asked the Minister of Transport whether the work on the Darlington bypass is up to schedule; and when it is hoped the by-pass will be in operation.

The three major bridges which were started in 1962 have been completed. The roadworks were started as planned in April, 1963, but progress was hampered by the weather. Given reasonable conditions this summer the bypass should be in use by the spring of 1965, as planned.

Can my hon. Friend say how long the bypass will be when it is completed, and what plans the Government have for the second phase of the northern end of it?

The bypass will be about 10 miles long when it is completed. With regard to the north, a line has been fixed as far as Chester-le-Street, and, subject to statutory processes, we hope to start work on the bridges in the winter, and on the roadworks in 1965 after the bypass is completed.

asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has to extend the three-lane traffic on each of the dual roads used by traffic in one direction only on the M.4 between Langley and Maidenhead.

We have no plans for widening to three lanes the present two-lane carriageways on the Slough and Maidenhead bypass sections of the M.4.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the danger caused by cars overtaking lorries in the outside lane? In view of the fact that the rest of the M.4 is to have a three-lane roadway in each direction, why cannot he, as part of this construction, apply that to this sector where there is very heavy traffic as it is a by-pass to Slough?

The answer is that traffic where there are two lanes is not as heavy as where there are three lanes. In the three-lane part east of Langley we expect that at least 20 per cent. of the traffic will leave for other destinations and not come on to the two-lane part in which the hon. Gentleman is interested.

Is not the Minister quite wrong? He says that traffic on other sections will not be so great, but the other sections have not yet been built, and he is talking about expectations.

The hon. Gentleman must realise that before we build roads, we estimate what we think will be the amount of traffic. That is why we build certain sections of a road to a three-lane dimension and other parts such as that in which the hon. Gentleman is interested, as a two-lane road.

asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has in order to remove the danger caused by three-lane traffic on a single road used by vehicles in both directions.

We do not accept that three-lane roads are inherently dangerous—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but any road may be dangerous if it is overloaded beyond its design capacity. Those three-lane roads which are seriously overloaded are being improved to dual carriageways as quickly as possible within the limits of the funds available and competing claims of other improvements. We are also pressing ahead with trials of offset double white lines to give alternately two traffic lanes in one direction and one in the other.

Does not the reception given to the hon. Gentleman's Answer from hon. Members on both sides of the House show that the Ministry of Transport is completely out of touch with the minds of motorists on this matter? May I ask whether he will look particularly at the section of the A.4 in the green belt, which is necessarily dimly lighted and across which shadows sweep, between London Airport and Slough, and realise the dangers that there are in that section of the road?

I am quite willing to look at the section of road to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I must say that he and his hon. Friends and a great many motorists are wrong in their belief that three-lane roads are inherently dangerous. The Road Research Laboratory recently carried out a study which revealed that the number of accidents is not unduly high and that only 2½ per cent. of the accidents involved vehicles overtaking and travelling in opposite directions.

Is the Minister aware that sometimes his Ministry builds new roads for three lines of traffic and then, a few years later, decides that a mistake has been made and widens the road, at great expense, into a double roadway? Is he aware that the Gatwick by-pass is an example and that it is the inability of the Government to estimate the amount of traffic which will use the roads that they build which in the end causes not only accidents but a great waste of money?

The right hon. Gentleman is wrongly informed. We have only 5½ miles of trunk road to be built over the next four years with a capacity for three lines of traffic.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to improve the road conditions from West Hartlepool via Greatham to the A.1.

We hope to issue grant later this year on a scheme for by-passing Greatham. When this is completed the A.689 link to the A.19 trunk road will be a reasonably good road.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. Surely we have been nibbling at the problem of communications to the A.1 via Greatham for a long time? Will he do all in his power to speed this up, otherwise we shall not get any industry into the area?

That is exactly what we are doing. We are speeding it up.

What does the hon. Gentleman mean when he says that work on the A.19, along with other links, will be commenced within the next five years? Does that mean one year, or two, or three years hence, or four and a half years hence? May we have some clear indication about how this work is proceeding? Has he any idea of the effect on the industrial development of the area?

I said that work would start on all sections within the next five years. The work on some sections will start earlier than five years.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will indicate the sources from which he obtained his information concerning the ownership of certain tax-free toll bridges.

In most cases from the highway authority for the road leading up to the bridge.

Whatever the source, it is not a very good one. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that of the five bridges and their ownership to which he referred in an Answer which he gave in April the information about two of them was incorrect? Is he aware that Swynford Bridge is not owned by the Earl of Abingdon, and Aldwark Bridge is not owned by the Yorkshire Farmers Ltd. It was sold two years ago? Can he take steps to see that his information is accurate in future; and, when he gets the information, will he let me know who are the owners of the bridges?

The hon. Member has not been wholly accurate in some of his remarks about toll bridges. I am bound to tell him that these private bridges have nothing to do with my statutory duties except in a most general sense, and therefore I could easily say to the hon. Gentleman or to any hon. Member that it is not my job and I am not providing the information. Because the hon. Gentleman is such a fair chaser of statistics, I thought that I would do my best to give him some information.

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

asked the Minister of Transport if he will take powers to require local authorities to provide adequate off-street parking facilities where these do not at present exist.

No, Sir. Though there is, in my opinion, an urgent need for greatly expanded off-street parking facilities in this country generally, local authorities will, I hope, take action on their own initiative and in their own interests and those of the motoring public.

Will my right hon. Friend keep this closely under consideration, because there is a tremendous lack of off-street parking facilities? If local authorities are not prepared to provide them, will he consider at a later stage taking powers to make sure that they do so?

We shall see where we get to at a later stage, but some local authorities have not yet planned for the future for car parks as they should. I intend to send out a planning bulletin on parking giving general instructions and guidance to local authorities, and we shall see where we go from there.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while it would be unfair to blame him for this problem of living with the motor car—and I should have nothing to do with that foolish suggestion—nevertheless it is of definite importance that in these days of pressure on local authorities the Government should have the courage to do something about compulsory powers of land purchase in order to find parking places off the roads which are overloaded with cars at the price of life and limb?

The powers are there if local authorities wish to use them. The point is that a county or county borough must decide how much parking space is available in relation to the other uses of land. County and district councils must decide how space is to be provided and controlled. There are adequate powers for that. The difficulty is to get some local authorities interested in the subject.

asked the Minister of Transport what percentage of the local authorities which in 1961 had decided to install parking meters have now decided to introduce instead other forms of parking control.

By the end of 1961, 13 local authorities had applied for designation orders, thereby showing a definite intention to install parking meters. All these have parking meters now.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that a certain number of authorities are departing from their original intention to install parking meters? Does not this show that these authorities are very far-sighted? Will my right hon. Friend, as a very far-sighted Minister, give encouragement to other forms of parking control?

I have tried to do my best to give encouragement to other forms of control. That is why we introduced, in the 1962 Act, provisions for discs if a local authority wished to take the initiative and bring forward a disc scheme. I am at present looking informally at one such scheme from Cheltenham. But each local area has its own special problems. In some cases, meters are necessary—in the heart of London, for example. In other, smaller, towns they may not be necessary. Each local authority should deal with its problems on their merits. I would inform my hon. Friend that in 1961 we had 8,000 parking meters in London. In 1963 the number went up to 15,000, in 1964 another 1,000 have been added and a further 2,900 are under consideration. It is, therefore, clear that in the centre of London people have not departed from the idea of parking meters.

asked the Minister of Transport how many metropolitan boroughs are now considering parking control by means of discs or traffic wardens.

As far as I know, only two metropolitan boroughs are considering the possibilities of parking control with discs. I am studying proposals which they have put to me informally. No formal proposals have been made.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the disc system makes far more economical use of available road space than does the meter system? Would he not also agree that by and large the proliferation of these hideous meters throughout a city pleases no one except the dog population?

I am not responsible for the dog population. It is very difficult in question and answer to discuss the merits of various restrictions upon cars in the streets, but I am certain that, while meters have some disadvantages, they have a great many advantages. They show clearly and accurately the passage of time and when a given period has expired. What is important is that they give rise to fewer offences. Paris has about 15 times the number of tickets issued in a comparable area of London—that is, 3 million a year as against 200,000. Parking meters allow for more flexible control and they have great merit. At the same time, I recognise that they have disadvantages. But on balance I think that they are the right thing for London.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now publish the proposed route of the Farnborough to Croydon link of the South Orbital Road, and of the South Orbital Road itself.

My right hon. Friend has already published the proposed route of the South Orbital Road from the Dartford Tunnel to the A.20 trunk road and will publish proposals for further sections of the road as the preparatory work is completed.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Minister wrote to me on 13th March to say that the investigations which were being carried out on his behalf by the Kent County Council on a number of alternative routes had already been completed and were under consideration by his Department? What, therefore, is the reason for this further three months' delay? Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate that until a decision is made, consideration of planning applications all along the alternative routes which might be selected must be deferred and that great anxiety will be caused to local residents along any one of the possible alternatives? In view of this, will the Minister consider publishing a map showing all the alternatives which are under consideration by the Department?

We appreciate the importance of avoiding unnecessary anxiety. That is why we must be satisfied that the best line has been chosen before the proposals are advertised. I cannot agree with the hon. Member that it would be wise to publish all the alternative suggestions which are put forward. That would merely multiply anxiety, in many cases quite needlessly.

asked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to lay before Parliament the new traffic signs regulations implementing the Worboys Report and to publish the Traffic Signs and Markings Manual.

asked the Minister of Transport what are the reasons for the delay in implementing his acceptance of the Report of the Worboys Committee.

My right hon. Friend said on 2nd March in reply to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger) that, because the necessary consultations with representative organisations were taking longer than expected, it was unlikely that the regulations to give effect to the recommendations of the Worboys Committee would be ready before September. Those recommendations were of a fundamental character and involve a change over to a completely new system of signs. Many of them too, were, of necessity, in broad terms which have to be developed to cover many points of detail. I cannot yet give a precise date for the laying of the regulations or the publication of the Manual, but work on both is proceeding as rapidly as possible.

Is it not humanly possible to hurry this up? Could not my right hon. Friend the Minister bring in a crash programme, because local authorities and the sign manufacturers are marking time? In the meantime no signs are being replaced.

No, Sir. A crash programme would be an unwise thing and, indeed, would lead to crashes of another kind. We are giving special authority for the erection of the new type of directional signs on new roads and where road improvements make this necessary. Other types of signs, though, cannot be introduced in advance of the release of widespread publicity as to their meaning. We are also giving consideration to permitting a go-ahead on the erection of directional signs on primary roads—that is, trunk roads and some Class I roads.

Is my hon. and gallant Friend quite satisfied that throughout the consideration of this matter enough has been done to achieve a large amount of uniformity, both in this country and with countries on the Continent, since so many of our motorists drive on the Continent now and so many Continental drivers come here?

I again emphasise that that was the purpose of the recommendations made by the Worboys Committee.

asked the Minister of Transport what reply he has made to the further representations received this year from the County Councils Association in regard to the improvement of lighting of trunk roads, and urging the introduction of legislation to enable highway authorities to provide street lighting on classified roads.

We have told the Association that we accept that some reform is needed. But the problem is a complicated one. Grants for street lighting cannot be considered apart from the review, which is now proceeding, of the financial relationship between central and local government. Moreover, any revision of the administrative structure, which dates back to the last century, would involve legislation which obviously could not be enacted by this Parliament. But my Department is preparing proposals for discussion with the local authority associations.

As lighting is a major contributor to road safety, could not my right hon. Friend look into this and allow perhaps a limited expansion of lighting in danger stretches? Does he not agree that, where adequate lighting has been erected, accidents have been reduced by 30 per cent.? These are figures from his own research officials.

I honestly think that this is a problem which ought not to be tackled in a piecemeal fashion, because one of the difficulties is to work out an objective test of the circumstances in which a high standard of lighting is needed, and such an exercise cannot be confined to trunk roads in isolation.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the causes of the accident which occurred at 11 p.m. on Monday 7th June at the junction of Bridge Street and Whitehall involving three persons, one of whom was killed;

With permission—

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to answer Questions Nos. 33 and 37 together, with my permission?

Mr. Speaker, I am always so anxious to oblige the hon. Gentleman that I will certainly do so. I will answer Questions Nos. 33 and 37 together.

I am pleased to hear that the cyclist was not killed. My information was that he was projected into the air to a sufficient height to kill most men when they returned again to earth. Can the Minister say whether the cyclist has now recovered from his injuries? Does the Minister realise that there is a great deal of concern about the number of accidents that have occurred at this corner, and also about the speed at which motor car drivers come down and go up Whitehall? Not only are road users and pedestrians gravely concerned about this matter, but those charged with the duty of controlling traffic speed are also concerned. Would not the Minister consider the suggestion that I made that he should take some special precautions with regard to this particular crossing?

I am afraid I cannot give any information about the health of the person who was injured. I think that the less I say about this the better, because I understand that court proceedings are at any rate being considered. In 1961 we took certain measures which reduced the number of accidents at this junction, which had been 50 in the preceding two years, to 25 in the last two years. So we have halved the number of accidents by the measures we have taken. The accidents that have occurred in the last two years have been mostly of the nose-to-tail collision type, which, unfortunately, are not uncommon at signals.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, if the House chooses to accept the recommendation of the Committee on Accommodation, this dangerous crossroads at Bridge Street will be removed altogether?

asked the Minister of Transport when he intends to authorise the length of the proposed Sale-Altrincham bypass from M.62 to Carrington Lane B.5166.

It is too early to say. The joint committee of local highway authorities in the South-East Lancashire and North-East Cheshire conurbation gave higher priority to other schemes in the area and did not include this bypass in their recommended programme of works up to 1972. The situation will be reassessed in the light of the more comprehensive transport survey which the local highway authorities are now carrying out.

Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the development of the oil terminal at Partington and of Petrochemicals at Carrington is causing very heavy tanker traffic through Urmston seeking to gain access to the M.62? Is he also aware that Urmston is a residential district and its roads are totally unsuited to this traffic? Therefore, will he give urgent consideration to an earlier start on this link, which would enable such traffic to reach M.62 quickly?

As I said, we will look at this again when we have the result of the forthcoming transport survey.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that access to Manchester from the south and to the south through the M.6, which is concerned with this road, has turned out differently from the forecasts of his advisers and that the trunk road into Manchester through Altrincham, Sale and Stretford is completely overburdened? Will he look at this problem again, because the forecasts have not been vindicated by the facts, as drivers are choosing the Manchester direction via Knutsford, rather than via Holmes Chapel?

These are some of the reasons for the further transport survey which is being carried out.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will expedite the construction of that part of the proposed M.4 motorway which will run from Liddington westwards to the Severn Bridge in view of the increased traffic congestion which will arise on Wiltshire roads as a result of the opening of the bridge.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now obtained from surveys all the information he requires to reach a conclusion on the line he will recommend for the M.4 motorway through Berkshire; and when he expects to make a detailed statement.

asked the Minister of Transport when he intends to publish the draft scheme for the remaining section of the London to South Wales motorway M.4; and when construction work will begin.

My right hon. Friend has now received the report of the consulting engineers who have surveyed the possible alternative routes between Maidenhead and the Gloucestershire boundary. It will take some time to study it and to consult the major local authorities and other interested parties. We do not expect to be able to publish a draft scheme before the autumn of this year at the earliest. It is unlikely that construction could begin for at least a further three years. We certainly wish to press on with this motorway and my right hon. Friend will consider whether it would be possible to give priority to the construction of the western section. But we cannot reach a decision on this point until we have completed our study of the report and the necessary consultations.

Will my hon. and gallant Friend reach a conclusion as quickly as he can in view of the fact that the Wiltshire authorities are agreed among themselves where the road should run?

We will certainly proceed as quickly as we can.

May I take it that the Ministry will resume consultations with the local authorities in Berkshire and Wiltshire, so far as that may be necessary, so that we may get a better meeting of minds than we have been able to achieve so far?

Yes, Sir. That is what we hope to achieve.

asked the Minister of Transport what reply he has sent to the National League of the Blind in reply to its letter dated 5th May regarding concessionary fares for the blind, the disabled and retirement pensioners.

We have sent the hon. Member a copy of the reply.

But is the hon. Gentleman aware that as it has taken so long to get this reply I have seen the letter, and that it is based on a completely invalid argument? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us do not accept the argument that this involves the principle of assisting people with concessions rather than with finance, which the Government propose doing, because this does not involve public funds in any way? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my Bill would not even allow the rate fund to make a contribution to this, so it cannot be argued that it would affect assessments of general grant? How can the Government argue that this involves some kind of public expenditure?

If the hon. Gentleman has already had the reply, I am surprised that he did not withdraw the Question. However, the hon. Gentleman's view on this matter is clearly different from that of the Government. As has been explained on many occasions, we believe in paying people in cash and not in kind so that old-age pensioners have freedom to use the money in their own way. We realise that freedom is a quality to which hon. Gentlemen opposite pay very little attention.

Will my hon. Friend point out to retirement pensioners who may be stimulated by Socialist agitation to ask for concessionary fares that the National Federation of Old-Age Pensioners, in its magazine "Pensioners' Voice", has come out firmly against ad hoc concessions of this kind?

I think that that puts the matter in its proper perspective. Old-age pensioners would much prefer to have cash than to be paid in kind.

Is it not a fact that some local authorities give this concession, and some of them are not necessarily Labour-controlled? In other words, the Minister is saying that they are wrong in principle. Is he aware that the majority of old-age pensioners have to go to the National Assistance Board to have their incomes supplemented, and the Board would not pay concessionary fares?

Old-age pensioners are very much better off today than they were when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that a large number of lorries of over 30 cwt. carrying capacity on the roads are mechanically unsound, he will now introduce legislation for all vehicles of such carrying capacity to be periodically examined.

I dealt with this problem in my speech on the Motion for the Adournment on 23rd June and at the moment I cannot say more.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his statement on that occasion was entirely unsatisfactory? How on earth can he, in all conscience, allow these heavy lorries to be on the road without a regular test, rather than a check-up as at present? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there are about 750,000 of these vehicles on the road, and that there are only 12 teams dealing with them? Why does he not have a test for these vehicles in the same way as he has a test for a much less vulnerable kind of machine which also does damage? Will he realise that the public will not stand for this kind of thing, and that something should be done very rapidly?

I am glad that the hon. Member read what I said in the Adjournment debate. I still think that he is exaggerating. The safety record of these vehicles is better than that of any other class, and that is the important thing. However, this summer my right hon. Friend is stepping up the checks on these vehicles on the roads, and having a blitz on them in certain areas.

Is it not understandable that the owners of commercial vehicles are reluctant to bring their fleets up to date when they run the risk of having them nationalised, or put completely off the road, with no compensation, if the Labour Party gets into office?

I certainly think that the policy of the party opposite—in so far as we know what it is—is responsible for undermining the excellent spirit of the road hauliers.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has always been assumed in this House that road safety was above party matters? Is it now being said that it does not matter what the community thinks and that it is fair for any section of it to put unsafe vehicles on the road? Is he aware that it is admitted that we have not got the inspectors to carry out these checks? In one year only 12½ per cent. of these vehicles can be checked, which means that it will take over eight years for them all to be checked. What about increasing the number of inspectors?

The hon. Member keeps forgetting that the safety record of these vehicles is better than that of any other class. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend is not content to rest there, and is instituting these special spot checks this summer, in the hope of even further improving the safety record of these vehicles.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will arrange for comprehensive data and expert assessments of every serious road accident to be collated and studied by a special branch of his Department, with a view to obtaining more accurate information as to the pattern and main and contributory causes of deaths and serious injuries on the roads.

Detailed reports of the circumstances of every accident causing death or serious injury are supplied by the police. Other inquiries into particular features of accidents are carried out by various agencies. All this information is already studied by those concerned with road safety both in my Department and the Road Research Laboratory; but my Department is undertaking a review of the present machinery to see how effort in this field can best be deployed.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but does not he agree that the more advances we make in pinpointing the exact causes of accidents the greater chance there is of reducing the high level of death and serious injury on the roads? Does not he get the impression that there is a great danger that unless there is evidence for a clear-cut prosecution, or an inquest is involved, in the end there tends to be a haphazard method of gathering evidence, and that this does not come through to his Department as it should?

That is why we set up the inquiry within my Department. This will involve a lot of complicated organisational and statistical problems, but I hope that we shall get somewhere with our review. Most accidents result from a number of causes acting simultaneously, and are rarely due to one cause, but if we examine a number of accidents it may be possible to establish some factor which is common to them all, and we can take remedial measures in respect of it.

Is the Minister aware that a young woman in my constituency recently lost her life because of an accident which involved a lorry which was overloaded, had inefficient brakes and was badly driven, and that as a result the driver was fined a derisory sum? Why should this lorry not have been examined during the previous 12 months by his examiner? On the basis of the statistics with which the Minister has been kind enough to furnish me, I understand that it would be eight years, on average, before the lorry would be examined. Why should lorries escape examination in this way when private cars, once they have reached five years of age, have to be examined every year? Is the Minister aware that this is a growing scandal, and that there is considerable anger about the way in which some of these heavy lorries are maintained on the roads? I ask the Minister to divert some of his enthusiasm and energy into building up a proper inspection staff.

That is exactly what we are doing with these heavy vehicles. We are stepping up this summer our on-the-spot road inspections in all my divisional road engineers' areas. In addition, we are discussing with the manufacturers all sorts of ideas, including the question of power-to-weight ratio, so that they will be able to build to a better specification in the future. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have taken quite a number of steps.

What progress is being made in ensuring that the police always give full reports of serious accidents to the local road engineers who are responsible for the relevant stretch of road? In many cases in the past these engineers have not received proper reports.

Investigation into certain aspects of road accidents is carried out by a number of agencies. The Road Research Laboratory carries out some, and so do my own vehicle examiners, local authority highway engineers and my Ministry's road engineers. We have area road safety units in Hampshire and Warwickshire, and these units are experimenting with new methods of collecting accident statistics and studying the whole problem. If we require assistance from the police we find that they are always willing to give it.

Does the additional information in this survey include the requirement to supply to the courts the date upon which the person concerned obtained a driving licence, and for how long he has driven? Is the Minister aware that magistrates dealing with these cases—and I am one—are handicapped because they have no knowledge of the length of time a person has been driving, and that that can have a great effect on the cause of accidents?

We are reviewing this. It will be some time before it is finalised. We will certainly take the hon. Lady's point into account in our review.

Is the Minister setting himself a programme to ensure that these heavy lorries are examined at least on the same basis as private cars so that there will come a time—we hope in the near future—when we shall know that every lorry on the road has been examined within a reasonable period?

I did not say so. I said that at the present time we have checks which take place on the roadside for the testing of brakes and other things, and I am stepping these up. At the same time, we are looking after the new vehicles; and when it becomes necessary to have other tests, we shall look into that, too.

asked the Minister of Transport whether the recent experiment with yellow box crossings has resulted in speeding the flow of traffic in the West End of London.

Preliminary reports indicate that the boxes have been helpful, with best results at the busier junctions.

Would it be possible, by rewriting the Highway Code, to make this the general procedure at crossings?

Before doing that we must see whether these experiments turn out to be as successful as they look like being.

Can my hon. Friend say how many prosecutions there have been since this experiment was inaugurated?

I regret that I cannot give those figures without notice.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now propose legislation to make the fitting of seat belts in all new cars compulsory.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) on 24th June.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that all the evidence goes to show that when safety belts are worn the effect of accidents is very much less severe than when they are not worn? Does he not agree that in the end we shall have to come to some system like this? Would it not be a good idea to see that at least all new cars are fitted with safety belts?

My hon. Friend is perfectly right when he says that the effect of accidents is reduced very substantially by the use of seat belts, but the first thing to do is to wait until the British Standards Institute has prepared a specification for anchorage points, because until this is done—and my right hon. Friend expects to hear very shortly from the Institute—there would be no purpose in doing what my hon. Friend suggests.

How long is it since the request went to the British Standards Institute to produce a design of this sort? Is it not some years ago that the Minister asked the Institute to design some anchorage the mechanism of which would be really effective?

It is a very difficult matter, as I am sure the right hon. Member appreciates, to get an anchorage point suitable for all types of motor cars, but my right hon. Friend is expecting to hear from the Institute within the next month.

To help the motorist appreciate the effect of safety belts, will the Minister when issuing statistics of fatal accidents state those in which safety belts were not used?

That is certainly something which my right hon. Friend will consider.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce legislation amending the Road Traffic Act, 1960, to permit car owners who take passengers to work by car on an expense-sharing basis, to do so without having to obtain a licence as a public service vehicle.

No, Sir. We have no present evidence to justify such a measure. But in connection with rural transport problems this idea, along with others, will no doubt be looked at by the local rural transport inquiries now in progress.

Is not that a rather astonishing Answer? The hon. Gentleman must know that there are many people who take their neighbours to work on a paying basis. Is not this both good-neighbourly and commonsense? Is it not absurd that in so helping their neighbours they should be in fact breaking the law? Should not this be altered?

I do not know that that is necessarily true. The purpose of the law is to safeguard the bus services. If the practice to which the hon. Member has referred grew, it might endanger the bus service; which is required for those people who have not got private cars, and who have to rely on public transport.

Is there not an insurance problem here, because anyone taking a passenger in his motor car as an act of courtesy is in difficulty with the insurance company should there be an accident?

My hon. Friend is perfectly right. There are insurance difficulties, but I was going to the heart of the matter in my answer to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt).

The Minister must be aware that there are many new firms which have started on the peripheries of towns where the bus services are quite inadequate to take workpeople from an area all around the works. Many of those people can get to work only by private transport.

asked the Minister of Transport what action he intends to take to see that there are adequate bus services in all industrial areas and in cases where railway lines or stations have been closed.

After my right hon. Friend has decided that extra buses are needed following a rail passenger closure, he makes it a condition of his consent that they must be provided when it takes place. In regard to bus services in industrial areas generally, I should be happy to look into any particular cases which the hon. Member likes to bring to my attention.

Is that good enough? Does the Minister agree that in areas where we are catering for the export trade it is necessary to have the maximum efficiency? If so, should not that also apply to the transport service for the workpeople?

The hon. Member has stated something with which, in general, I am in perfect agreement. If he will give particular instances where that is not happening I shall be delighted to look into them.

People come from all parts of the country to seaside resorts. How can we arrange to provide buses to transport people from all over the country, thousands of them, to a seaside resort if the railway station there is closed?

This question refers to industrial areas, but I am willing to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland). The answer is that the buses run from the nearest railway terminus wherever that may be.

When the Minister makes his final decision in favour of a closure there should be adequate bus services. If a bus company, because of a loss on those services, is not renewing its licences, what steps does the Minister take to ensure that the Railways Board continues to run a road service to cater for those needs? According to the Minister himself, it is the job of the Railways Board when the need is proved to provide a service.

I thought that the hon. Member would know that my right hon. Friend lays it down as a condition that when a railway service is withdrawn a bus service should be supplied in its place. The railways cannot remove that bus service without getting my right hon. Friend's permission.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the desirability of providing more rapid and efficient transport services between London and Gatwick Airports, he will study the possibility of a monorail service for the purpose.

My right hon. Friend is ready to consider, in so far as his Departmental responsibilities are involved, any proposals for monorail services that may be put to him in sufficient detail.

Why is not the Minister prepared to consider the matter without having it put to him? Is he not aware that the monorail would really provide an answer to the appalling delays and difficulties which are experienced by people who are transported to and from Gatwick to London Airport? Will the Minister consider some kind of research in his own Department? Why wait for others? The monorail is being used elsewhere. Why cannot it be used here?

The monorail is being used elsewhere hardly at all. There is, I think, one monorail in the world, which has been in service for a great many years. In any event, our information is that there is nothing like enough traffic between these two airports to justify this form of transport.

asked the Minister of Transport how many C licence holders are now registered; and in respect of how many vehicles in all they hold licences.

The latest available figures show that at 31st December, 1962, there were 569,000 C licence holders in respect of 1,226,000 vehicles.

Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that many of these 500,000 and more are men with small businesses who depend for their livelihood upon C licences? Will he approach the future of C licences with no preconceived ideas and approach the result of the Geddes Report in the same way and not buoy it up with any doctrinaire ideas of bolstering up the nationalised lorries, like the party opposite?

As my hon. Friend has indicated, this is a matter on which the Geddes Committee may well make a recommendation. As to the matter being determined by doctrinaire views, I can only say that the licence holders will have an opportunity of protecting themselves against this later in the year.

Is the Minister able to say how many C licence holders are doing A and B licence work?

I should imagine, very few indeed. We think that there are very few breaches of that part of the regulations.

The Minister should find out more about it.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he authorised a journey along the A.4 of a prefabricated cylinder having an overall length of over 120 feet which passed through Chippenham on its market day, Friday 29th May, causing widespread congestion and inconvenience.

I approved the journey. The date and timing were matters for the haulier and the police.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this gigantic load caused havoc in Chippenham? Will he ensure that in future these very heavy loads go by sea?

The difficulty in this case was that the journey by sea was expensive and, if the load had gone by sea, it is likely that a manufacturer in another country would have got the order and not this particular manufacturer.

Is the Minister aware that traffic conditions in Wiltshire will get steadily worse until he gets on with building the M.4 and stops closing local railway lines? In view of the congestion, will he veto the suggestion of the Railways Board to close intermediate stations between Swindon and Gloucester, particularly in view of the recently published South-East Study, under which it is planned to expand Swindon to a town of 250,000?

I shall not go into the merits of any individual closure until the proposal has been examined in great detail. Rail closures do not affect this case, because this load could not have gone by rail anyhow; it was too large.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the position concerning the Channel Tunnel as at the end of June; and what arrangements have been made about financing the geological study.

With permission, I should like to answer this Question at the end of Questions.

asked the Minister of Transport how many main line stations have car-parking facilities provided by the Railways Board; and how many new car parks of this type have been provided in the past five years.

The Railways Board tells us that 784 of the main line stations have car parks provided by British Railways; 27,075 parking spaces are available at these. Thirty-two of these parks, providing 1,428 parking spaces, were established within the five years up to April, 1964. During the same period existing car parks at about 130 stations, including main line stations, were enlarged, providing accommodation for some 4,800 cars.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this considerable improvement which he records seems to have missed out both the West Riding of Yorkshire and the London stations serving it? Will he point out to the Railways Board that nothing would do more to bring back traffic to the railways than adequate parking facilities at main line stations?

As I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates, this is a management matter for the Railways Board. But I have no doubt that it will pay attention to what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will issue a general direction, in the public interest, to the British Railways Board to provide adequate car parking facilities next to all major railway stations.

No, Sir. It is for the Board to decide, as a matter of management, where car parks might be provided and whether provision would be justified. I have no reason to doubt that the Board is giving due attention to this matter.

Will my right hon. Friend himself impress upon the Board the tremendous importance of this provision, if he does not think it right to give a general direction?

I know that the Board is aware of the problem. In certain places in the last five years it has provided an extra 56 parks, dealing with several thousand motor cars. Where this is possible the Board will do it. But I believe that it is a matter for each local authority to try to decide the extent and distribution of car parks in its area. It is better to deal with an area as a whole and to co-ordinate it with the Railways Board.

asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the proposed experiment of moving August Bank Holiday, if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the British Railways Board to give consideration to the provision of public transport facilities on the first and last Mondays in August 1965 and 1966.

No, Sir. I have no doubt that British Railways will do all that is necessary about providing the services for which they are responsible.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that assurance. Will he bear in mind that at a number of resorts, such as Blackpool, holidays generally will have been taken before August, and it seems likely that people will continue to take the traditional holiday which will include the first Monday in August?

It is not for me to bear that in mind but for the Railways Board. It is a question of management. It will estimate the number of trains required for a particular date and during the revised August Bank Holiday supply the correct number of trains to meet the demand.

asked the Minister of Transport in view of the errors, details of which have been sent to him, made in the figures produced by the British Railways Board with regard to the proposal to close the Elgin-Lossiemouth line, if he will reconsider his agreement to the closure.

My right hon. Friend has received no such details and he sees no need to review his decision.

Will the Minister get in touch with the Postmaster-General to find out what is wrong with the postal service? Is he aware that I posted the letter to him and it is very important that he should understand these figures which affect large areas of Aberdeenshire, the City of Aberdeen and trade, industry, commerce and employment in that area? Will he get in touch with his fellow Ministers with a view to rectifying this shocking failure on the part of his Ministry?

I object to the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that. There has been no shocking failure on the part of my right hon. Friend or myself. Nor can I see how what happens to the railway between Elgin and Lossiemouth can have any effect at all on the City of Aberdeen.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the Railways Board to prevent disused railway lines from becoming unsightly and overgrown with weeds.

No, Sir. The Railways Board is subject to the normal legislation governing owners of vacant land.

While not asking my right hon. Friend to convert these tracks into rhododendron glades or anything like that, may I ask if nothing can be done in this respect because the state of many of the railways tracks makes a nonsense of the notice "Keep Britain Tidy" and encourages litter louts, which is something we all deplore? Can nothing be done to encourage the Board to take this matter more seriously and to prevent weeds growing and buildings continuing to decay?

Local authorities have adequate powers to deal with nuisance on vacant land which is injurious both to health and amenity. I do not see why railway vacant land should be dealt with differently from other vacant land. I hope that what my hon. Friend has said will be noted by the local authorities.

asked the Minister of Transport what applications for capital investment have now been made to him for the modernisation of Stoke-on-Trent station; for what other stations of the North Staffordshire railway line similar applications have been made; and what information he has been given about expected completion dates.

The British Railways Board has not put to me specific proposals for capital investment at stations on this line. But I understand that, within the Board's general investment programmes, improvements have been carried out at a number of stations, and others are planned for completion between now and the end of 1965. The works proposed at Stoke station will be completed during 1965.

Does that also include the electrification of the line between Stoke and Crewe? Is the Minister aware that those of us who have worked on electrical equipment to be supplied all over the world are now getting satisfaction that, thanks to nationalisation, Britain's railways are being electrified and brought up to the maximum efficiency?

I would not go the whole way in agreeing with the hon. Member's supplementary question. There is a lot of work connected with electrification, the lengthening of platforms, track remodelling, relighting, signalling works, and so on, costing about £1¾ million; and there is no doubt that quite a sum of money is being spent in this area.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) what information he has obtained regarding the reduction in the past 12 months in the level of subsidies, direct and indirect, paid to foreign shipbuilders by their respective Governments;

There have been no significant changes in subsidies paid in major shipbuilding countries in the past 12 months.

Is my right hon. Friend aware how welcome the Shipbuilding Credit Act has been in assisting the shipbuilding industry to meet unfair competition from abroad? Will he reconsider his decision not to extend this credit further, in view of the continuance of subsidisation abroad and the difficulties that this is bound to create in the future for our shipbuilding industry?

No, Sir. There will be no extension of that Measure. It was brought in as a once-for-all Measure, in order to give the shipbuilding industry a breathing space in which to reorganise itself and become competitive. That I hope it is doing. I know that it is considering a number of measures which, so far, it has not announced.

Is not the position today much more favourable with regard to orders placed with United Kingdom shipyards?

Yes. There has been a great improvement not only as a result of the Act but because of other circumstances. Our yards received a large number of orders in the early part of this year.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the need for more dry and floating docks in Aberdeen harbour for the purposes of the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry, and that this was considered by the working party set up by Her Majesty's Government, which recommended that Her Majesty's Government should provide finance to provide more such docks; when finance will be forthcoming; and when work will begin.

I am aware that a working party was convened in 1960 to consider this matter. But it was convened by the Aberdeen Harbour Board, not by the Government, and it recommended the replacement of two pontoon docks for which the Board is responsible. The Board has not submitted to the Government any request for financial assistance for replacement of these docks.

Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that this is a longstanding obligation upon the Government and that the last two sentences of my Question ask when the finance will be forthcoming and when the work will begin? That is the essential part of the Question. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer it? This is a matter which vitally affects the trade, industry, commerce and employment, not only of the City of Aberdeen, but also of the workers in the county, as well.

It is not for me to answer the Question. It is for the Aberdeen Harbour Board, whose responsibility it is to take the initiative in this matter. The Board is empowered, if it wishes, to borrow for these purposes. It also lies with the Board, if it wishes, to apply to the Government, but it has not done so.