asked the Minister of Transport what arrangement he is making for increasing the width of new motorway central reserves to permit the effective use of rosa multiflora japonica bushes to prevent serious accidents on the motorways; and if he will make a statement of the progress so far made in relation to other central barriers which have been provided and are to be provided on motorways.

Motorway central reserves would need to be increased to about four times their present width to accommodate a worth-while thickness of this bush. We could not justify this. It would add considerably to construction costs and would take up further valuable agricultural land.

What does the Minister mean by the width which, he says, is required for the purpose of these bushes? Is he aware that that is not the case in countries where these bushes are used? As to expense, is it not extremely important that we should use devices which will save life and limb, even though they might cost somewhat more? Is the Minister aware that the use of rose bushes for these purposes is being increased in many countries? Cannot he do something about it here?

While I agree with the hon. Member that we must do everything we can to prevent accidents, the central reserves in this country are 13 ft. wide and our information is that, for bushes of this kind to grow satisfactorily, the reserves would have to be about 52 ft. wide, or four times as great. This would add over £110,000 a mile to the cost of roads and I do not think that this would be justified.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he intends to improve road communications for The Hartlepools in a westerly direction.

The special additional roads programme for the North-East announced in the Government's White Paper last November includes improvement of the A.689 which links The Hartlepools with the A.19 and Tees-side, and improvement of communications between Tees-side and Darlington.

Will not my hon. Friend agree that proper communications from the Hartlepools to the A.1 are absolutely vital in order to attract industry to the area? So far we have had many Government promises, but very little progress is visible on the spot. Will he do his best to improve the situation right now and not in years ahead?

As I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend appreciates, it is not possible to start everything everywhere right now.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, during the last seven years, I have constantly raised the question of the improvement of the A.19 and that on several occasions the Minister has promised to go ahead with it? Now we are told that it is to be started in a year or two. Is that reasonable?

:I think it most reasonable.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects work to commence on the western bypass through Gateshead County Borough and Whickham urban district linking up with the new Scotswood Bridge.

A scheme to provide a better link between the A.1, the Team Valley Trading Estate and Scotswood Bridge is included in the special additional roads programme for the North East announced in the Government's White Paper last November.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the best available assessment for this project is that it is likely to cost £4 million and will provide bady needed employment in that area? Does not he agree that it is urgent to develop this road programme in order to enable the authorities to raise the standard of urban environment and traffic planning? Does not he also agree that such effective development is also urgent to give inducement to new industrial and commercial interests and for achieving better access to industrial sites, particularly in the Blaydon area? Will he undertake to bring this programme forward to a much earlier date?

I do not think that I disagree with practically anything the hon. Gentleman has said, but while I am fully sympathetic with his point of view, I regret that we cannot bring this forward any faster than we are doing.

asked the Minister of Transport why he has refused the Cleethorpes Borough Council's proposal to enforce a 30 miles per hour limit from Hewitts Circus for the full length of Grimsby Road, and North Sea Lane, in view of the fact that there have been an increasing number of serious and fatal accidents; if he will review his decision; and if he will make a statement.

We refused to entertain a proposal for an extension of the 30 m.p.h. speed limit for 174 yards along Humberston Road for the reasons set out in my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary's letter of 13th June, 1963. Since consent was refused in April, 1963, there has been no increase in the frequency of accidents. We have now consented to the making of an Order to impose a 40 m.p.h. speed limit between the bridge over Buck Beck and a point 200 yards west of the junction of Church Lane and North Sea Lane.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the reasons given in his letter were not satisfactory? Is he further aware that there have been a lot of accidents since I have received it and that my constituents are very worried about this stretch of road? Will he send another official to look at it more sympathetically and give us a better offer?

My information shows that accidents have been declining. There were 10 in 1960, 5 in 1961, 5 in 1962 and 4 in 1963. One of these involved a gill jumping off a moving bus and another a dog being run over, so I do not think that I can agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will give instructions for the immediate construction of the bypass at Holton-le-Clay, near Grimsby, in view of the increasing number of serious and fatal accidents on the long winding road through the village, and of the petition signed by 631 residents which has been sent to him by the hon. Member for Louth; and if he will make a statement.

We accept the need for the bypass and are authorising a survey of the route although we have not yet been able to find a place for the scheme in our trunk road programme. As more immediate measures, we are considering the imposition of a speed limit and improvements to give better visibility at junctions in the village.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I resent his reply that a girl was hurt merely because she jumped off a bus and that a dog was run over? Is he aware that people are being killed on this stretch of road and that my constituents do not take a funny view of that? Will he see that more money is available to the local authorities to build this bypass at once?

We certainly will do the best we can with the bypass. I think that the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question refers to Question No. 10, which we have already passed.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to receive the report from Messrs. Scott and Wilson, Kirkpatrick and Partners with regard to the present and future trunk road requirements in the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire between the Great North Road and the port of Hull.

By the middle of April.

Is my hon. Friend aware that waiting for this report has served as another excuse for neglecting the problems presented by the Selby Toll Bridge? Will he give an assurance that, as soon as the report is received, immediate action will be taken to relieve Selby of this long-standing scandal?

I cannot accept that this is an excuse for delay in dealing with Selby Toll Bridge, but I cannot give the undertaking my hon. and gallant Friend seeks because we must see what is in the report before we decide what to do.

I have previously had the pleasure of supporting the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) on the question of the public scandal represented by the Selby Toll Bridge. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that both the present Minister and his predecessors have been giving lame excuses in this House in order to avoid taking any action on the abolition of the Selby Toll Bridge? Is it not time the Government cleared up this matter and gave some heed to the protests which have constantly been made in this House during my service as an hon. Member?

My right hon. Friend has given an undertaking to provide a high-class road between Hull and the Great North Road and that is precisely what he is going to do.

asked the Minister of Transport what stage has been reached in his consideration of the possible adjustment of parking meter charges; and what procedure is to be adopted regarding the consideration of objections to proposals to increase charges, and requirements for public advertisement of such increase.

I am considering the comments of local authorities and others on all my proposals for improving the effectiveness of existing parking meter schemes in London, including the adjustment—up and down—of some meter charges. I expect to be able to make a statement shortly.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that valuable assurance, which is most helpful, but will he bear in mind that any proposal to increase parking meter charges, which I believe has been suggested in certain cases in the West End by as much as fourfold, would lead to a considerable amount of resentment among the motoring public and would be grossly unfair?

Each proposal will have to be judged on its merits and according to the evidence which is placed before me both by the applicant local authority and by individual objectors, who will have an opportunity to state their cases and give reasons why they wish a change to be made.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the advantage of having much shorter parking periods at meters so that these can be used genuinely by short-term parkers and not as they are often now, and will be with higher charges, by commuters who are prepared to move their cars every two hours?

I shall certainly consider a shorter period, and that idea was included in the pamphlet which my Ministry sent to local authorities. The House must realise that until it costs more to park on the street than to park off the street people will continue to park on the street, to the detriment of moving traffic.

Can my right hon. Friend say what progress is being made with his scheme for issuing parking licences to bona fide residents in residential areas which are zoned, or, alternatively, to permit local residents whose roads are metered to park for longer periods?

That is one of the points of principle mentioned in the pamphlet which the Ministry sent to local authorities. I asked each local authority to formulate proposals for its own area if it thought they were desirable. This is a local problem because each locality varies enormously, and I hope that local authorities will bring forward some such schemes for improvements, and we shall see what we can do when we get the objections to, and the support for, them.

asked the Minister of Transport what consideration he is giving to bringing into operation some of the Continental practices devised to prevent road accidents.

Our aim is to adopt any Continental road safety measures that would be suitable for this country and there are close contacts at all levels.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider using the Italian system or issuing a red triangle to a motorist, which he puts down 50 metres behind him when he stops in the carriageway for any purpose whatsoever?

I am proposing to make regulations which will permit drivers to put up special signs in an emergency.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can explain why we lumber along without any clear priorities at roundabouts? Does my right hon. Friend realise how many accidents are caused by two motorists approaching the same roundabout each assuming that he has priority'?

As my hon. Friend has probably seen, we are carrying out experiments giving priority to traffic coming from the right at certain rounda-abouts, and the Road Research Laboratory is seeing what the results of these experiments will be. If they prove to be favourable we shall consider extending them further.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will arrange for the instillation of traffic lights on the East Lancashire road, Liverpool, at its junction with Townsend Avenue, in view of the traffic hazards to which pedestrians are exposed at present.

We do not consider traffic lights are justified at this junction at present.

How does my hon. Friend reach such a conclusion when everyone in the area knows that it is absolutely necessary to have this kind of controlled crossing in order that people may walk across the road? Is my hon. Friend aware that traffic movements have been so successful that the traffic moves so quickly as to prevent pedestrians crossing the road? Surely something should be done to help them?

My information is that in the last three years only three pedestrians lave been injured, but in view of what my hon. Friend has said, I am arranging for the divisional road engineer to have a new count taken and in the light of that, we can reconsider the matter.

Will my hon. Friend say what is the normal number of accidents which have to happen before there can to a controlled pedestrian crossing?

There is not any norm; it depends on each case and each is dealt with differently.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the delays and congestion at the single-line swing bridge over the canal at Thorne; and what proposals he has for a new bridge suitable for heavy industrial traffic.

A new bridge over the canal will be constructed as part of the Thorne by-pass scheme. An order under Section 7 of the Highways Act, 1959, establishing the route of the bypass, was made in October, 1963. There are further statutory processes to be completed and the design work and land acquisition to be undertaken but we hope to authorise construction within a year or two.

Can the hon. Gentleman say by whom the bridge will be designed—whether it will be decided by open competition or whether his right hon. Friend will choose one of his friends?

I am afraid I could not give an answer to that question without notice.

asked the Minister of Transport what are his proposals for the A.64 in connection with the construction of a by-pass road at Tadcaster.

A line for the by-pass is shown on the approved development plan.

Could my hon. Friend give a rather closer interpretation of what he means by "some years"?

I do not think so. I should like to help my hon. and gallant Friend, but I am afraid I cannot do so. There are a great many more urgently required schemes than this, but it is something which will require to be done eventually.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great resentment in the area of the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner), and in my area, that there is far too much Ministry of Transport concentration on trunk roads and main roads and not enough on the hinterland, particularly on roads leading to the ports from the main roads on which the right hon. Member has concentrated?

I quite understand that, but the policy of my right hon. Friend is to deal with industrial roads first. I think he is right, and everyone in this House agrees that he has got his priorities right.

asked the Minister of Transport what reply he has given to the communication of 25th November from the Chief Constable of Oldham dealing with dipped headlights in built-up areas.

The Chief Constable was invited to make comparative tests between his experimental system and another sent to him from the Road Research Laboratory. I am grateful for the information he has recently provided about the results.

Is the Minister aware that I and, I am sure, the Chief Constable will be pleased at his constructive approach? Is he aware, as I think he is, that we must find the happy compromise between inadequate sidelights and glaring dipped headlights, particularly in towns? It may be that the work done experimentally will find the ultimate solution and I urge the Minister to proceed on those lines.

I am grateful to the hon. Member. I agree with him that we must find the answer, particularly for wet conditions at night, because that is when dazzle arises. What the answer will be, I do not know, but we are studying the results of the dipped headlight campaign and carrying out certain experiments all over the country and ultimately, I hope, we shall find a satisfactory answer. I agree, however, upon the importance of the problem.

asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has for banning private motor vehicles from the centres of certain large sities.

asked the Minister of Transport what plans he is making to restrict or ban the use of private motor cars in the centre of London and other large cities.

None. Sir. But I accept the conclusion of the Buchanan and Crowther Reports that sometime in the future some limitation of traffic in the larger cities will be unavoidable.

While I accept that the decision should be taken locally, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that the time to which he has referred has now arrived in London, Manchester and certain other cities, because at rush hours traffic is being brought practically to a standstill? Would he not agree that to allow only public transport—buses can carry 60 passengers, for example—is the solution in the immediate future?

No, I could not agree, not even in London, because the measures which we have taken in London in the last few years have resulted in an increased flow of traffic at peak hours and an increased volume can be taken by the streets. by such methods as one-way streets. A great deal more can still be done in London and we are to have several major schemes each year for the next two or three years. Therefore, I cannot agree with the assumption made by the hon. Member. Another thing is that we have a positive policy towards parking so that people are stopped from long-term parking on the streets. That in itself will make a significant contribution.

Does the Minister recall that on 5th December, 1956, I told the then Minister of Transport that

"…keeping private cars out of central London is the quickest and least complicated solution to the problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1956; Vol. 561, c. 1222.]

I only wish I had the salary of the Beatles. I must say, however, that traffic is now moving faster than it did in 1956 and there is a greater volume of it. The hon. Member was wrong in 1956 and is wrong again now.

asked the Minister of Transport what estimate has been made of the increase of northbound traffic through Kelvedon Hatch, Essex, since the opening of the Dartford Tunnel; and whether it is proposed to make a count of such traffic in the summer season of 1964.

Provisionally at not more than 500 vehicles a day. A comprehensive survey of tunnel traffic in the area, including Kelvedon Hatch, is being undertaken shortly.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will direct the Transport Holding Company that British Road Services should introduce a priority system for export orders.

No, Sir. British Road Services is fully conscious of the importance of export traffic, and it is for it. in its responsibility for management, to decide how it can best handle it.

Does my hon. Friend think it satisfactory regularly to have to move export goods these days from Pembroke to Harwich Dock? The Green Arrow scheme works satisfactorily on the railways. Why should it not work satisfactorily on the roads?

I think that my hon. Friend has had a letter explaining the difficulty in that these loads are small, there is no direct line and when there are trans-shipments it is bound to take a little time.

asked the Minister of Transport if, in considering methods of relieving traffic congestion in London, he will make a special study of the methods of the Paris Metro system, where there are three route miles of railways to every one square mile of the Paris area, with a view to extending the London Underground system, which has only one route mile to every four square miles of the area served.

Responsibility for any new developments on the London Underground system rests with the London Transport Board, which has a direct interest in the relief of traffic congestion.

Will my hon. Friend point out to the London Transport Board that the Paris Metro system is 12 times more intensive than the London Underground system and thereby leads to less traffic being on the roads and to less congestion on the buses? Would he also point out that areas like Chelsea and South London are not served to a marked degree by the Underground and that, if the Board wants to relieve congestion, that is the way to do it?

I cannot agree with my hon. Friend and it pains me to say so. Paris is a smaller and more compact city. A larger part of the population lives in the central area and the Metro provides an intensive service for that area. It does not have to serve the outer suburbs and there is no highly-developed network of bus services comparable with that in London for short journeys. The circumstances are very different.

Surely the extension of Underground facilities in London are a matter not just for the London Transport Board, but for the Minister? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any intention on his part, or on the part of his Department, to extend our present inadequate Underground services?

London Transport is considering certain lines in London, one of them being an extension of the Victoria Line to Brixton, and another a possible link between Aldwych and Waterloo, but it is awaiting the results of the London traffic survey before putting forward any firm proposals.

asked the Minister of Transport what was the total number of private cars registered in the names of private individuals and of firms and companies, respectively, in 1963.

The latest year for which estimates can be given is 1961. The motoring survey undertaken in that year showed that the numbers were 5 million and 1 million cars respectively.

Is not there something to be said for distinguishing between these two types of users? Should not it be taken into account when Buchanan is thought about and discussed, and is not there even a case for the Minister discussing it with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to seeing whether it is right that both should be subject to the same type of taxation?

There may or may not be something to be said for my hon. Friend's point of view, but my right hon. Friend's Department is making studies which could shed light on the amount of use made of the roads by various types of vehicles and the purpose for which they are used. I think that when we know that we shall be better able to answer my hon. Friend's Question.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he took between January and December, 1963, by issuing general directions to, and by consulting with, the Railways Board and other appropriate bodies, to minimise delay, hardship, and danger to users of rail and road transport in winter weather.

I consulted the British Railways Board, the London Transport Board, licensing authorities, local authority associations, and other interests, about the problems of road and rail transport in winter and the measures necessary to meet them. I also issued detailed guidance to local authorities about keeping roads clear of snow and ice.

Is the Minister aware how very, very lucky not only all of us have been but he in particular has been, that there has not been a repetition of last year's weather, or he might have been sacrificed, justly or unjustly, as a scapegoat? Is the right hon. Gentleman now satisfied that, to take one instance only, the points at Shenfield will no longer freeze up if there is a severe cold snap, as points never now need do?

During the recent very short spell of severe weather the main trouble was, of course, the points freezing, but where automatic heaters were installed they were most effective and there is an annual programme for the installation of further heaters.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make the use of undipped headlights in daytime in fog compulsory.

Under the present law we cannot compel motor vehicles to use their headlights when there is fog in daytime. This, however, is what the Highway Code advises.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether it is not the fact that during the recent fog, in the middle of the day an appeal was made to do what I am suggesting, and that if it had been made at the outset it might have prevented accidents? Is not there something to be said for making it part of the law of the land, as I believe it is in France?

My right hon. Friend would hope at the earliest convenient opportunity when there is future legislation to embody some such provision as this.

Would my hon. Friend also consider making it compulsory at night, because half the motorists in London seem to be mad enough to drive on their sidelights in circumstances of intense fog?

Certainly we shall consider that.

asked the Minister of Transport how the discussions on parking law simplification are proceeding; and if he will make a statement.

It is not possible under the Road Traffic Acts as they now stand to give greater precision to the law on obstruction, but I am considering the need for future legislation. I am also consulting representative bodies about a new system of traffic signs to be introduced this year which will, I hope, help to convey more clearly to drivers the restrictions on waiting on particular lengths of road.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful Answer, but may I ask whether he will include, in the present discussions that he is having, measures to improve parking signs, rules for parking without lights, for loading and unloading and also a ruling on the tag-end use of parking meters? I am sure that he will agree that these matters are causing unnecessary friction between motorists, the police and traffic wardens.

I agree, and with the implementation of the Warboys Report on signs I a ink we shall see a welcome improvement. I agree with my hon. Friend that it. is necessary that we should have standard signs through the country, so that when a motorist is in any town he will know quite clearly what is expected of him.

On the question of the lighting of parked vehicles, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is some difficulty in the Midlands? In the overspill area of Birmingham there is one set of regulations, and in Staffordshire there is a different set, which has resulted in some conflict.

This is a difficulty that we find throughout the country, because each chief constable has his own idea of what system should be adopted in his area, and motorists are sometimes confused when moving from one area to another. This is one of the things that I am looking into with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

asked the Minister of Transport what further studies are being undertaken into the traffic induced by the extensive construction of off-street car parks in town centres and its relation to the capacity of existing roads and anticipated improvements, in the light of the problems discussed in the Buchanan Report.

The Joint Urban Planning Group is examining the rôle of off-street car parks in relation to urban traffic. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and I hope to issue shortly a planning bulletin to local authorities on parking in town centres.

Does the Minister agree that this is absolutely crucial in any regulation of traffic in planned cities, to the extent that a complete reversal of policy may be required, especially in the inclusion of parking space in new buildings? Will he push forward this research as quickly as possible so that a formula can be decided upon which can be adhered to?

We will do this as quickly as possible, but the aim is to get an overall parking policy which comprises the restriction of on-street parking together with the provision of off-street parking, in such a way that the best use of the streets is obtained for moving traffic. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall press on with that as fast as we can.

asked the Minister of Transport what estimates are now available of the likely costs of implementing fully the recommendations of the Buchanan Report over the period of the next 25 years.

Extensive urban renewal and road improvements are going to be necessary in the years ahead. It is not possible to estimate the extra cost of carrying this out in accordance with the planning concepts advocated in the Buchanan Report.

I appreciate the impossibility of giving a comprehensive figure over an extensive period but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to confirm what the Minister of Housing and Local Government said on Monday evening, namely, that no major reconstruction will take place on the lines of the Buchanan Report within the next four years? Further, does the right hon. Gentleman recall that no provision was made in last December's White Paper for any major reconstruction on the lines of the Buchanan Report?

It is a fact of life that no action can be taken to implement Buchanan until we have had the results of the comprehensive land use transport surveys which are now in hand. They will form the basis of any decision, and until we have that information we cannot make any decisions.

Does that answer imply that those towns which are already going ahead with extensive centre renewals will be asked to call a halt to their operations? If that is not the case, why cannot extra finance be made available to them if they want to carry out new and ambitious plans on the lines of Buchanan?

It is no good talking about new and ambitious plans unless they are based upon the results of a comprehensive land use transport survey. We cannot do anything until we have had the results of these surveys.

asked the Minister of Transport when a reply was sent by him to the letter, dated 7th August, 1963, from the representatives of the trustees of Tinsley Methodist Church in Sheffield relating to the compulsory acquision of the church.

An interim reply was sent on 12th September, 1963. The district valuer was already trying to help the trustees to find an alternative site and he has, at our request, continued his efforts and been keeping in touch with their agents, as my right hon. Friend explained to the hon. Member in his letter of 3rd January.

Is not this deplorable? The Minister has admitted that the firm wrote to him on 7th August, 1963, and an interim reply acknowledging this, and stating that the Minister would give a full reply as soon as possible, was sent over a month later, since when nothing has been heard from the Minister in reply to that letter. Surely the Minister should at least send an apology to the firm and provide it with the reply which he promised on 12th September, 1963? So far as I know, the firm has received no reply from the Minister.

To a certain extent I can understand the hon. Gentleman's anger. In fact, no letter was sent, because the district valuer was in personal touch with the trustees throughout all this time. My right hon. Friend did not want to send a negative reply, which he would have had to send, while there was still hope that an alternative site might be found. If it will help the hon. Gentleman, I am quite prepared to send a letter to the trustees along the lines of the letter which my right hon. Friend sent to him.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to satisfy the Trustees of Tinsley Methodist Church that an alternative site will be available before the church is demolished, following its compulsory acquisition by him in connection with the Aston-Sheffield-Leeds motorway project.

I understand that the trustees of the Methodist Church have now been able to make arrangements for the temporary use of other premises but as far as permanent accommodation is concerned, I cannot add to my right hon. Friend's letter of the 3rd January.

I understand the Minister claims that he has no statutory responsibility in such cases, but is not there a very strong moral responsibility on the Government? They have the power to destroy a church in the interests of road development and they seek to discharge their responsibility by offering money to rebuild the church when there is no site. Is not there a moral responsibility on the Ministry to do something more positive to assist this church to get a site for a new building?

It was because we recognised what the hon. Gentleman refers to as a moral responsibility that we asked the district valuer to help. My right hon. Friend has no power to acquire land specifically for those people who are displaced. All we can do is use our good offices; we cannot do more.

In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of the replies to this Question and the previous Question, I wish to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Transport when he intends to bring into operation Section 192 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, requiring the drivers of heavy goods vehicles to be specially licensed.

We will keep an open mind on this until our inquiries into the M.1 accidents on 21st January are complete. But we do not think present evidence on accidents in general would justify the re-introduction of special licences for drivers of heavy goods vehicles.

Does my hon. Friend recall that before the war there was a licence for drivers of heavy goods vehicles of over 3 tons? Is he aware that lads of 21 are driving vehicles of up to 20 and 25 tons and it is alleged that there are some drivers who drive as much as 400 miles in 10 hours, at 40 miles an hour, in these heavy vehicles and that it is not good enough?

As my hon. Friend said, this is alleged. I do not think that there is any proof. It would be better to wait until we have the result of the inquiries into the accidents which occurred on the M.1. May I point out that drivers of heavy goods vehicles have a record of fewer accidents per mile travelled than any other class of driver?

Is the Minister aware that some of these vehicles are 60 or 70 ft. long and that such vehicles are being constricted in increasing weights? Is he aware that the driving of these vehicles calls for a different method of handling than is the case with other vehicles? Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to these problems so that we do not have trouble in the future?

asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the British Waterways Board to dispose of unwanted stretches of canal on favourable terms to local authorities and other interested bodies, in order to preserve them for the purposes of boating and walking.

I do not think such a direction is either necessary or appropriate. The British Waterways Board is at present reviewing all its waterways and its interim report makes it quite clear that it will welcome the advice and co-operation of all interested bodies.

Will the Minister encourage the British Waterways Board, particularly in respect of areas about which he is approached, such as the extension of the Trent and Mersey Canal at the Caldon branch, where the local youth group is trying to develop this in the Churnet Valley near Leek, which is one of the most beautiful bits of Britain? Would he see that this stretch of canal is saved for the youth of this area, which is on the edge of the Peak District? Is he aware that some months ago we had a hopeful answer from the Minister during an Adjournment debate about this canal?

I agree that where appropriate canals should be used for amenity purposes. The British Waterways Board in a recently published Report—I thought it an extremely good Report—stated in paragraph 172 that a decision on the future of the Caldon branch would depend on the result of further studies and consultations. The Board is quite prepared to have the necessary consultation with any amenity interests in that area.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. May I ask him to consider that all through the industrial Midlands there are lengths of canal which are not of prime interest for transport purposes but have a great amenity interest, and that this includes a couple of most interesting tunnels? May I ask whether my right hon. Friend would go a little further, and in appropriate cases allow the British Waterways Board, without consideration, to dispose of these canals freely to local authorities, because there is great competition among manufacturers to secure the sites and close the canals, which is not in the public interest? May I ask my right hon. Friend to devote particular care to the position in the industrial districts?

I agree that canals are useful for amenity as well as for commercial transport. The British Waterways Board is seized of this point and has said that it would like consultations with any amenity group interested in particular canals. All this depends on the result of further studies and consultations but the Board has shown in its Report how keen it is on this aspect.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that motorists whose vehicles are the property of a partnership or a company seldom know that drivers of such vehicles are not covered for personal injury even under a comprehensive policy and whether he will introduce legislation to make compulsory insurance for injury to drivers of such vehicles.

I am not aware of any general lack of knowledge on this point. I do not propose to add to the existing provisions of the Road Traffic Act on compulsory insurance.

Will the Minister make further inquiries? Is he aware that not one of the motorists to whom I have spoken knew that this provision obtained, that there was no possibility of getting a claim at all by a person who happened to be travelling in a car belonging to a partnership or driving a car belonging to a partnership or corporation? Will the Minister do something to see that this provision is generally known to the public, so that people may be protected against the consequences of a provision of which they know nothing at the present?

If the driver of such a vehicle is injured by another's negligence, he is covered by the provisions of the compulsory third party insurance under the Road Traffic Act, 1960. If there is no negligence by the other driver, any accident arising out of or in the course of employment attracts benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act for which insurance is compulsory for all employed persons.

asked the Minister of Transport what recent progress has been made in negotiations with other maritime nations in an effort to curb restrictive shipping practices such as flag reservation, flag discrimination and the use of flags of convenience; and if he will make a statement.

I had a most useful meeting last December with Ministers responsible for shipping in nine other European countries at which we all agreed to work closely together in countering flag discrimination.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can say what success has been achieved in negotiations between Europe and the United States in this case? Before any protest is made about sending buses to Cuba, will my right hon. Friend ask the United States to stop damaging our mercantile marine interests in this way?

This meeting in London was really called so that all the maritime nations of Europe could present a united front against United States flag discrimination, and we were successful in getting unanimity amongst 10 European nations, I think for the first time in history. In addition, Japan accepted an invitation to join the 10 and make her protest to America, so we now have 11 countries, including Japan, with well over half the world's shipping, united against the activities of the Federal Maritime Commission of the United States. I am glad to say that the chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission is coming to Europe—in fact I think he is in Paris now.

I wish this discussion a happy conclusion, but may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that his Harbours Bill is going to introduce, by unilateral action, the necessity for foreign ships to have equipment of British standards, which could lead to trouble in foreign ports if we insisted on doing something on our own? Will the right hon. Gentleman practise what he preaches and try to get general agreement instead of taking unilateral action?

I shall look at that during the Report stage of the Bill.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission has restricted authority, and is not this a matter to be dealt with by Congress rather than by the Commission?

It is true that the Commission is a creature of Congress, and that ultimately this will be a matter for Congress. The point is that we stand much more chance of success if the whole of Europe and Japan are united in a common policy.

asked the Minister of Transport what consultation took place between his Department and the Elder Brethren of Trinity House before the latter took the decision to move the lights at the entrance to the Taw and Torridge estuary.

The Elder Brethren submitted their proposal to my Department for consideration and approval in the normal way. After obtaining the agreement of the Lighthouse Advisory Committee of the Chamber of Shipping my Department approved the scheme.

That was a pity. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the local master mariners and fishermen who use this estuary are extremely dissatisfied with the proposed new positions of the lighthouses? Is he aware that this will make navigation over a very difficult bar much more dangerous than it already is? Is he quite satisfied that his Department knew what it was talking about when it approved this decision?

All I can say is that I am advised that the present temporary lights give a definite lead in at this estuary, and that ship owners and local pilots are satisfied with them. The permanent lights which will replace them shortly will be of much greater power than the lights at the former sites.

That is not true.

Order. Question time is impossible if it consists of counter-assertions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Browne) is talking very good sense in this matter, and that the feeling of opposition expressed by the fishermen in his constituency is shared by those in my constituency who also use this bar? Will he consider this matter again?

I will certainly consider it again, but the lights and signals are provided by Trinity House for the benefit of general navigation and not for the benefit of local interests. Fishermen do not pay light dues.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the tonnage of British oil tankers and dry cargo vessels now being repaired in foreign shipyards.

No official records are kept of the extent to which British ships are repaired abroad.

Is it beyond the capacity of the Minister to find out what British tonnage is being repaired abroad and what number of men are displaced in this country because ships are repaired abroad and the amount of money paid in unemployment benefit to those men? Will he examine the position again?

I do not think it would be right to restrict British ship owners to British repair yards, because foreign Governments might then restrict repair of their ships to their yards. In 1962 over £8 million was spent by foreign ship owners on repairs done here and this was 13½ per cent. of the total value of work done by ship repairers in this country. It would not be in their interests to follow this suggestion.

Would it not find employment in a large number of British ship-repair yards for men who are now unemployed?

The point is that if we did this and put restrictions on other countries, they might retaliate and we might lose.

In view of the value to British shipbuilding yards of repair work, will my right hon. Friend consider extending credit terms, in the same way as for shipbuilding, for the repair of British ships in British yards?

No, Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend remember that there is great preference on the part of British ship owners to get their ships repaired in this country, but obviously if a ship breaks down at the other end of the world it cannot he brought home for repair?

I quite agree. There was a recent case of a tanker owned by B.P. which broke down in the Indian Ocean and it could not possibly be brought back to this country for repair.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) what information he has received, under Section 56(8) of the Transport Act, 1962, regarding objections lodged with the appropriate area Transport Users' Consultative Committee to the proposed closures of the Aviemore-Grantown-Elgin and Fort William-Mallaig lines;

asked the Minister of Transport what information he has received, under Section 56(8) of the Transport Act, 1962, regarding objections lodged with the appropriate Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee to proposed railway closures in the Highlands.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received information from the Transport Users' Consultative Committee under the provisions of Section 56(8) of the Transport Act, 1962, concerning objections to the closing, of the Inverness-Wick and Inverness-Kyle of Lochalsh passenger services.

The Scottish Transport Users' Consultative Committee has told me that objection has been lodged to each of the proposals for closure of passenger services in the Highlands of which the Railways Board has given notice, including those of services on the Inverness-Wick, Inverness-Kyle of Lochalsh, and Aviemore-Grantown-Elgin lines, and of certain stations on the Fort William-Mallaig line.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that considerable anxiety is felt in the North lest an insufficient number of days is allotted to the hearings of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, which, I understand, is the statutory body which will hear these objections? Will my right hon. Friend bear this fact in mind when the Committee submits its opinion to him, or to the Secretary of State for Scotland, whichever the case may be?

The Scottish Transport Users' Consultative Committee is a statutory body and an independent one, but I will call its attention to the supplementary question which my hon. Friend has raised.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chairman of the Committee has announced that he will see only one or two of the objectors? Will he take steps to ensure that the Committee sees all the objectors? They are very angry about this in the North.

The procedure of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee is settled by the body itself. It is independent of me, and it must do what it thinks best in the matter of hearing objections.

Since the right hon. Gentleman was largely responsible for the appointment of the individual concerned, will he now take steps to remove him from office?

I do not think that I shall do that.

asked the Minister of Transport in what form, printed or otherwise, he receives reports from transport users' consultative committees on hardship.

The reports are in typescript.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that members of the public, including passengers on the railways, know how to submit evidence of hardship to the T.U.C.C.s for onward transmission to him? Can he delicately point out to the committees and to British Railways that it is not very tactful, when intimating that the closure of a station is intended, to send this in an envelope franked, "Be sure to go by train"?

I do not suppose they franked the envelopes. I do not know of anyone wishing to give evidence before a T.U.C.C. who was, as it were, backward in coming forward to give evidence or was incapable of giving such evidence. People have always been eloquent and comprehensive in giving evidence before a T.U.C.C. and this evidence is taken into full account.

Will my right hon. Friend publish those reports when he receives them, so that they will be available to any objectors?

No. The T.U.C.C.s have their own procedure and prefer that their reports should remain confidential, but some committees indicate in broad terms in statements to the Press the extent to which they have found hardship.

Can anything be done to speed up the hearings, as delay is causing great hardship and inconvenience and the property is depreciating in value? Can my right hon. Friend also do something to reduce the expense caused to local authorities, which amounts to considerable sums?

As the committees are independent statutory bodies not subject to interference by the Minister, it is extremely difficult to do anything about that, but I shall call the attention of the committees to the remarks made by my hon. Friend.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I put a supplementary question and the Minister did not answer it.

No. Sometimes they do not. Mr. Mellish.

May I ask a question following the point made by the Minister about these reports not being made public? Why should we not be allowed to know why a line is closed and why a committee came to its conclusions?

The whole idea of the T.U.C.C. consideration is that users of transport can express their difficulties fully, frankly and informally. The T.U.C.C.s have decided for themselves that they would prefer this sort of procedure.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will give an undertaking that where bus services have been provided to replace a closed railway service those bus services will not be subsequently withdrawn.

Bus services provided to replace a railway service will be continued for so long as I consider they are needed.

Can my right hon. Friend go a little further than that? Is he aware that it is not only a question of so long as he considers that these services are needed, but in so far as people who use them consider that they are needed? If he is prepared not to allow a closure unless alternative services are offered, can he not equally maintain that those services shall be continued until alternative services are provided?

It depends on how much the services are used. Some of the services are put on and used a great deal at the beginning and then their use tails off and hardly anyone travels by them. It would have to depend on the merits. There is an example in the constituency of my hon. Friend. Special services of buses were arranged on every Saturday during the summer last year. It was arranged that 252 services should run, but each bus carried an average of only 1·6 passengers. In those circumstances, I do not think it right or reasonable that a subsidy should be paid for the service to continue.

How can the Minister control this? If British Railways are allowed to close uneconomic services, how can the Minister say that bus services are not allowed to do the same?

If a railway service closes and a condition is attached by me to the consent saying that a bus service has to be run and it gives an indication of timing and frequency, that cannot be taken off by the Railways Board without my consent. I can also require by direction that the Railways Board should pay a subsidy in necessary cases.

asked the Minister of Transport what is his estimate of the savings following the closure of the Leek to Stoke-on-Trent railway line; and what are his estimates of the social and economic costs of providing adequate alternative services, especially in view of the growth and development of population in the Baddeley Green, Stockton Brook and Endon areas, which the line previously served.

We have made no estimates relating to this closure, which took place in 1956.

This is it. Is the Minister aware that no real estimates have been made to substantiate even the Beeching Report which in this instance was based on the experience of simply a couple of days in the whole year? Is the Minister to try to get the social costs of this matter in keeping with paragraph 55 of the Beeching Report, which says that the social costs should be taken into consideration? In view of the Buchanan Report and the possibility of North Staffordshire having regional planning, will the Minister say that this line shall be kept open in future because of the growing population of the area?

The hon. Member is quite right. This is it, but it is "it" in a sense he does not realise because this line was closed under the Act of 1947 which was brought into effect by the Government which he supported, whereas our 1962 Act would have seen that the Minister knew all about this matter.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that even when his party is on the eve of a General Election social responsibility such as this is not the subject for a cheap crack, but it is a vital issue for the people concerned and not merely for a political party?