asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make it an offence to leave a vehicle in a place on the highway where it obstructs access to and egress from a public or private garage, car park, or parking bay.

I hope shortly to introduce regulations making this a specific offence in the London Traffic Area. I am first consulting the local authorities and other bodies concerned about the draft regulations. Outside London, this is a matter for local authorities.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that very satisfactory reply, which will be welcomed by all garage and parking bay users and the police. Will it not also encourage people to use off-street car-parking facilities to a greater extent?

I agree. If a person wants to park a car for long periods he must go off the street. If a person pays for a garage for his own use he should not be frustrated by other people parking free in front of it and preventing him from using it.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to make an order bringing into operation Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act, 1962, dealing with the regulation of motoring events on public highways; and what is the reason for the delay.

As I said in reply to a Question on 24th July by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), I have appointed a committee to advise me on the regulation of motoring events on public highways. I hope with its assistance to be able to bring regulations into effect in the spring of next year.

I have seen that reply and the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the appointment of the Com- mittee was made subsequent to the tabling of this Question. Will he give an assurance that he will expedite the work of the Committee so that its advice will be available in time for him to make recommendations by spring next year?

Certainly. The Motor Rallies Advisory Committee held its first meeting on 17th July, its second meeting on 24th July, and a working party met on 30th July. The object is not to control rallies out of existence but to produce a sensible and acceptable system of control which will enable them to continue without unreasonable nuisance. I will do my best to see that this is brought in by the spring of next year.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he intends to establish a service centre between Scotch Corner and the northern end of Durham motorway on either the motorway or the Darlington by-pass.

Yes, Sir, on the Durham motorway. It is essential to provide service areas on all major lengths of motorways.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the Service Centre at Scotch Corner is very good and that if it is to be bypassed and new centres allowed some form of compensation should be considered?

I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. On a length of motorway, which in this case is 32 miles, it is essential to have some sort of service area.

asked the Minister of Transport why the mileages open to traffic, under construction, for which tenders have been invited, and for which no line has been proposed, for the London-Yorkshire motorway and the M.1 from London to Carlisle, respectively, are greater than the comparative figures for the Lancashire-Yorkshire and Manchester to Preston motorways and the proposed new roads linking Staffordshire and the city of Stoke-on-Trent with these motorways and other principal routes; and what action he proposes to take to speed up the construction of these motorways and roads.

The motorway programme gives first priority to industrial north-south routes. Both the London-Yorkshire motorway and the M.6 motorway between M.1 and the North West fall into this category. The Hanford link to M.6 south of Stoke-on-Trent is open; the Talke link north of the city will be open next spring. We are pressing ahead with the preliminary statutory work for the Preston-Manchester and Lancashire-Yorkshire motorways. We hope to publish a draft Special Road Scheme for the very difficult Lancashire and Pennines section of the latter before the end of the year.

asked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to authorise to improve the traffic flow at Clifton's Roundabout at the intersection of the South Circular Road, Westhorne Avenue, A.305, and the Sidcup Road, A.20.

We are considering the provision of experimental "Give Way" signs to improve the flow of traffic at this roundabout.

Will my hon. Friend take advice from the Metropolitan Police about the traffic at this junction, particularly at this time of year when jams in all directions extend for as much as a quarter of a mile back up these important trunk roads?

I will certainly consult the police, but my information so far is that we have not had any specific complaints.

asked the Minister of Transport when work on duplicating the tunnel under the railway on the A.20 near the Dutch House, London, S.E.9, will commence.

I understand that the London County Council, which is the improvement authority, will shortly invite tenders for the bridge works and that the work is expected to start this year.

In view of the time that has elapsed since my right hon. Friend authorised this improvement on this important trunk road, and the fact that within the last 14 days there has been another fatal accident there due to this not being a dual carriageway, I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would do everything possible to expedite this improvement.

In fact there were some delays to do with the transfer of land—my hon. Friend probably knows about them—but I understand that tender documents are shortly to go out.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to define more clearly the offence of racing on the highway, which, if proved, causes automatic disqualification for at least one year.

This offence, with the penalty of obligatory disqualification, has been on the Statute Book since 1930 and I am not aware that any practical difficulty arises over its definition.

My right hon. Friend will agree, will he not, that when the motorist is faced with such a maze of rules and regulations it is necessary that they should be crystal clear? I do not know what racing on the highway means. Does it mean racing against some other vehicle?

My hon. Friend is very well versed in legal matters. The offence as described in the Act is to promote or take part

"in a race or trial of speed between motor vehicles on a public highway"

asked the Minister of Transport what has been the effect on the accident rate of the imposition of speed limits of 40 and 50 miles per hour in built-up areas; and whether he will now make it compulsory for motorists in such areas to dip their headlights rather than rely only upon their side-lights.

From a sample survey in the London Traffic Area the Road Research Laboratory concluded that the imposition of a 40 m.p.h. speed limit on unrestricted roads reduced the number of personal injury accidents by 19 per cent. On roads previously subject to a 30 m.p.h. limit there was no significant change in the accident rate. No 50 m.p.h. speed limit has been imposed in built-up areas.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a report setting out his proposals over the next five years for improving road communications between the East Coast ports and London and the Midlands.

The information asked for has already been given in the five years' programme of trunk road major improvements for the country as a whole which I announced last year. I hope shortly to announce an extension of this programme which will include further improvement schemes between the places referred to.

In that case will my right hon. Friend consider giving this greater publicity, because if we are to have closures of railway lines in East Anglia resulting from the Beeching Report, the public ought to be able to assess the position of road communications so that they can make up their minds whether railways ought to be closed or not?

There are two distinct points here. The first is what will be the general improvement in road communications, and the second is what particular improvement will take place when a closure is proposed by the Railways Board? When a proposal comes to the Railways Board to close a line, my Divisional Road Engineer will look at alter- native road services and report. That will be separate from the general road programmes in that area.

With regard to communications between East Coast ports and the Midlands—and I would add the North—will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to the urgent necessity for a by-pass at King's Lynn?

I should like notice of that question. I am aware of the importance of King's Lynn.

asked the Minister of Transport on what date he hopes to publish the draft scheme to establish the line of the M.5 motorway southwards from Twyning.

I hope to publish a draft scheme for the length of M.5 from Twyning to Almondsbury at the end of August.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. Is he aware of the immense urgency for this motorway? Further, will he give an undertaking that he will get his office to expedite all the statutory processes for the construction of this motorway because of its extreme urgency now?

I am aware of the urgency, and within the limits laid down by Parliament I shall move as fast as I can.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce legislation during the coming Session to enable him to pay the full cost of lighting on trunk roads.

I am still considering the representations from lighting authorities that my contribution to the cost of lighting trunk roads should be increased and that I should contribute also to the cost of lighting classified roads. These claims have to be considered against other claims on the funds available for road maintenance and improvement, and I am not yet in a position to state my conclusions.

Will my right hon. Friend look very carefully into this matter? Is he aware that on trunk roads there is an extraordinary variety of lighting at present?—witness a stretch of road in my constituency, just west of Keighley. Will he ask himself whether there is any difference, in logic, between the lighting above a trunk road and the surface of the road underneath?

I am prepared to consider this, but with regard to the stretch of road to which my hon. Friend refers, he wrote on 1st March, 1962, about inadequate lighting, and in reply we said that the Ministry would consider paying 50 per cent. for the provision of such lighting if the lighting authority—the Skipton Rural District Council—put forward a proposal. We have not heard any more since then.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he should take more interest in this matter, in the sense that many of these trunk roads have no lighting? I can show him a major trunk road not far from London, where for seven miles there is no lighting, because the county councils cannot agree who should pay for it. Is it not time that the Ministry did something about it?

I am still considering representations from lighting authorities that my Department's contribution should be increased, but it is easy for lighting authorities to say, "We will do this if somebody else pays."

Will my right hon. Friend consider this question again in respect of the road that I have mentioned? Is he aware that the parish council—not a very large parish council—has to pay for lighting this stretch, and it is out of proportion to expect it to pay a large sum of money for a piece of road which is of no benefit to the occupants of the parish?

I said in my original Answer that I was considering the matter. I also said, in reply to my hon. Friend's supplementary question—and I have great sympathy with him—that if the Skipton Rural District Council puts forward a proposal we would consider it.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has finally approved plans for the Hard Ings Road bypass, Keighley; and when he expects work to start.

I have approved the plans for this scheme but land acquisition is not yet complete. I hope it will be possible to start the road works in the current financial year.

Is the Minister aware that the news that the plans are completed will be welcomed in Keighley? Will he do everything he can to hurry up this piece of land acquisition? Is he aware that this bridge was started before the war, when it was delayed, and is now urgently needed?

The plan is approved, and I shall do my best to see that it is expedited.

asked the Minister of Transport If he will state, for each motorway so far constructed, his original estimate of the cost of the land required, the actual price paid, and the total figure by which his estimates have been exceeded on account of the higher cost of land.

With permission, I will circulate a table of motorway land costs in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret that it would not be possible to calculate how much of the total increases of costs over estimates is attributable to higher land values without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour.

Is the Minister aware that he did this for me in the case of the M.6 and it worked out that an extra £500,000 had been added to the estimate on account of higher land prices? Would he and the Minister therefore investigate this matter, because there appears to be good evidence that there is profiteering at the nation's expense?

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures which are to be circulated, he will see that there is a lot more in land costs than just the price of the land. For example, there is the new basis of valuation and compulsory purchase under the 1959 Act. Sometimes additional land is required for hard shoulders, as for example on the M.1. Often there are wide and unforeseeable variations in the payments made for disturbance. All that is reflected in the land cost. But it is not necessarily the price of the land.

Is the Minister aware that my Question clearly asks what is the higher price which the Ministry has paid—which came to £500,000 in the case of the M.6—compared with what was estimated? That is the answer in which we are interested and may we have it?

If the hon. Gentleman looks at what I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I think he will find that it answers his Question.

asked the Minister of Transport why he has not approved the provision of a "Halt" sign at the junction of Wighay Road and Annesley Road, Hucknall.

"Halt" signs must be restricted to intersections where visibility is exceptionally bad. We do not consider that the visibility at this junction justifies a "Halt" sign. But safety will be increased here by the road improvements being carried out.

Is not it a fact that over a period the hon. Gentleman has had representations from people in the locality who know the danger of the area; from the highway authority; from the police and from the Nottingham City Coroner? Will he not look at this again? Will he bear in mind that the combination of a junction, a bend and the beginning of a built-up area makes it absolutely imperative that, in addition to the "Halt" sign, there be warning signs further back on the main road in order that the excessive speeds attained there may be reduced?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about warning signs being placed further back. But I think that the visibility here is not bad. It is 240 feet in the northern direction and 700 feet in the southern direction. In view of the remedial measures which have been taken, I think that we ought to leave the matter for a bit and see how we get on.

asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the increase in the number of unlicensed vehicles abandoned in the streets of North Kensington and other areas, which are causing obstruction and danger, if he will review the powers of local authorities and the Metropolitan Police to enable them to dispose of the vehicles more quickly.

The police have adequate powers to remove vehicles which are causing danger or obstruction, whether abandoned or not. They and the local authorities also have power to remove and dispose of vehicles abandoned on the roads. A vehicle may not be disposed of in less than six weeks. My information suggests that this statutory limitation is necessary because many vehicles left unlicensed are not in fact really abandoned and are reclaimed by their owners.

Is the Minister aware that his information differs from the experience of people in Kensington, where the police and the local authority agree that the powers are inadequate and that the number of abandoned cars in Kensington is so great that neither the police nor the local authority have adequate parking facilities for the period of six weeks? Should not the Minister's advisers look at this matter again, because we are not able to cope with the problem?

I understand that it is not so much the question of six weeks being too long a period but the difficulty which arises after that in disposing of vehicles. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is in consultation with the local authority on this matter.

asked the Minister of Transport if he has studied the report prepared by the chief constable of Leicester regarding methods of controlling parking, a copy of which has been sent to him by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West; and if he will make statement.

I was interested to read this report. I agree with the importance it attaches to the control of street parking in congested areas, and to the usefulness of traffic wardens and the fixed penalty system in making the control effective. Parking control without meters, as in Leicester and Blackpool, can work satisfactorily where local traffic conditions, the supply of parking space and the demand are suitable. Indeed, my recent pamphlet envisages its use in some places in the London Traffic Area. But I am satisfied that control with meters is necessary in the busiest areas of London and other large cities.

But, as the law now stands, it is impossible to have fair and effective enforcement. Is the Minister aware that in his Report for 1962 the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis stated that 70 per cent. of the meter cases called for inquiry; that 130,000 cases were investigated, and that the cost of building had to go up? Who pays for all this? Is that taken into account in respect of the meters themselves, or is this heavy administrative cost in addition to the other costs which are incurred, with the result that there is no profit at all from the meters, but a very big loss?

No, Sir. There is profit from the meters, and that profit from the meters must by law be applied by the local authority to the provision of off-street parking. The local authorities submit their accounts to me every four years, and those accounts have to be approved by me. I am quite satisfied that local authorities who have parking meters and revenue coming from them will, and must, apply that revenue to the provision of off-street parking.

asked the Minister of Transport when the Liverpool Corporation will be informed of his decision on the alterations to speed limits on roads in the city area, which were submitted to his Department 18 months ago.

Agreement to one of the proposed alterations has already been given. In the other cases our divisional road engineer suggested a number of additional changes in speed limits, with which the Corporation did not agree. He also requested certain information which was given to him only on 16th July. A decision can now soon be reached.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this approval was given only after I had put down this Question? Is it not the fact that quite a number of the suggestions made were agreed suggestions, although one or two were not? Is it not unwise to hold up agreement that can be reached between the Ministry and the local authority? Is it not better to get out of the way those things which can be agreed and then to discuss the others afterwards?

Not necessarily. When doing these things it is perhaps better to do them on a comprehensive basis.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has studied the report on Motor Vehicles in National Parks, a copy of which has been sent to him by the Ramblers' Association; and whether he will make a statement.

Most of the recommendations in the Report, which I received on the 22nd July, are a matter for the local authorities concerned, and the National Parks Commission. But I will let the Association have some comments about those which affect my responsibilities and will send the hon. Lady a copy.

As a cyclist and walker himself, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the growing invasion of the National Parks by motor cars should not be allowed to ruin the pleasure of those of us who are prepared to use our muscles? Will he therefore resist any applications for road widening and for the building of new roads in National Parks, and will he also take steps to divert commercial traffic from them?

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Lady says, because there will be a great clash of interests between the motor car and amenities. Somehow, someone has to hold a balance. Whoever it is will be wrong, and I am afraid that it will be some future Minister of Transport.

Well, do your job.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great success in Germany, for example, and will he study what has been achieved there and try to emulate it?

I have done that. I have been there myself. I have taken a car there, and I have walked a great deal in Germany as well as climbing rocks. I have done exactly the same in America, in the Rockies, where they are very fortunate in having different physical conditions—I only wish we had the same conditions.

If the Minister is so genuinely concerned about this problem, will he maintain access to the National Parks by railway trains, which do not require parking space?

There is no point in doing that if everyone goes by car.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that a motor vehicle that has been written off as a total wreck can be repaired and sold as roadworthy without its history being revealed to the purchaser; and whether he will take steps to rectify this.

If the Question refers to vehicles for which a total loss payment has been made by an insurance company, the answer to the first part is "Yes". As to the second part, we have no evidence to show that existing legal safeguards against the sale of defective vehicles are inadequate. The Department is currently engaged in correspondence on this matter with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I am grateful for the researches he has obviously done? Will he keep this up and take note of a recent case, details of which I will send him?

I shall be delighted to look into it.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in addition to the motorway, he will now establish a monorail link between London airport and the centre of London.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Clive Bossom) on 12th March this year, of which I am sending him a copy.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that it is the opinion of Mr. J. A. K. Hamilton, resident engineer of the Forth Road Bridge, that this is now a relatively easy technical problem?

I must admit that my right hon. Friend has not yet received any proposals that show great potentiality in this regard, but if the hon. Gentleman or the gentleman he mentioned would like to send him details my right hon. Friend will be delighted to study them.

asked the Minister of Transport what reply he has sent, and what action he intends to take, on the request of the 60 local authorities concerned, at a meeting held in Manchester, that the Beeching proposals be held up pending a full inquiry by him into the transport needs of the North-Western area; if he will invite all representative organisations to give evidence and make proposals; and if he will treat this inquiry as a matter of urgency.

My right hon. Friend has acknowledged and taken note of the resolution to which the hon. Member refers. We should be very ready to co-operate with local authorities in arranging a comprehensive transport survey in the Manchester conurbation and we shall be glad to send an official to consider with them how this might best be done. Any railway passenger closure proposals put forward by the British Railways Board to which objection has been lodged must, under Section 56(9) of the Transport Act, 1962, be considered, and reported on, as soon as possible, by the appropriate transport users consultative committee.

Has the Minister studied the excellent report published in the United States of America and based on the hearings of a Congress sub-committee which considered the United States problems? Does he not agree that within seven years we could be faced with a similar situation, unless an initiative similar to that in the United States is taken in this country? Will the Parliamentary Secretary undertake that his right hon. Friend will consider these points?

I can give that undertaking. I will convey the hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to announce new Government measures to assist rural transport.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a statement on the implementation of the recommendations of the Jack Committee.

I am considering the results, which I have only just received, of the special studies I have had made of rural transport.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that this prolonged period of gestation of this simple problem is getting very boring? Does he further realise that from year to year we have asked for Government action? Why is it impossible for the Government to take action on a comparatively minor problem? Are we to understand that there will be no decision until Parliament resumes in the autumn? Will my right hon. Friend write to me as soon as the Government have made up their great big mind?

I hope that a decision will be made in the autumn.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that this puts a great burden on very small independent bus companies which have been serving the countryside, and that a delay of three months may make all the difference in enabling some of them to carry on?

I realise that there may be some hardship, but the implications of the various proposals arising from the study that we have made are difficult to assess. I do not consider that we are wasting time.

In view of the fact that some years ago the House had a very full and detailed report on the problems of rural transport, about which nothing has been done, and that the Minister is now having another study made for him which will no doubt be of great interest to Members of this House, especially those who sit for rural constituencies, will he make that study and report available?

I will consider that. I would like to make it available. The point is that I should like to make it available in an easily digestible form. I will consider that.

Will the Minister inform the House whether he has had any discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland on the problems of rural transport—in particular regarding certain stretches of railway which, if closed, will aggravate a position that is already very bad—

Order. That question does not arise from the Answer about the Jack Report.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In certain areas in Scotland the roads would be insufficient to deal with rural transport if the rails were closed.

I do not dispute that proposition. I merely assert that it does not arise on this Question.

asked the Minister of Transport why permission was given for a load 19 feet wide and 65 feet long carrying a ship's propeller weighing 35 tons to travel by road from Birkenhead to Falmouth, in view of the inconvenience caused to other road users and other difficulties; why he did not require the load to be sent at least part of the way by sea; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer which my right hon. Friend gave on 24th July to the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp).

I read that reply which was adequate so far as it went. Would my hon. Friend agree that a load which is 19 feet wide is too wide for any kind of road, even a three-lane motorway? Can he say how loads like this were sent before the invention of Scammell lorries and vehicles which are able to carry such heavy loads, and should not such loads be prohibited?

I do not know the answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I am sure he realises that sometimes it is necessary to get a propeller to a ship quickly and sometimes it appears that the quickest way to do that is to send it by lorry. However, in view of the difficulties which occurred on this occasion, my right hon. Friend, as he said on 24th July, is reviewing the best method to deal with future loads of this size.

May I ask whether the Minister is aware that there is a regular shipping line operating between Birkenhead and Falmouth and that when this huge load came by road the Cornwall County Council was not informed although the vehicle bad to travel over 60 miles in Cornwall on the busiest roads at the height of the tourist season? Will not the Minister look at this again?

I am surprised to hear what the hon. Gentleman tells me about the county council because it is necessary to give the police two days notice.

Is not it a fact that we cannot possibly give instructions about loads of this sort unless we have a publicly-owned co-ordinated transport system?

asked the Minister of Transport what action he has taken this year to ensure that large and unwieldy loads are transported by the most suitable routes, other than by road.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce legislation to prevent very heavy loads going by road where port facilities in the United Kingdom are adequate, and thus prevent congestion on the roads.

From 1st November last year the Regulations governing the movement of abnormal loads by road were strengthened giving me control over all loads more than 14 feet wide, more than 90 feet long or more than 150 tons in gross weight. These Regulations have been applied with progressively increasing effect throughout this year. There has been a steady decrease in the number of applications for movement by road, attributable to the use of other means of transport and also to the steps being taken to reduce the sizes of loads for transport by road. Availability of port facilities is not the only factor in the use of sea transport. Journey time, cost and liability in some cases to damage must also be taken into account.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, as he has said, there is available coastwise shipping for the transport of this kind of load? Will he pursue with vigour his determination that the roads shall not be cluttered up with large and unwieldy loads which ought not to be on the roads at all?

We have said that we are reviewing the matter. The number of applications to the Ministry has been reduced because of the announcement of new Regulations. Over all, there are fewer large loads going by road.

Will the Minister consider the suggestion of his hon. Friend? Is he aware that great difficulties are created for the manufacturers of large-scale plant? Rather than that such plant should be conveyed by road, with the need to redesign it in order that it may be so conveyed—and thereby affect the production costs—would not it be better if large-scale plant were conveyed by sea?

A number of organisations representing heavy engineering industries, in which I know the hon. Member is interested, have set up Abnormal Loads Committee to consider the increasing problem of the transport of heavy, oversized loads. It is all linked up with the design of the machinery we are trying to export. In many cases, people say without thought that the machinery should go by rail, but in some cases that would mean knocking down about a hundred bridges. There are also difficulties about transport by sea. In many cases it is technically not possible for it to go by sea. All these things have to be taken into account, and we should try to put it all into its proper perspective.

asked the Minister of Transport if he proposes to continue his campaign to discourage drivers from drinking.

I shall continue to take every suitable opportunity to draw attention to the dangers of driving after drinking.

Does not it strike the Minister as very odd that while large sums of public money are being spent on this laudable campaign, public houses are competing with each other in the provision of bigger and better private parking facilities for customers whose purpose it is to drink? If the Minister has no direct influence regarding the provision of private car parking facilities, will he use his influence with those who have?

The hon. Gentleman must not make the mistake of supposing that all the people who call at public houses are drivers. The vehicles contain passengers as well. I am concerned with those who drive, and what I have said—I think as often and as emphatically as anybody—is that people should not drink if they are to drive.

Is this one of the matters in which the Minister would advise young people to disregard the advice of their parents?

It depends on who are the parents.

asked the Minister of Transport what was the percentage of successes in all motor-car driving tests carried out in the United Kingdom in the years 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962, respectively.

The percentage of passes in all driving tests conducted in Great Britain in these years was 53, 51, 50 and 50. Figures for motor car tests only are not generally available. But a recent survey, conducted over two weeks, suggests that the pass rate for car candidates would probably be about 3 per cent. lower.

asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received from the Licensing Officers' Association about the wording and the size of the print on the summary of restrictions to be inserted in provisional driving licences for persons between the ages of 17 and 21; what reply he has sent; and what consultations he has had with the Association regarding them.

We do not know of the association to which the hon. Member refers, and we have certainly had no such representations from local authority associations. I understand that licensing officers regret, as to some extent we do, the small size of the print, but appreciate that circumstances make it unavoidable. As I told the hon. Member on 17th July, the conditions follow Regulations. These were circulated in draft to many bodies, including local authority associations.

Has the Parliamentary Secretary attempted to read these restrictions himself, or is it because he has not been able to read them that he does not realise that they are incomprehensible? Will he get a magnifying glass and read the restrictions, and then decide to alter them so that people can understand what they mean?

The hon. Gentleman raised this question with me a fortnight ago, when I told him that, although I sympathised with and understood the difficulty, I had been able to read the restrictions without a magnifying glass. The point here is that only a few people are affected by these restrictions and the headlines are quite easy to read. The hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will appreciate that it was necessary to have this sort of label as, otherwise, it would have meant reprinting 12½ million new licences, which simply could not have been done in the time.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is yet in a position to announce his decision on the channel crossing.

I regret that I am not yet able to add to the Answer I gave my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) on 24th July.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Folkestone is the second largest passenger port in England, with over 800,000 people now using it, and that it cannot make the improvements it wants to make as long as this matter remains unresolved? Will he use his powers of decision to get some progress made?

I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that I will move as fast as possible both on the publication of the Report and on its considera- tion, but as I have to consult my French colleagues I am really not able to make a decision myself.

In considering this very important matter, will not the Minister consult the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Labour with a view to determining what the effects of the implementation of this proposal will be on the undesirable drift south of trade, industry and commerce and, consequently, cm employment in Scotland and the effect on industry there?

Any decision will be a Cabinet decision, which has collective responsibility, and all the Ministers referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman will be consulted.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the opportunities for postponing any decision on this matter are infinite, because there are very real difficulties? Can he, therefore, give us any idea when he hopes that some final decision will be made by himself and his French opposite numbers on this very important matter?

I wish that I could, but I cannot give a definite date. That is quite impossible as there are so many things to be considered, including another country—France—and the French may play it long or they may play it short. For myself, I realise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has said, a number of ports are delaying improvements and the provision of new shipping facilities pending this decision, so, obviously, the quicker we can arrive at a decision the better.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that he has had the Report of the Anglo-French Committee in his hands for quite a long time—a very long time? Can he at least give an undertaking that he will publish the Report early in the Summer Recess so that we may know what it says?

I have had the Report only a few weeks, and I really cannot unilaterally say that it will be published. This is a joint venture with the French; and I must consult them, otherwise foreign relations would become impossible.

asked the Minister of Transport how many officers and members of transport users' consultative committees are railway employees or ex-railway employees; and if he will give a direction, under Section 56(16) of the Transport Act, 1962, that these committees should not hold inquiries into proposed branch railway line closures on premises which are railway property.

The present secretaries of all the transport users' consultative committees are all either former or serving railway officials who have been assigned to the committees in accordance with Section 56(16) of the Transport Act, 1962. Under that Act the membership of the committees no longer includes nominees of any of the nationalised boards. Any member of a committee who is a railway employee is not appointed to represent railway interests, and I know of only two such members. I have no power to give directions about where committees shall meet, but they do not normally hold meetings about closures on railway premises.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which clarifies the position? Will he bear in mind that, although there is actual independence of railway influence, it is very important during the coming months when the T.U.C.C.s will be meeting to ensure that the apparent independence is also understood by the British public, who are a little suspicious when these committees meet on railway premises?

I agree. It was for that reason that during the Committee stage of the Transport Act I said that any consideration should be in offices away from railway premises. That we are trying to do, and I think we have succeeded. The other point is that although railway men are secretaries of these committees, which is very useful because of their great knowledge of the subject, they do not take part in decisions. The decisions are taken by the committee and not by the secretary, who merely provides the information.

asked the Minister of Transport in considering proposals for railway closures put to him by consultative committees, what consideration he gives to whether or not the objectors had been allowed rights of legal representation and cross-examination.

I expect to get from a transport users' consultative committee, in accordance with Section 56 of the Transport Act, 1962, a report on the hardship which it considers will be caused by a proposed rail closure together with any proposals which it wishes to make for alleviating hardship. In general the Section provides that committees shall determine their own procedure. I understand that committees in fact permit objectors to be legally represented and allow questions relevant to matters within the scope of the committees' functions to be put to representatives of the Railways Board. I have no reason to think that committees will not carry out their statutory duties in a fair and proper manner.

While I accept what my right hon. Friend has said, will he bear in mind that there has been public criticism of the T.U.C.C. procedure in the past on the ground that the tribunals were apparently not sufficiently judicial? In dealing with this matter, will he bear in mind that it is very difficult to get at the truth of a matter without the right of cross-examination and that it would be very unfortunate if the British public got the impression that these closures were being steam-rollered through without a proper judicial tribunal?

One of the recent decisions should dispel that illusion. Under the Statute, when reporting on hardship and proposals to alleviate it, the committees will normally be shown hardship by the evidence of the objectors; but if a representative of the Railways Board gave evidence about hardship I would expect questions about it to be allowed, as well as questions about information given by the Railways Board for alternative services. I do not think it wrong for objectors not to be able to question or cross-examine on matters not relevant to the essential function of the committee.

Has the right hon. Gentleman ever been present at a hearing of a consultative committee? It is extraordinary that I have and he has not.

No. As I am in a quasi-judicial capacity, it would be improper for me to be there. What I have done is to read the evidence in full.

asked the Minister of Transport what directions he has now given to the Railways Board in respect of public advance notice for the discontinuance of passenger or goods services as provided for by Section 54 of the Transport Act, 1962.

My right hon. Friend has now given the Railways Board, under Section 54 of the Transport Act, 1962, directions and determinations about the publication of advance information of their plans for the discontinuance of passenger, goods and shipping services. With permission I will circulate a copy in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary fill in the other data in this respect? The Section speaks of advanced notices as to manner and place where notices shall be exhibited. Would he be more forthcoming, as this Section maybe somewhat contradictory of Section 56?

If the hon. Gentleman reads what I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I think he will find that that point is covered.

asked the Minister of Transport, in exercise of his financial powers under the Transport Act, what amount he has authorised to the Railways Board for the provision of liner trains; and what is the expected profitability of the investment he has allowed for this purpose.

The Railways Board has not yet sought our approval for any proposed capital investment in the provision of liner train equipment.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that on pages 44 and 146 of his Report, Dr. Beeching contemplated, I think within a few weeks, a trial costing £2,100,000? As some of the data and commercial prospects about liner trains are, to say the least, doubtful, will the Minister be careful in any finance which he may authorise in this respect and have some costings made of the existing Condor train services, the pre-runner to the liner trains?

I think I can give the undertaking that my right hon. Friend will look very carefully into any figures and costs put before him.

asked the Minister of Transport why he accepted the conclusions of the Beeching Report before a detailed and precise case for the rationalisation of the East Lincolnshire rail services had been made out.

The Government have accepted in principle that the railway system needs reshaping on the lines proposed by the Railways Board. But we have made it clear that decisions on individual passenger closure proposals will be reached on their merits. This applies to all the Board's passenger closure proposals including those in Lincolnshire.

But is it not a fact that this part of the Beeching Report is coming to be seen more and more as an inspired guess? Is it right to jeopardise the economic considerations and amenities of perhaps half a million people in this matter? Further, has he considered the effect which the deliberate reduction of traffic on lines such as this is going to have on him when he has to decide between the relative merits of the economic importance of closing the line and the hardships which will result to the people who live near it?

Nothing is jeopardised by the proposals in the Beeching Report. They are purely proposals of the Railways Board. Previously the Board was criticised for presenting its proposals piecemeal. It was said that it should have a plan. Now it has produced a plan, and it is said that it jeopardises the position. It does not. In the case of passenger closures it can only propose; the decision lies with me, and I shall take into account any questions of hardship. The transport users' consultative committees have been appointed purely for the purpose of assessing what the degree of hardship is.

But the trouble is that at the end of the story the Minister will have to decide between closing a line which has been completely denuded of its possibilities of being efficient in the meantime, and which is then completely uneconomic, against possible hardship. Could not he stop the railways diminishing the efficiency of the lines until he has been able himself to balance up the economic viability and the hardships involved?

The railways cannot stop anything. All they can do is to make proposals, which are considered on their merits. Objections can be made. My hon. Friend can make what objections he likes about any proposal when it comes forward, and I hope that he will. But I shall decide each case on its merits, to the best of my ability.

Is it the Minister's intention to make these controversial decisions during the next three months, when Parliament is not sitting?

Under a Statute that has been passed the Railways Board will put its proposals forward, as and when it thinks right, to the transport users' consultative committees, which will consider the proposals on their merits and report to me. I will make my decision according to the merits of each case.

Does not the Minister think that when there is a proposal for a large-scale closure, affecting a very large area, it is an important matter which should be considered by this House? Does the Minister propose that when such a large-scale closure is proposed, before he makes a final decision there will be an opportunity for Parliament to express an opinion on it?

When the proposal is made by the Railways Board it will go to the transport users' consultative committees, which will make their report and recommendations. They will consider proposals in public. Objectors, whoever they may be, can appear before the committee and explain what hardships will be involved and what alternative services should be provided. The transport users consultative committees will report to the Minister. It is then up to me to take into account what has been said about hardship and alternative services, and about any other point that anybody wishes to make. I hope that local authorities and other interested people will send in their submissions. Any Member who wishes to make a point can do so after a transport users' consultative committee has made its recommendations to me, and before any decision is made.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) what consideration has been given to the amendment of the North Atlantic Shipping Act to meet the new proposals submitted by the Cunard Company;

I refer the hon. Member to the Answer that I gave to him and other hon. Members on Wednesday, 24th July. In the circumstances, no question of the amendment of the North Atlantic Shipping Act arises.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his statement he said that nevertheless the Government have been anxious to consider all reasonable means of bringing a new and modern British ship into this important service? Will the right hon. Gentleman take the initiative to give expression to that anxiety and fulfil a pledge made at the General Election of 1959? Will he get in touch with the Cunard Company and see whether it is possible to come to terms, if not within the framework of the North Atlantic Shipping Act, then under an amended Act to meet new terms which can be agreed with Cunards?

The question asked is whether I will amend the North Atlantic Shipping Act. The answer is "No", because the 1961 Act was tailored to fit the Q3 proposal which came from the Cunard Company. We honoured our election pledge. We gave terms which the company wanted, which it asked for and to which it agreed. It subsequently decided not to accept them. That was not our fault as a Government. The decision was taken by the Cunard Company. I do not blame it for that, but, having so decided, it cannot say that we have not kept our part of the bargain. We did keep our part of the bargain.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great subsidies given by the United States, France, and Italy to passenger services on the North Atlantic run? Is he further aware of the large hole which will be created in the £60 million he so proudly announced if the Cunard Company is to rely on this alone for assistance?

The Cunard Company, if it wishes to apply for money under the recent scheme I announced, must go to the Committee under Lord Piercy and put its proposals before it. The proposal will then be considered on its merits, in the same way as any other proposal will be considered. As regards other countries subsidising their ships, if they decide to subsidise something which they think is in the national interest, we must look at our position and not necessarily be moved by what they have decided.

Most people who have the interests of all British shipping and not just one company at heart are pleased that the Government have taken the decision to allow Cunard to come into the scheme on equal terms with everyone else.

I am sure that that is so. Every company which runs ships should have access to the scheme on equal terms. The point is that it will be extremely difficult to distinguish between different companies. If we give extra favours to one company the other companies will be peeved.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he was anxious to maintain this service in the North Atlantic. Will he, therefore, open negotiations with the Cunard Company to see whether some amicable arrangement can be made?

As I have said several times, if Cunard have another proposal, we shall keep an open mind and consider it. If I may say so, it is silly of the hon. Gentleman to think that somebody who is running a shipping company does not know his business better than any Government Department does. If the company wants any terms, and if it has any proposals, the initiative lies with the company to make them known.

asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made towards reaching a decision on the building of a nuclear-powered merchant ship.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now satisfied that technical considerations justify the placing of an order for one or more British nuclear-powered merchant ships; what progress has been made in his consultations with British ship owners; and if he will make a statement.

The technical and economic studies are continuing according to plan. Shipowners and shipbuilders are taking part in them. I still expect that we shall be able to decide before the end of the year whether to embark on developing a reactor and building a ship to install it in.

May I ask my right hon. Friend how he interprets "according to plan," because am I not right in saying that we were promised that we would hear the answer before the House rose for the Recess? I think that that was the last promise. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he noted yesterday that the Minister of Defence said that he could not have a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier until we had experimented with surface ships on a smaller scale? May I ask whether my right hon. Friend's Department is in touch with the Minister of Defence, and may I ask whether there can be a general speeding up on this matter? Government Departments are getting terribly slow.

I very rarely disagree with my hon. Friend. She frequently disagrees with me, but I rarely disagree with her. But we never said that we would make a statement before the Recess, and it is wrong of my hon. Friend to imply that we did. We have always thought that by the end of this year we should be able to say something definite, and we are working according to plan. If we are to have a nuclear ship, the first ship has to be of a reasonable size and not a major ship which may lead to difficulties. To build such a ship would be complete nonsense, and, with due respect and humility, I am surprised that my hon. Friend suggested it.