intention is that these proposals as they are brought forward over a period of time by the Railways Board will be comprehensively examined, not only by the Government, but also by the transport users consultative committees. It is only when my right hon. Friend finally has to decide on each individual proposal that the question whether the road programme in that locality should be expedited or altered in some respects comes to the surface.

If, in fact, rail closures are to take place, for whatever reason the Government may have, ought there not to be a road plan to show that the roads will be adequate to cope? Surely, it is very reasonable to say that supplementing the one plan there should be another showing the alternative?

As I said in my original Answer, we do not think that it is necessary, or that it would be practicable, to publish a plan of that kind. We have to judge each case on its merits at the time.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that a very considerable sum of money must be spent on improving the roads that lead to areas that have just been made development districts, from which the railway is now to be taken away?

That is a very much wider question than the one on the Order Paper, and I should prefer to see it put down before replying to it.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the traffic congestion in Lower Thames Street, Monument Street, Fish Street Hill, and adjacent streets in London while vessels are, discharging and loading cargoes at New Fresh Wharf, and of the use of these streets for parking purposes; and what action he proposes to take to remedy the situation.

We believe that a comprehensive control of street parking would be the best solution to the special problems created here by the market and the docks. I understand that the Common Council is of the same view, and intends very shortly to apply for a parking meter Order for the area.

Why are ships of 10,000 tons allowed to discharge their cargoes on to old, narrow City streets at London Bridge, which must cause traffic chaos? And why is the City Corporation's car park which adjoins the New Fresh Wharf allowed to remain empty and unused each day from 11 a.m. onwards?

With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, we have not yet seen the Common Council's proposals but when we do, we will consider all their aspects, and the objections. We still think that a parking meter scheme is the best solution. As to the first part of the supplementary question, neither my right hon. Friend nor, I understand, the Port of London Authority, has any power to regulate the size of vessels using the Upper Pool.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that many thousands of men get their livelihood on the River Thames? With great respect to motorists who use that part of the City, certain priorities should be given to those who live and earn their living on the waterfront.

This goes beyond the question of the ordinary motorists. At present, important commercial traffic going to the docks is being held up.

asked the Minister of Transport when he gave his sanction to the installation of parking meters in the Fleet Street area.

My right hon. Friend approved the application of the Common Council of the City of London on 24th August, 1962. The parking places Order was made on 28th August. The controlled parking scheme came into operation on 26th November.

Is it not rather curious that the Minister of Transport should agree to an application such as this, which makes parking in the Fleet Street area more difficult when, at the same time, many of my constituents who are journalists are being encouraged to bring their cars to the centre of London, making the congestion more difficult, by the withdrawal of the late-night trains they have used?

One cannot really compare the two things, but the whole scheme appears to be working very well. Traffic is moving much more freely, and access for loading, and so on, has improved, but, as in most parts of London, the amount of utilisation of the meters is very high.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in connection with the inquiry to be made into the causes of fatal and other road accidents during the Easter holiday period, he will give directions that special attention should be given to the extent to which each accident was caused by the lack of adequate and modern roads.

The analysis of accidents over the Easter holiday will be based on the police reports on each fatal and serious accident. These reports give a great deal of useful information, including, where appropriate, information about abnormal road conditions at the site of the accident, but they could not identify every case in which the state of the road contributed to the accident.

Apart from anything else, is not the Minister aware that there is considerable anxiety that there are not sufficient roads—that sufficient has not been planned for our roads—to enable traffic to be carried in such a way that these accidents will not occur? Is not his Government carrying out a cheeseparing road policy, and is not our road system far behind that in other countries in Europe and elsewhere?

When I saw the Question on the Order Paper, I rather suspected that the hon. Member would be on that line rather than on the line of the Question itself. The truth is that we have been, and are, spending far more on roads than was spent in the years immediately after the war. If, in fact, the party opposite had given priority, as it should have done, to the improvement of our road system, many of our present difficulties would not have arisen. Nevertheless, we are getting on very fast indeed with an expanded road programme.

But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that fatal and other accidents have been due to a very considerable extent to the fact that the Government's road policy is bad and insufficient? What does he intend to do about it?

I do not accept that at all. I do not accept it in the slightest degree. The truth is that our road system is being improved fast. The road casualty figures last year were down on those of the year before—and, indeed, on those for the year before that. We take no particular credit for that, but we are very glad of it. But it is a falsification to pretend that the high accident rate in this country is due to bad roads. It is due to a lot of other things as well.

Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who occasionally ride round the country as well as just using our railway warrants to go home at weekends, notice an improvement in the roads? If I may make a comment from the North-East, we are thoroughly grateful for the improvements to the A.1, and hope that they will still go on.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now state the date by which there will be a dual carriageway on A.12 between Ipswich and Blythburgh.

We hope to include a scheme for dual carriageways between Ipswich and the southern end of the Woodbridge by-pass in the next phase of our trunk road programme. North of this towards Blythburgh dual carriageways are not justified.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his impending promotion. May I conclude from his reply that he will recommend to his right hon. Friend that there shall be no closure of the East Suffolk railway line until this dual carriageway is built?

While I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his kind personal reference to me, I am sorry that I cannot give him the assurance for which he asks.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he has taken, in conjunction with local authorities, to prevent the parking of cars adjacent to school entrances; and what further action he will take.

In the Highway Code drivers are advised not to park at school entrances. If at any school this advice is not heeded, the local authority may impose a specific prohibition of waiting, indicated by a standard traffic sign. In the London Traffic Area, where my right hon. Friend is the traffic authority, a carriageway marking with the words "school entrance" has been used with some success. We are now prepared to consider proposals for the use of this marking outside London.

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for that reply, but is he aware that, for example, in the City of Westminster most of the school entrances are completely obscured by parked cars? Will he look into the matter again and make serious representations to the local authorities to the effect that the entrances should be adequately marked and cars kept away?

We were aware of that. This is really the reason why we have carried out the experiment in the London Traffic Area with a carriageway marking rather on the lines of a bus stop box. We hope that it will prove successful.

Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that he has a committee on road signs now sitting and that he should, before he introduces any new road sign, at least consult that committee or see what report it makes on the subject?

We shall certainly look into that. We felt that, meanwhile, the need for some action was urgent.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps will be taken, in cases where, under the Beeching proposals, railway passengers will transfer to bus services, to see that for this transfer bus termini are sited near to railway termini.

We would expect the transport users consultative committee to take account of the location of bus stopping places when considering alternative bus services. Before deciding on the terms of our consent to a passenger closure proposal, we shall have regard to any views it may express on the point, and we will see that these are brought to the attention of the Traffic Commissioners, who are responsible for licensing bus services, in appropriate cases.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that if, quite logically, he is trying to make the bus services an extension of the railway services, this purpose will not be served if, as in my constituency, the distance between railway terminus and bus terminus is anything up to one mile?

I tried to make clear in my Answer that the whale matter is for my right hon. Friend to consider in the light of advice which the transport users consultative committee will give. Obviously, one of the factors which the committee will have in mind in a case like this is the existence of a stopping place reasonably convenient and adjacent to the railway station.

Should not the Ministry have already started negotiations or discussions with the motor vehicle industry in order to secure designs which will permit the carriage of passengers' luggage which can be put out fairly conveniently at stations?

That is a bit wide of a question about bus stopping places.

Will my hon. Friend address his mind, not necessarily now but as soon as he can, to the actual words of the Question which deal with termini rather than stopping places? His answer implied that he was thinking about intermediate stopping places, but many hon. Members are most concerned about bus termini being remote from railway termini.

I looked at the wording of the Question, but I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) was concerned about places where people could get on or off a bus near a station, whether they be termini or just stopping places.

With their luggage.

Will my hon. Friend accept that "reasonably adjacent"—I think that those were his words—is not good enough? If people are to get off a railway train and then use buses as an extension of the railway, the bus terminus must be immediately adjacent, not reasonably adjacent.

All these are, obviously, matters for the transport users consultative committees to consider in relation to the particular proposals before them and on which they will give advice to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for planting trees and shrubs along motorways and new trunk roads to help them to harmonise with the surrounding country, to act as windbreaks, and to make a contribution to reafforestation.

Planting of trees and shrubs to integrate the new motorways and trunk roads with the surrounding countryside is undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of my right hon. Friend's Advisory Committee on the Landscape Treatment of Trunk Roads. Planting is selective and is not intended to make a major contribution to reafforestation. We do not propose to plant trees as windbreaks.

Why is my hon. and gallant Friend so averse to these windbreaks? Anybody who uses the motorways knows that conditions can be extremely dangerous when there is a high wind. I have been trying to persuade him to agree to ordinary windbreaks, and I now put the suggestion of these screens. Will he reconsider the matter and accept that the three benefits mentioned in my Question could be quite substantial?

Our advice is that the use of trees as windbreaks is not really practicable for both engineering and amenity reasons. To be effective, the trees would need to be planted two or three deep throughout the exposed length. The maintenance of the trees would be costly and gaps would cause dangerous local air currents. I agree with my hon. Friend that cross winds can be dangerous on these roads, but we think that the proper remedy is for drivers to adjust their driving to allow for this.

Does my hon. and gallant Friend accept that experience on the German autobahnen is that, if one plants too many trees alongside the road, there are dangerous soporific effects on drivers travelling long distances at night?

I have heard of this but I have had no personal experience of it.

How does the hon. and gallant Gentleman reconcile his Answer with the reply which I have had from his office that trees will be planted along the M.4 in the neighbourhood of Slough both for purposes of beauty and amenity and to serve as windbreaks, and that there will be discussions with the parks superintendent of Slough?

So far as they may serve as windbreaks, that is incidental. The policy for landscape treatment is to plant indigenous trees and shrubs at selected places to help the roads to merge into the general countryside. The Committee aims also to emphasise pleasant views and screen those which are unpleasant.

asked the Minister of Transport what consideration he has given to the recommendation of the County Surveyors' Society, a copy of which has been sent to him, that the Government should plan to build, in addition to the 1,000 miles of motorway by the 1970s, a further 1,700 miles of first-class highways; and if he will make a statement.

We are awaiting the views of the County Councils' Association on the Society's report. We should then be willing to discuss it with them both in the light of our own studies of future highway needs.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the opinion of experts is that road congestion in this country costs at least £300 million a year? How does he expect the country to put into effect the Beeching proposals if the congestion we have on the roads today is allowed to continue?

The Government are spending about £200 million a year on road improvements, which, as I said earlier, contrasts with what was spent by the Labour Government. I think that we have nothing to be ashamed of in our road programmes. The County Surveyors' Society proposed in its memorandum a very substantial increase in the road programme to the extent, I understand, of about £1,000 million, but without any indication of how the money was to be found.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the sum of money recommended by the society must be found if road congestion is to be reduced? Further, is not he aware that these proposals were recommended before the Beeching proposals came out? Is not much more required now?

The Government are fully aware of those views, but we have to measure what we should like to do and what we really need to do against what we can afford to do. I believe that we are doing pretty well at the moment, although no Minister of Transport is ever satisfied with the size of the road programme.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the adoption of the Beeching proposals will mean that many C licence holders will find the railways once again reliable and will remove their C licence vehicles from the roads, thereby making less necessary a greater extension of the road system?

I think that there is something in what my hon. Friend says.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now give his decision in relation to the request from the Darfield Urban District Council for the reinstallation of a "Halt" sign at the junction of the B.6273 and A.635 roadways at Darfield.

There has been a marked reduction in the accident rate at this junction since additional carriageway markings were put down in September last year and we see no reason to alter the decision that a "Halt" sign here is not justified.

Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the accidents which occurred at this crossroads were due to strangers and not to residents in and about that village? Every person who lives in and around Darfield and who drives a car knows these crossroads and always stops at this junction. I therefore think that the Minister should reconsider his decision and replace the "Halt" sign which was there in 1958.

The fact remains that accidents have gone down considerably since additional markings were placed there. We think it most important not to debase the currency of the "Halt" sign, which is a very important sign, or, for that matter, the double white lines. That is why we would be reluctant to establish a "Halt" sign at this junction.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the possible changes in the transport system of East Anglia suggested in the Beeching Report, he will now proceed with the construction of the trunk road section of the King's Lynn by-pass.

When the effects of the particular railway proposals which are relevant have been more closely assessed, we will consider whether any change in the relative priority of this scheme is justified.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the roads and streets of King's Lynn provide the only means whereby traffic from the North and the Midlands can enter and leave East Anglia and that people who have to do business in the town get very fed up with the streets being congested for very long periods? Will he try to speed up this matter as much as he can? If he has in mind placing schemes where there is unemployment, will he remember that employment in East Anglia is no better than it ought to he and certainly justifies action on this scheme?

I note what my hon. Friend says about unemployment in East Anglia. With regard to this by-pass, when the railway proposals which are relevant are known, we can come to a more conscious decision about priorities.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the present timetable for major road reconstruction through the Borough of Leyton, particularly that affecting Gainsborough Road and the Green Man area.

Reconstruction of the junction at the Green Man, Leytonstone, is likely to begin in 1964. I cannot say when the construction of the Eastern Avenue extension between the Green Man and Ruckholt Road will begin.

Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate that congestion in this area of Leyton is becoming increasingly acute and that everything should be done to expedite the development of roads to meet this increased congestion? Has any attention been paid to the effect of this road reconstruction on the householders in the neighbourhood, and. if so, what kind of attention?

We are aware of the congestion. The necessary order fixing the line of the road has been made long in advance of construction because of the problem of rehousing the families of some 300 houses which will have to be demolished.

asked the Minister of Transport, in view of varying estimates of the increased number of motor vehicles of all types of driving licences held by 1970, what is the estimate of his Department; on what basis the estimate rests; whether, in view of a substantial revision of the previous estimated population in 1970, his long-term policy in respect of road transport is being revised; and to what extent this revision has been or is being related to road and traffic problems in the areas of the present borough of Leyton and the prospective amalgamated borough inclusive of Leyton.

I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Hall Report which gives much of the information he seeks. It has been our practice in formulating the road programme to take account of the foreseeable growth in road traffic and we will continue to do so. The position in particular areas must be considered in the light of their individual circumstances.

Has the rather impressive increased estimate of the population in future been taken into complete consideration?

Yes, Sir. The estimates for both goods and passenger transport took account of the most recent forecasts for the population, but in forecasting the number of cars the Hall Group also considered the relationship between income and car ownership and American experience on the subject. This has to be taken into account in addition to the population question.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary note that there is a genuine desire on both sides of the House to have much more detail about the Government's long-term planning? While we know population trends and something of the likely increase in the number of motor vehicles, we are not sure exactly how the money which the Government keep talking about will be spent. Is is not right that my hon. Friend should ask to be given some idea of how the Government see the position in 1970? Before I sit down, I am sure that we should all like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend on being promoted to the office of Civil Lord of the Admiralty.

I am not sure that I am entitled to reply on behalf of my hon. Friend in respect of the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

We recognise that this is a perfectly proper Question, and I have done my best to answer it. We shall take into account the various points raised in the Question.

asked the Minister of Transport what finance and credit facilities are afforded to overseas shipowners who order their ships in the United Kingdom; and if he will offer the same facilities to British owners to assist the shipbuilding industry which is now in a difficult situation.

Finance for overseas shipowners ordering new ships in this country is arranged between the buyer, the supplier and the financial institutions which provide credit. The Export Credits Guarantee Department helps as appropriate with credit insurance.

The E.C.G.D. protects suppliers from risks which do not generally apply to home orders, and I do not think that these facilities would help British owners to place orders here.

Could not our British shipowners be put on the same basis as everyone else? As 400,000 tons of shipping is now being constructed abroad for British shipowners, are those British shipowners getting a subsidy, or encouragement of any sort, from foreign firms to send their orders abroad?

I do not think that is entirely so. The number of British orders going abroad was relatively small during the past twelve months—certainly those from genuine British owners rather than owners whose ships are registered under the British flag. I do not think that one can generalise because, with home orders, so much depends on the credit-worthiness of the buyer. British owners may find that cheaper sources of finance are available. For instance, they can borrow from the bank at 1 per cent. above Bank Rate.

Will my hon. and gallant Friend agree that a positioin seems to have arisen where, through the operation of the E.C.G.D., finance is provided for foreign owners at a preferential and advantageous rate over that provided for lime owners? This is really a strange and difficult situation to explain to shipowners and shipyard workers, who find it difficult to understand the reasons for providing finance for foreign owners but not for home owners?

I am aware of that point, but the purpose of the City scheme and the insurance facilities available is to enable British shipbuilders to capture their share of foreign orders. We are not seeking to lead a credit race—we cannot afford that—but, the foreign ships will be built in any case, and we are helping our own shipyards to secure the orders.

asked the Minister of Transport why he will not adopt a scrap-and-build scheme.

We have not firmly ruled out this possibility, but the arguments against such a scheme are stronger than is generally realised. The position is very different from that which prevailed between the wars.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary recognise that, whilst I am not particularly an advocate of this proposition, the important thing now is that the Government should come to a conclusion and express their view publicly? I believe that at the moment orders are being held up pending a decision by the Government on whether or not to adopt this scheme. Therefore, will the Government publicly announce, in the shortest possible time, whether or not they support such a scheme as this?

We hope to publish our decision at the earliest possible moment.

Has there been any request by the shipping industry generally for the adoption of such a scheme, or is the industry very divided on the merits of the scheme?

The Shipbuilding Conference and the trade unions concerned in the industry have both asked for a scrap-and-build scheme on more than one occasion.

When considering this scheme, will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind the social consequences of heavy unemployment in the shipbuilding areas, particularly in Northern Ireland?

Yes, Sir. We are deeply aware of that.

Is not my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the shipping industry has on more than one occasion expressed a complete disapproval of the introduction of a scrap-and-build scheme? Could he not, therefore, announce that this scheme will not be brought into effect?

I am not in a position to make an announcement today, but I am aware of the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend. That, indeed, was one of the things I had in mind when I said in my original Answer that the arguments against such a scheme are stronger than are generally realised.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to promote the expansion of demand for shipping, in view of the number of empty shipbuilding berths on the Clyde.

Expansion of shipping depends more than anything else on expansion of world trade, and the Government are constantly trying to promote this.

Having regard to the recent fiscal inducements given to the development districts to encourage industry to expand there, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider giving an inducement to the British Mercantile Marine to enable it to take advantage of the present shortage of work in the shipyards and to encourage the placing of orders with British shipbuilders?

That is one of the things which we are considering, but I must repeat that the only long-term remedy for the present state of affairs is to secure a revival in world trade and a reduction of the present surplus of ships.

Apart from the state of world trade, is not British shipping severely affected by flag discrimination? What steps are the Government taking to end this, the biggest stumbling-block facing the British shipping industry today?

This is a little wide of the original Question. I do not accept that it is the biggest stumbling-block, although it is an important stumbling-block. As regards the steps being taken, I remind the hon. Gentleman of the agreed resolution which was published after a meeting on 15th March with the nine other principal maritime Powers in Europe. We have great hopes of reaching international agreement.

Is the Minister of Transport considering any means by which British shipping could be put on a level of parity with the fleets of other nations, nearly all of which receive a subsidy, either direct or indirect, or are subject to flag discrimination, trade reservation, and so on?

As regards flag discrimination and similar restrictions imposed by other Governments, we do our best both by diplomatic representation and, more recently, as I have said, by efforts to reach international agreement to control them. I can only say that we should be very reluctant to embark upon a shipping subsidy.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that minibuses and omnicoaches which convey twelve passengers, because of their structure, do not come within the public service vehicle category and therefore do not need a licence as do other passenger carrying vehicles; and what steps are being taken to bring about uniformity.

Under the Road Traffic Act, 1960, any vehicle adapted to carry twelve passengers must have a public service vehicle licence if it is carrying them for hire or reward. Structure does not affect the matter.

Does it not appear that there is a difference between the taxi licence and the public vehicle licence, and that these minibuses come between the two? They do the work of the public service vehicle and the work of the taxi, and there is nothing to prevent them doing so because there is no special licence for them. Will the hon. Gentleman look into the matter?

With respect, I do not think that it needs to be looked into. There is a clear distinction between the hackney carriage licence—the taxi licence—and the public service vehicle licence. The rules for the latter are contained in the Road Traffic Act. If the hon. Gentleman would find it helpful, I will get my Department to write to him fully, explaining what the differences are.

What about the licence for the vehicle carrying ten passengers?

It depends on whether the passengers are carried for hire and reward and, further, whether they are carried on separate fares. As it is a somewhat complicated matter, perhaps I had better write to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will give separate figures of road traffic deaths and injuries for each year since 1955 in the United Kingdom; and, in view of those deaths and injuries, what qualifications he will lay down in his regulations made under Section 23 of the Road Traffic Act 1962 for professional driving instructors.

With permission I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

We are considering what qualifications a driving instructor should have to obtain registration under Section 23 of the 1962 Act, and my right hon. Friend will announce them as soon as possible. While we believe that better tuition will help to raise driving standards generally, I would remind the hon. Member that many accidents result from drivers ignoring safe principles even after they have been properly taught.

When the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend consider what is to be done, will they take into consideration the 21,515 people seriously injured in the last three months of 1962, and the 1,949 people who were killed in road traffic accidents in the same months?

Yes, Sir. I can assure the hon. Member and the House that these and similar figures are always in the mind of my right hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Transport how many boroughs run road safety training and instructional courses.

Three hundred and two boroughs have allocated funds for road safety training in the current financial year, but I have no information about the extent to which other boroughs may be sponsoring training schemes.

Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the training courses given to all road users by the Accident Prevention Committee in the Borough of Poole have resulted in the lowest number of fatal casualties for sixteen years? Is not this a very great achievement, and will my hon. and gallant Friend induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give further money to provide for an extension of these schemes?

We are, indeed, glad to hear from my hon. Friend that the accident rate at Poole has been so much reduced, and I am sure that the many road safety training schemes carried out in the borough have contributed to that reduction. As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the Exchequer contribution towards the cost of training schemes run by local authorities is made by way of general grant.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education to see whether these boroughs are getting the fullest possible co-operation from the schools in this campaign? I do no wish to be contentious, but in view of the anticipated increase in road casualties if the Beeching Plan is implemented, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman draw to the attention of his colleagues the importance of the fullest financial support to increase consideration of this problem?

I do not accept that implementation of the Beeching Plan will result in any increase at all in road casualties. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, we keep in close touch with the Ministry of Education on this subject. I quite agree with him.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to increase transport facilities for the new town of Cumbernauld.

So far as I am aware, the provision of transport facilities for Cumbernauld has in general kept pace with the demand.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that his proposition that transport facilities are keeping pace with the demand is not likely to stand for long? Will he assure us that the progress to which he refers will be continued by a refusal to accede to the proposal in the Beeching Report to close Cumbernauld station?

No, Sir. If, and when, the proposal comes forward from the Railways Board, then, as my right hon.

Friend made clear in the debate last week, there will be a very full examination of the matter by the transport users consultative committee and, subsequently, by himself. All the issues vis-ávis Cumbernauld which the hon. Gentleman has in mind will be fully in my right hon. Friend's mind.

asked the Minister of Transport what reply he has had from interested organisations regarding the proposal that lorries should be permitted greater dimensions than is the rule at present.

The proposals have been welcomed in many quarters. Some modifications have been suggested, and some organisations have expressed the view that larger vehicles may prove detrimental to road safety. We are now considering all the views expressed.

Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that there are many lorries on the roads which are already too big? Does not he agree that these large lorries cause more congestion than any other single factor and therefore cause accidents on the road? Will he think about this again? To have lorries bigger than those at present on the roads would be a very retrograde step.

I assure my hon. Friend that all the opinions and suggestions which have reached my right hon. Friend will be very carefully considered, and the whole problem will be reassessed before we reach the stage of making regulations.

Parliamentary opinion on this matter, which may be very strong indeed, has not yet expressed itself, but I am sure that very large numbers of hon. Members feel that to increase the size of these lorries would be wholly wrong and would cause a very large number of additional accidents.

We shall note what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Will my hon. and gallant Friend undertake to make a statement in this House before any decision is arrived at?

I will bear that in mind. I would rather not give an undertaking at this moment.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the damaging effect of traffic of this nature on roads which are inadequately constructed for such traffic? Is he aware of the serious financial position which this proposal will create for local authorities, particularly in Wales?

That is certainly one of the factors which have to be considered.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the extent to which motor vehicles, and public service vehicles in particular, pass traffic lights al red in the London area; and what steps are being taken to bring to an end this practice.

We are aware that drivers engage in this dangerous practice in London, as well as elsewhere. But neither we nor the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police have any evidence that the practice is increasing, or that public service vehicles offend more than other vehicles.

The measures which, as my right hon. Friend announced last week, are to be introduced on 29th May, including provision for increased fines and disqualification for disobeying traffic signals, will, I hope, have a salutary effect.

Does not my hon. Friend realise that first he will have to catch the offenders? What is being done by the police, in view of their relief from other traffic duties, to keep a more careful watch on this point? Is there the possibility of some mechanical device which will register the offence mentioned in the Question?

Catching offenders is not actually one of the duties of my right hon. Friend. He makes the regulations, but it is for the police to carry them out. I think that my hon. Friend should put that question to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Has the Parliamentary Secretary any evidence to support the suggestion in the Question that public service vehicles are greater offenders in this respect than any other form of vehicle?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not listening with his usual care to what I said in the Answer. If I may repeat it, I said that we have no evidence that public service vehicles offend more than other vehicles.

asked the Minister of Transport how many persons have so far been convicted under Section 41 of the Road Traffic Act, which makes it an offence for a person to drive a motor vehicle whilst his eysight is such that he cannot comply with the requirements prescribed under the principal Act; and whether he is satisfied that the machinery for preventing persons from driving with uncorrected defective eyesight is working satisfactorily.

I think that the hon. Member has in mind Section 42. I am informed that separate figures for convictions under this section are not available. We are satisfied that present legislation for preventing people with defective eyesight from driving and the way it operates are reasonably adequate, but my right hon. Friend reviews the position from time to time.

In view of the accidents which have occurred, will an investigation take place fairly soon, because it is extremely important that people who drive should have the right eyesight qualifications to enable them to drive in a manner which is not dangerous to the public?

I agree. It may well be that the present eyesight test should be made more stringent. We propose to consider this in the context of the general review of medical standards for drivers, but, meanwhile, police officers have the power to require an eyesight test if they are suspicious and the courts have power to send people to prison for up to three months or fine them £50 if they disregard this Section of the Act.

asked the Minister of Transport ii he will give his sanction to the application made to him for authorisation of capital expenditure on the amalgamation of the Leeds City and Central stations.

Works costing some £377,000 have already been carried out at Leeds City Station. My right hon. Friend has been asked to authorise further expenditure of £838,342 there, and of this he has approved £273,000 for urgent works. His general approval has also been sought for comprehensive rationalisation proposals for the West Riding area, which would include amalgamation of the City and Central Stations. My right hon. Friend hopes shortly to be able to reach conclusions on the rationalisation proposals, and on the capital scheme before him.

Will the hon. Gentleman expedite this work as much as possible? Is he aware that the Central Station is rather antiquated and that the toilet facilities—this is no reflection on the staff—are disgusting? Will he carry on with the work as quickly as possible?

We have been looking very carefully at this proposal of the British Railways Board and the North-Eastern Region. We have just received additional information for which we have been waiting, and I hope that it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to announce a decision fairly soon.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give a general direction in the national interest to the Railways Board that no further removal of rail tracks, resulting from closure of branch lines, shall take place before the next General Election.

No, Sir. But if, after the necessary consultations, my right hon. Friend concludes that the retention of the track is desirable in the public interest, he can make this a condition of his agreement to a particular passenger closure proposal.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a conference in Cornwall recently decided to put forward this proposition in respect of Cornish branch lines?

Yes, Sir. Every case must be looked at on its individual merits. Obviously the Railways Board will not propose to recover the track, pull it up, and dispose of the land if it sees that there is a continued need for freight services along it or that some future development may involve continuation of the railway services generally.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is not very long between now and the General Election and that it would be bad to take an irreversible step in the interval?

I should have hoped that there was no great significance in the date of the General Election in the context of this Question.