asked the Minister of Transport on how many Railways Board proposals for the closing of lines, which have come to him from the Transport Users' Consultative Committees, he has now reached a decision.

asked the Minister of Transport how many closure proposals made to him by the Railways Board he has refused to allow to proceed in accordance with his recent statement.

I have refused my consent to four proposals (including one station proposal) on which Transport Users Consultative Committees have reported on hardship, and I have given my consent to four others. I have not so far asked the Board to defer publication of any proposals.

Will the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to speed up these decisions? Does he know that this type of uncertainty is very inconvenient for members of the public and for the Railways Board, which has to plan ahead whatever the decision is in each case?

Yes, I will speed up the decisions in these matters. We changed the procedure soon after the change of Government, and inevitably there was some initial delay, but I would like the procedure to be speeded.

The right hon. Gentleman said that so far he has not asked the Railways Board to defer any closures. Can he tell the House how he is to determine whether to ask the Board to defer such action?

I thought that I had explained this at great length on earlier occasions.

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has. As far as I can see, he is to make up his mind without knowing whether any hardship is involved. He can discover whether hardship is involved only by taking it through the T.U.C.C.s., so that he will make up his mind without knowing all the facts.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's Answer mean that he is allowing the procedure laid down by his predecessor to take its course and that in implementing the policy he will be doing so without significant change?

No. I said on 4th November that, apart from these proposals, which I asked the Board to defer under the earlier procedure, the normal procedure would be gone through. I made this absolutely clear. From the announcement I made on my decisions, the House will already be aware that there is some difference between the test I apply and that applied by my predecessor.

Will the right hon. Gentleman recall that, according to an Answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) recently, there are no fewer than 69 outstanding proposals before him which have been through the T.U.C.C.s and that at the present rate it will take him more than two years to deal with these? Will he try to expedite these matters?

It will not take me more than two years to deal with them. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that it took a very long time after the T.U.C.C.s had reported to his right hon. Friend, my predecessor, before his right hon. Friend was able to reach a decision.

Two months.

It took very much longer. It is desirable, and I think the wish of the House, that I give these matters due consideration and have appropriate consultation, where need be, with the Railways Board.

asked the Minister of Transport on what date he received the letter, dated 18th November, 1964, from the National Council on Inland Transport, asking him to vary the closure date of railways in and near the city and county of Aberdeen; and what reply he has sent to it.

If my hon. and learned Friend is referring to the circular letter he forwarded to my right hon. Friend, it was received on 20th November. The letter asked him to make representations to my right hon. Friend about the adequacy of the alternative services on the Aberdeen to Inverurie line, and about the retention of the tracks. We have explained to the hon. Member that the track will be retained for through passenger services, and that if there is any concrete evidence of the inadequacy of the alternative services we should be glad to see it.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the matter referred to in the Question is of very great importance to a wide area in which there is a great variety of industries, of which the city of Aberdeen is the centre? Will he pay close attention to the matter in order to prevent the unemployment which will ensue if communications are not adequate to the industries concerned?

We appreciate the problems referred to by my hon. and learned Friend. I can only say that if he will supply us with concrete evidence about the inadequacy of the services which have been substituted for the railways we will certainly examine it, and if it involves varying the conditions that were attached, my right hon. Friend is prepared to do that.

asked the Minister of Transport what formal proposals he has received about the Gloucester-Chalford rail car; and whether he will make a statement.

None, Sir. But I have received suggestions from two local authorities for improved bus services. I have told them that on present evidence the existing services appear adequate, but that I am willing to consider practical proposals for improving connections between services.

Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that the bus services are hopelessly inadequate for replacing this rail car? Will he understand the hardship being inflicted on members of my constituency and realise that the pronouncement he has just made makes the Labour Party's pledges during the election campaign in my constituency look extremely dishonest?

I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 5th January to explain the position, and I let him have a copy of a letter which my Ministry sent to one of the urban district councils setting out all the circumstances of the case. It is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to say that the existing bus services are hopelessly inadequate when he has failed to respond to my request of 5th January to give me evidence of that.

rose—

rose—

Order. There is so much noise that no one has been called. Mr. Powell, Question No. 3.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer Questions Nos. 3, 4 and 36.

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

It is too late, I am afraid.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the progress being made in the provision of liner trains.

I understand that negotiations between the Railways Board and the National Union of Railwaymen are still going on. In view of my assurance on 23rd December, that I would try to help if the parties so wished, I intend to take the opportunity of forthcoming general talks with the Union to discuss the liner trains problem.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House some assurance that his Department appreciates that this is one of the key frontiers in the application of technology to transport; that in the use of this device lies possibly the most hopeful solution to the problem of the docks, and that the country must increasingly base political judgments on the actions of trade unions rather than on proclamations of Ministers?

I am not going to use this occasion to make any attack on trade unions or on anybody else. I will just remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that I said on 23rd December how much importance I attached to the introduction of liner trains, and it is in the fulfilment of the promise which I then made that I am hoping to include this matter in the talks I am about to have with the National Union of Railwaymen.

Would the right hon. Gentleman bring to the attention of the trade union leaders the fact, which those of us who have had experience of the bulk movement of coal by complete trainloads know reinforces the point mentioned by my hon. Friend, that this is in practice one of the most important ways of increasing the productivity of the railways?

I think the right hon. Gentleman would wish to leave to me the way in which I put my case to the N.U.R

asked the Minister of Transport if he will remove the restrictions imposed by his predecessor which prevent British Railways workshops from competing for outside engineering contracts

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to introduce the necessary legislation to enable British Railways workshops to manufacture for export

I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) on 23rd December

While thanking my right hon. Friend for the steps that he has already taken, may I remind him—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—may I ask him and remind him that we were very glad to use the railway workshops in wartime and should we not now make fuller use of them in peacetime to help the finances of the railways?

Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend appreciates, I have removed certain restrictions from the Railways Board workshops, and I am looking into all aspects of legislation affecting the manufacturing powers of the nationalised transport undertakings as a whole and not just how far any action that I might take would affect exporting manufacturers.

While appreciating what my right hon. Friend has said with regard to removing restrictions, may I ask whether he can tell us a little more about the potentialities of exporting from British Railways workshops, and whether it is his intention in the immediate future to amend the present legislation to allow British Railways workshops to participate in the export drive?

As my hon. Friend appreciates, to give the railway workshops the power that he would like them to have would require legislation. There is no legislation on this matter before the House at the present time. We have a congested legislative programme, so I would not like to hold out the hope that there will be early legislation on the matter.

The Minister said that he would be considering this matter. In his consideration, will he remember that the job of the Railways Board is primarily transport and not manufacture? It seems to me that in transport we have a big enough job to do. Will he bear that in mind rather than add another activity which is well carried out by private industry?

I also realise that it is very bad for nationalised industries to have imposed on them restrictions which are not imposed on private industries.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will issue a general direction, in the public interest, to the British Railways Board to keep all passenger platforms free of ice during the present wintry weather.

No, Sir.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the cutting from the Wolverhampton Express and Star, which I have sent to the Front Bench, describing an accident sustained by one of his hon. Friends resulting from a fall on an icy platform, an accident which brought that hon. Member within a few inches of very serious injury? Does he not agree that this is a hazard to which country platforms are essentially susceptible? [Interruption.] I find it difficult to make my point to my right hon. Friend.

Order. Let the hon. Lady be heard describing the accident.

Does my right hon. Friend not think, therefore, that he should reconsider his Answer and request the British Railways Board to take steps to see that icy platforms are made free from ice by the application of sand, gravel or some such substance?

I was sorry to learn that my hon. Friend was the victim of an accident on an icy platform. I hope very much that she is fully recovered. She asks me to give a general directive to the Board. I understand that the Board already has regulations dealing with this matter and that it is the responsibility of station masters to see that icy platforms are rendered as safe as they can be by the application of sand, gravel, ashes or other substances. I understand that, generally speaking, this is done. On the odd occasion when this has not been done adequately I think my hon. Friend would agree that that would not, by itself, justify my giving the Board a general direction.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) when he expects to make regulations prescribing load limits to be displayed on commercial vehicles;

asked the Minister of Transport what further steps he proposes to take to deal with the danger to road users caused by defective heavy goods vehicles.

I have asked for the comments of interested organisations on comprehensive proposals for the annual testing of heavy goods vehicles and for the plating of all goods vehicles to indicate the maximum gross weight at which any individual vehicle may safely operate. I intend to press on with these proposals as quickly as possible.

While I am glad to learn that the right hon. Gentleman attaches great importance to improving the Construction and Use Regulations, may I, in regard to the question of annual testing, ask if he can deal with this separately and in advance of any general reissue of the Regulations? This is a matter which is generally recognised to be of great importance. It has been under consideration for at least six months and I hope that he can bring it to an early conclusion.

I am pressing on with this matter. I am in touch with the interested organisations. It is right, I think, that I should take the views of the operators, the manufacturers and the unions before I reach conclusions on these matters. I think I should tell the right hon. Gentleman, however, that I am informed that the introduction of annual testing would require some amending legislation.

After the inquiry is made, could the right hon. Gentleman say how far it would be possible to have some of these very heavy loads taken off the roads and put on the rails?

This is one of the matters, I am sure, to which a great deal of consideration will have to be given in the co-ordination study I have under review.

The Minister says he is pressing on with the question of testing as quickly as possible. Could he give the House some indication of when he hopes to make some decision about it? If it does require legislation, will he assure the House that the legislation will come pretty soon after he has arrived at his decision, because there is urgent necessity for this? He will know from the spot checks and inspections which take place in various parts of the country how essential it is that heavy goods vehicles should be kept in a roadworthy state.

My information is that the spot checks, which are continuing, have had a very good result. Work has already started to provide facilities for experimental testing of heavy goods vehicles in the Ministry's own depot at Hendon, but there are still many detailed problems to be solved and I cannot at present say when it will be possible to bring a comprehensive scheme into effect.

asked the Minister of Transport what further steps he will take to help rural bus operators in their present financial difficulties.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 16th November to my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan). Rural bus operators will share in the relief from the recent fuel tax increase announced in my reply of 25th November to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).

Does the Minister realise that this is a very real problem in the countryside? Costs have increased so much that many small bus operators are going out of business. What they want is some real help now. This is an urgent problem, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the matter again in order to see what he can do to help these bus operators.

This is quite a serious matter. It was known to be a serious matter when the Jack Committee was set up, and that Committee reported upon the matter more than three years ago, in 1961. Since then, neither the previous Government nor this one have been able to find a solution, but my predecessor instituted local inquiries in England and Wales last year. These are going on and experiments are being tried, and I am hoping to have the results of those experiments in two or three months at the most, so that I can see whether there is anything further that the Government can properly do to help to maintain an adequate public transport service in rural areas.

When does the Minister expect to take the steps necessary to implement his undertaking concerning the increased fuel duty? It is really unsatisfactory that this undertaking should remain on the record for week after week without the necessary legislative authority being given.

I do not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman. We made our promise to the stage coach operators at once, the discussions were entered into at once, and those discussions are going on. I understand that the operators themselves are satisfied with the discussions as they are going on, and when they are brought to a conclusion it will be for the Government to bring forward the necessary measure to put this undertaking into effect. Quite clearly, the bus operators expect us to complete our discussions or negotiations with them before we take our next step.

I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to do it at an early date.

When my right hon. Friend is considering this question, in considering the degree of assistance which can be given, will he ensure that some of this assistance will be used to reduce the cost per mile of transport to users in the rural areas? Is he aware that in many instances the cost per mile to the user is far in excess of that in industrial towns and cities?

I am not sure that I can go all the way with my hon. Friend, because I have been answering a Question about the increased fuel duty from which the operators will be relieved. They cannot expect to receive this relief with a view to reducing fares because, after all, they are getting this relief to avoid having to put up their fares and to remain viable. If my hon. Friend is going back to earlier supplementary questions and to the Question on the Order Paper, I can tell him that our greatest concern is to ensure the continuation of a public transport service rather than that the fares of existing services should be reduced.

Will the Minister pay particular attention to the problem of rural bus operators as it affects the Clun Valley in my constituency, about which he will shortly be getting a letter from me? Will he also give special attention to the question whether he can influence local education authorities so that an intelligent and practical contribution can be made towards solving this problem by using school buses to help the local population?

In some areas school buses are being used to help in this matter. That is another aspect of the experiments which are being conducted in certain parts of the country. This may be a way in which we can help out in some areas.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce new regulations to control the movement of circus animals by road.

Under the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1963, it is an offence to use a vehicle for a purpose for which it is unsuitable or to carry a load which causes danger. Under the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, it is an offence to carry animals in such a manner as to cause them unnecessary suffering. We see therefore no need for new regulations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that just prior to Christmas five elephants on their way to Glasgow via the M6 were packed into one vehicle? Does he not realise that five elephants in one vehicle is a scandal? It led to serious trouble among the animals and also created danger for other road users. Will he look into the situation more closely, if he can?

I have seen a Press cutting giving details of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in animal welfare. I can only say that this is a matter for the Home Office and the police. Under the Protection of Animals Act the law is quite clear on the subject. This is a matter for police action.

In view of the hon. Gentleman's reply in which he said there was a need to remove suffering in this matter, may I ask how many Govern- ment cars are on the road and what has been the increase since October 1964?

Order. I do not think that it arises.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the presence in this country of 20 foreign diplomatic chauffeurs who enjoy comprehensive immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts by special bilateral arrangements between Her Majesty's Government and the four countries of which they are nationals; and if he will introduce legislation to safeguard the interests of British subjects concerned in road accidents in which vehicles driven by these chauffeurs may be involved.

Diplomatic missions are expected to insure the use of their vehicles against liabilities to third parties and insurance companies have undertaken not to rely on the privileged status of a diplomatic client in handling motor insurance claims. We are not aware of any case where this has not been done and we see no need for legislation.

Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary not appreciate that, with the best will in the world, accidents involving these chauffeurs are bound to take place sooner or later? As apparently he has been able to do nothing to help the British public, will he advise and press his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to take the very simple steps necessary to put the matter completely right?

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any evidence of genuine complaint on this score, I wish he would let us have it, because as far as we know all have the practice of taking out insurance policies and the insurance companies are meeting any claims. Therefore, as far as we see the situation, there is no need for further action.

asked the Minister of Transport what further steps he proposes to take to deal with the nuisance and danger to health caused by the emission of diesel fumes and smoke from road vehicles.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to the former Member for Leyton on 11th November.

No doubt the Minister has this matter very much at heart. Will he do his best to take some new steps in this very difficult matter and possibly seek to make regulations to seal the fuel pumps of these vehicles to prevent the wrongful burning of diesel oil?

We are working on a scheme to prevent overloading in the first place, which often results in excessive smoke being emitted. A British standard for diesel engines is being prepared which we hope will result in their being less prone to emit smoke. I am glad to see that my vehicle examiners report considerable activity on the part of operators to improve their vehicles.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make publicly known that it is the duty of the public, and that the machinery exists, to report such instances if they are seen? Will the right hon. Gentleman publish locally where such reports should be sent when these offences occur?

I should like to consider that suggestion.

Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that one of the most important defects occurs when a driver has been driving for far more than the permitted hours and is not in a fit condition to keep his eyes on the road and that this becomes dangerous to other drivers? Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the driver is in charge of a defective vehicle the danger is very much worse?

I take my right hon. Friend's point, but I think he will agree that he has taken me a good deal beyond the question of the emission of diesel fuels.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now give a higher priority to new roads and major road improvements in holiday areas, in view of the high earnings of foreign currency of the tourist industry.

A good deal that will be of value to these areas is already in the programme for the next few years. To do more could only be at the expense of important road schemes already in preparation. This would not be justified. For the subsequent programme, improvements in holiday areas will as hitherto be considered on their total merits.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that other countries which are trying to attract tourists make special provision and, indeed, build special roads? If we in this country are to take tourism seriously, we must provide the roads for the cars we attract.

I am also aware that some countries depend more on tourism than we do for their economic well-being. The House will be aware that I am constantly being pressed to divert some part of the road programme to assist in stepping up exports. I am being pressed from many quarters to adjust the programme which I inherited. The hon. Member will be aware that I am not at this time able to give holiday resorts priority over exports.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is not going to delay the road programme, because it is now known that the M.4 project will be delayed another year for further consideration and, as that is a road which serves both commercial traffic and holiday traffic to the West, it would be disastrous if it were delayed? Can he give an assurance to the House?

I am doing my best to avoid delay in the road programme all the time. I am constantly having my attention called to further considerations that I should examine on this and that plan and on this and that new line before going on with the job. What I have to do is to try to reconcile the criticism of those who say I ought not to get on with the job with that of those who say I am not getting on with the job quickly enough.

asked the Minister of Transport how much of the East Lancashire road A.580 will be dual carriageway when present contracts have been completed; and what proposals he has for further improvements.

All but one mile at Wardley Hall; and work on this will be starting later this year. Our immediate proposals include alterations to the main junctions and closure of some side roads. In the longer term dual three-lane carriageways will be provided with grade separation at some junctions.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he will now agree that the motorway link between Liverpool and the industrial regions of the North-West via the M.6 is now used almost to full capacity and that there is urgent need for a second motorway link between Liverpool and the M.6?

Let us get on with this improvement first. We recognise the importance of this road and the need to get a better traffic flow, and that is why we are hastening forward the measures I have just mentioned.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce a uniform system of priority for motor traffic at road junctions and roundabouts.

Experiments are being carried out at a number of roundabouts to determine whether incoming traffic should give way to traffic in the roundabout. These experiments are not yet concluded. There is no need for a basic priority rule at junctions other than roundabouts since minor roads are now to be distinguished from major by carriageway markings.

When considering this question, will the hon. Gentleman take a look at Continental experience, where it emerges pretty clearly that a uniform system of priority relieves doubts and anxieties at these crossroads? If he has tried to drive round Hyde Park Corner, he will be aware of the danger caused by the indecision of motorists not knowing whether to give way to cars on the right or left.

I appreciate that there is a good deal of evidence on this subject, but it is conflicting. This problem has been considered for many years, but un- fortunately it has not been possible up to now to resolve it. We hope that the experiments now being carried out with "give way" signs will enable us to come to a firm conclusion shortly.

Has my hon. Friend considered the point that if we gave absolute priority to this milling traffic at Hyde Park Corner nobody would ever get in at all?

asked the Minister of Transport if he will reconsider his decision not to install emergency telephones on the Langley-Maidenhead section of the M.4 motorway.

It has always been the intention to install emergency telephones on the whole Chiswick-Maidenhead Thicket section of M.4, and they are already being put in. They will be ready for use when the whole length is opened to traffic in the spring.

Will the hon. Gentleman look again at this question of emergency telephones on sections of M roads before the whole road is opened? Is it not pedantic not to install these telephones and bring them into use on sections which are already in use but to wait for the whole of a long stretch to be in use before that is done? They are urgently necessary.

Hitherto it has been the policy not to install this service on lengths of less than 20 miles, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that this policy is now under review and that we are considering the suggestion that he has made.

asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of raising street lighting on main traffic routes to a uniformly high standard.

Good lighting will be of some benefit on any main road. Whether a particular road should be lighted must depend on the funds available and on an assessment of the resulting benefit, especially the saving in accidents, and the comparable benefits which might be obtained from other forms of improvement. It is, therefore, impossible to say in absolute terms how many miles of road should be lighted or what the cost would be.

Does the Minister agree that immediate expenditure on better road lighting would be more beneficial to road safety than the hundreds of thousands of pounds now being spent purely on propaganda?

No; I do not accept that for a single moment.

You are wrong.

asked the Minister of Transport when he hopes to start improvement on the A.66 between Rokeby Bridge and Smallways; and if he will make a statement.

We have no plans for the improvement of this length of road in the next few years.

Will the hon. Gentleman say what he means by "the next few years"?

We hope that conditions on this road, which we recognise to be unsatisfactory in a number of ways, will be relieved by the further pushing forward of the M.6. Obviously, it will have to be reviewed from time to time during the next few years, but the condition of this road is not such as calls for urgent action or inclusion in the road programme now.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there were 23 accidents on this short stretch of road in two years? Surely that calls for some action?

I realise that there have been accidents. Although the accident record is serious, it is not above the national average. There are so many other cases which have a much higher priority that it is quite impossible to include the improvement of this road in the road programme at the present time. We recognise that something will have to be done after the immediate programme has been completed.

asked the Minister of Transport what is his policy with regard to the building of roundabouts at busy intersections.

Roundabouts are provided at busy intersections where the cost of a flyover or underpass is not justified by the volume of traffic. They are also incorporated in grade-separated junctions where turning movements are particularly heavy. Where grade separation is not immediately justified, but may be needed later, roundabouts are so designed that they can be converted without wasteful expenditure.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that roundabouts at busy intersections are becoming increasingly old-fashioned and are dangerous and delaying? Will not he discourage them in favour of underpasses and flyovers?

I do not accept all the implications or assertions in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. We recognise that underpasses and flyovers are much more desirable. The difficulty is that they are far more expensive—[HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"]—four or five to one in the majority of cases. At the moment, therefore, we cannot afford them. We hope that in future years we shall be able increasingly to have them.

Does the hon. Gentleman have any new proposals to indicate who has the right of way at a roundabout and so avoid confusion?

That was answered on an earlier Question when I indicated that the new "Give Way" signs are being used experimentally to enable us to draw conclusions about the establishment of a rule for priority at roundabouts.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in America they stopped building roundabouts several years ago? Is he aware that a lot of people think that a great deal of money is being wasted on them at the present time?

I am not at all sure that is the fact. I am informed that in many other countries they have roundabouts for the same reason that we have them, because they are much cheaper. Roundabouts are still being constructed.

asked the Minister of Transport, whether he will discourage the marking of roads in three lanes.

I have at present no evidence which would justify departing generally from three-lane marking on roads of the appropriate width. Where visibility is restricted, or there is a particular hazard, two-lane markings are substituted for three. We are also experimenting with offset double white lines to give alternate stretches of two lanes in one direction and one lane in the other.

Would the Minister agree that a very large proportion of fatal accidents occur on stretches of road where there are three-lane markings? Can he provide statistics about the number of fatal accidents on particular stretches of road?

It is a fact that the detailed study made by the Road Research Laboratory showed that the accident rate was not higher on those roads, but nonetheless the number of fatalities was higher. That is perfectly understandable Notwithstanding that, we have so many miles of three-lane carriageways in this country that we could not possibly reduce them to two-lane carriageways and still carry the traffic. Nor could we, in the short term, convert all the three-lane carriageways into dual carriageways with double two-lane carriageways. I think that is a desirable aim, but it is something that we shall not achieve overnight.

Does my right hon Friend recognise that there is great concern and a growing volume of opinion against the continuation and the renewing of three-lane carriageways? Is not my right hon. Friend himself convinced, as he drives a car a great deal himself, that one feels much safer on a two-lane carriageway rather than a three-lane one, despite the extra width?

In the past I have frequently complained about certain three- lane highways where I thought the accident rate was extremely high. In the next few years we shall convert a great many three-lane highways into dual carriageways with two lanes in each direction, but it would be wrong of me to hold out any hope that at a very early date we shall get rid of three-lane carriageways everywhere. The three-lane carriageways are normally wider than the two-lane ones and they carry very much more traffic. We could not justifiably limit the traffic to be carried on these roads.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the public ownership of road transport.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will give an assurance that it is not his intention to take any further part of road transport into public ownership; and if he will make a statement.

I have no proposals to put before the House at present. I have, however, informed the Chairman of the Transport Holding Company that, subject to my normal control over investment and borrowing, their road haulage and passenger subsidiaries may regard themselves as free to expand their fleets, where they consider this to be advantageous in the normal course of business, by the freely negotiated acquisition of other undertakings as well as by the development of their existing fleets.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the news that there is to be a general extension of the nationalised road haulage industry will be regretted throughout the country? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Is he also aware that his failure to state clearly what is the Government's policy on this issue is causing a great deal of uncertainty in this industry, and will he quickly pronounce his full views on this subject?

I have no doubt at all that the hon. Gentleman thinks that private enterprise road haulage companies should be perfectly free to extend their enterprises as they will to meet the needs of their customers, but I cannot for the life of me see why the same freedom should not be afforded to the nationalised companies.

Is the Minister aware that in the National Opinion poll taken last week people were asked to choose the most important things to be done for the good of the country and the number answering "More nationalisation" amounted to only 3 per cent.?

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the threat to private road transport which is implicit in the policy and statements of the party opposite is doing grave damage by the uncertainty which it has caused, and that the Government are treating this industry exactly like the aircraft industry—causing uncertainty and doing nothing to remove it?

The right hon. Gentleman talks absolute nonsense. My duty is to do what I can to ensure that the essential needs of this country in relation to transport are met adequately. I do not see how I can properly discharge that duty by allowing quite unnecessary restrictions to remain on nationalised transport.

Then will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear undertaking that he will do nothing whatever to limit the possibility of expansion and freedom of operation to private road transport?

I have done nothing to limit private road transport.

asked the Minister of Transport what further consideration he has given to the banning of lorries from the fast track on the M.1; and whether he will bring in the necessary regulations.

We are taking a fresh look at this problem in consultation with the police.

Will the Government consider this matter quickly, since many of us feel that this question has been delayed for far too long and that the sensible thing would be to restrict heavy lorries from the fast lane?

We appreciate the problem, but one of the difficulties is that it does not affect only heavy lorries. Other slow-moving vehicles use the fast lane. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that last year a leaflet entitled Motorway Manners was issued by the Ministry of Transport giving guidance on the problem. The matter will be considered urgently by the Traffic Committee of the Chief Constables Conference, and when we have that Committee's advice we will consider it rapidly.

asked the Minister of Transport by what date he expects to conclude his discussions with the local authorities as to the precise line of the London-Crawley motorway, within the approximate limits published on 15th December, 1964.

This will depend on the issues which the local authorities wish to raise.

While thanking the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for that not very informative reply, may I ask him if he realises that the objectives of the Government in providing more houses and better development in the under-developed areas on the fringe of London are being frustrated until we get finality on this point? Does he not think it is about time that certain decisions were taken to enable catholic planned development to go ahead?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would wish us to assume dictatorial powers. I assume, therefore, that he considers that the local authorities have a right to be consulted in the matter. How rapidly they can give us their views and enter into consultation is a matter which depends on them. We are awaiting those consultations and we will give a decision as soon as we possibly can.

While appreciating that these consultations must be careful and detailed, can the Government not deal first with those questions the settlement of which would leave the local authorities free to undertake developments which are urgently required? Can they not establish an order of priorities in their consultations about these roads?

We are establishing such an order of priority and that is why we must make really rapid progress on this question.

asked the Minister of Transport if, in his discussions with the local authorities on the possible route of M.23, he will make it a condition that the proposed route will pass to the west of Croydon Airport so as not further to delay the development already approved for that site.

No, Sir. The route proposed does not, in fact, cross the Airport, but we cannot restrict the local authorities' freedom to express their views.

Does that Answer mean that the hon. Gentleman firmly intends that the line of this road will not cut through the airport, whatever the local authorities may say?

That is the proposal which we have put forward. We are awaiting the comments of the local authorities and, of course, we must consult them. It would be quite wrong on my part to say that the proposal which we have put forward is bound to be adopted, whatever the local authorities say. We enter into genuine consultations with them. As I say, at the moment there is no proposal for crossing the airport.

asked the Minister of Transport how many accidents occurred in each of the years 1962, 1963, and 1964 on the A.4 road between Maidenhead and the Wiltshire boundary, resulting in loss of life or serious injury.

One hundred and thirty, 139 and 171, respectively.

Would the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agree that these figures indicate that this stretch of road is exceptionally dangerous, and do they not emphasise the urgency of completing the M.4? If he does agree that this is so, will he persuade his right hon. Friend to expedite his decision on this road rather than delay it, as it has been reported he is proposing to do in the local Press?

I wish in a way that I could say that these figures indicate that this road is exceptionally dangerous. In fact, for this type of road the accident figures are rather below the national average. As the hon. Gentleman may know, schemes for improving the road, costing £389,000, are already in hand or are to be put in hand in the near future. My right hon. Friend has today referred to the M.4 and we will be getting on with this as soon as possible. We hope to make an announcement in a month or so.

While being appreciative of the improvements to which the hon. Gentleman referred, many of which I know at first hand, is it, nevertheless, not clear that this is a very dangerous stretch of a very much over-burdened road, and does this not add weight to the representations made to him that there should be an urgent decision about the M.4?

I agree that there have been serious black spots on this road. We have been trying to deal with them. We are not pretending that the situation is satisfactory and, of course, the long-term solution will be the construction of the M.4. As I said, we will be making an announcement about that very soon.

asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has for further financial assistance to Aberdeen Harbour Commissioners for building a ferry terminal for a North Sea ferry between Aberdeen and Scandinavia.

I have nothing to add to the Answer given to my hon. and learned Friend on 11th November.

Does the Minister realise that this is very important to the north of Scotland and that parts of this island have the advantages of communications with the Continent which are denied to Aberdeen? Will he take steps to see—I am not asking for a Channel tunnel from Aberdeen—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not? "]—that at least there will be a ferry service, which would he good for the trade and commerce and industry of the North?

My hon. and learned Friend can ask whatever he likes, but I understand that negotiations are going on between the Aberdeen Harbour Board and Scandinavian interests but that no firm plans have yet been made. When these negotiations are completed, it will be open to the Board to apply for a loan under the Harbours Act.

asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the congestion at some of the major ports and the consequent delays to exports, if he will improve communications to the area of King's Lynn, where good port facilities are available for industrialists.

I am not aware that communications to King's Lynn are a limitation on its use as a port. The Railways Board tells me that the railway could handle much more traffic. The roads to this area are being steadily improved to the extent compatible with the demands on the road programme of more heavily trafficked routes.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the tremendous congestion along the A.17 into King's Lynn? Will he be prepared to have a traffic accident loss or similar assessment carried out to help him to arrive at a reasonable priority for the construction of the trunk road section of the King's Lynn by-pass?

I would be prepared to look at that, but our present information is that these routes are not so heavily trafficked as those in many other areas to which we have to devote the present available funds. At the same time, there is evidence that more traffic could be transferred to the railways and be handled by them, and we would like that to be done, but I will have a look at the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while at the moment the railways may not be getting all the traffic they could, his Department is busy helping to close down the railways and, therefore, we will depend more heavily on the roads to the East Coast ports? At least six ports are involved. Should not the hon. Gentleman's Department pay more attention than it is doing to road improvements?

We are not closing down the railways. They could handle more traffic, and I hope that attention will be drawn to this fact, because it would give some relief to the roads if the railways were more fully utilised.

asked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take following his consultations with other Departments and with shipowners, port authorities and other port users about congestion in the docks.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to overcome the delays experienced by exporters at the London Docks.

Most ports are now free from congestion. The situation has improved at London and Liverpool, but still gives cause for concern. I am meeting the port authorities and port users next Monday to see whether anything more can be done in the short term to improve the situation.

While I am sure the House will be glad to know that there has been some improvement, especially in London, and while appreciating that there is a long-term problem, especially with regard to the London docks, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he appreciates that in the short term we must have better co-operation between management and men, and will he impress on everybody concerned that the present situation is not only increasing the cost of exports, but is severely demoralising many firms who are doing their best to export more goods but are finding that they cannot get their goods out of the country?

Many improvements have been made as a result of the work undertaken by the committee of officials under the chairmanship of the Permanent Secretary of my Department. The position has greatly improved. I spent a day at the London docks recently to see for myself. As I said, I am not satisfied with things as they are, and I believe that many more improvements have to be made, even in the short term. That is why I am going ahead with the meeting I have mentioned on Monday of next week.

As this is so important and there is so much public interest in this matter, will the Minister consider making a substantive statement as soon as possible on the results which his investigations have achieved hitherto and the conclusions at which he has arrived, even if the statement is of an interim nature?

I or some of my right hon. Friends will keep the House informed. As the right hon. Gentleman realises, the debate that we had just before Christmas was largely on matters which were more properly within the province of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, as was the preceding supplementary question. As I said on that occasion—and I say again—I do not try to duck questions because they are more properly questions for my right hon. Friend. In reply to this question, I say that on some of these matters it may be more proper for someone else to make a statement, but we will see that the House is kept informed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable and immediate scope for the diversion of traffic from London and Liverpool to other ports? The most modern docks in the country are in Middlesbrough, and there we have the only port in the country which works double shifts throughout the week and which worked at the weekend both over Christmas and the New Year, and yet these dock facilities are gross under-employed. Will my right hon. Friend consider taking up the conservatism of shippers and shipowners to make sure that traffic is diverted to where it can be expeditiously handled?

Some diversion of ships has taken place, but this is one of the matters which I shall be discussing with the authorities concerned at the meeting next Monday.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received the report of the National Ports Council relating to the Bristol Channel area.

No, Sir. But I expect it shortly.

Can the Minister give an assurance that when he does receive this report it will be published so that all those concerned will have an early opportunity of studying it?

The Council's report is a confidential report to the Government. I do not think anyone has ever suggested that it should be published, but when the Government's decision is made known information will be given about the Council's conclusions.

In the event of any jetty being built into the Bristol Channel, will the Minister ensure that adequate hydrographic tests are insisted upon in order to ensure the safety of navigation and also the régime of the south coast of the Bristol Channel?

If any such scheme goes ahead there will be a further opportunity for the hon. Member and others to make their views known.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) what study he has made of recent correspondence from the hon. Member for Barry regarding the consequences upon companies importing oil through Barry Docks of docks charges which are higher than elsewhere; and what applications for revision of limitations on port dues he has received from parties having a substantial interest in this matter;

The level of these charges is a management matter in which I cannot intervene. I have written to the hon. Member explaining the position in more detail.

In view of the many cases in recent years of delay due to congestion at particular ports, does not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary deem it rather absurd that shipping should be deterred from using the port of Barry—and, indeed, all the South Wales ports—by charges which are higher than at other ports belonging to the British Transport Docks Board?

I have no reason at all to believe that traffic is diverted from Barry because of higher charges there. I understand that no complaint has been made by users to the British Transport Docks Board about the charges at Barry; and if no complaint has been made to the Board and since no complaint has ever come to me—indeed, I did not know about any of this until the hon. Gentleman's Questions appeared on the Order Paper—I think the hon. Gentleman is stretching himself overmuch in attempting to make out a case with which to attack the Docks Board.