asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the development of the major railway trunk routes.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the British Railways Board's plans, outlined in Map No. 21 of Development of the Major Railway Trunk Routes, he will seek powers to control the development and selection of routes for future intensive use.

The Railways Board's Report on the Development of the Major Railway Trunk Routes has been put forward by the Board to enable its ideas to be subjected to constructive criticism. I do not envisage any need for further powers to control the Board's activities in this connection.

Is the Minister saying that he will approve anything that the Railways Board puts up? He has had the Report in his hands since February. Is he aware that these trunk routes, if adopted, will leave out in the cold some of the most important counties in England, including Dorset?

There is nothing in the Report about leaving out anything. It is made clear within the context of the Report that it is not a plan for action. It is a long forward look made by the Railways Board. There is no question of any action being taken on it in the immediate future.

Will the Minister reconsider the matter, because Map No. 21 proposes that the line linking the North-East Coast and Central Scotland is not to be developed? Is not this decision incompatible with the Government's policy for the economic development of the North-East? Will he bear in mind that his non-intervention in the matter could result in the deepest resentment in the North-East? Newcastle and Northumberland will not take lightly a decision to make them a railways cul-de-sac.

The Report was prepared by the Board on its own initiative. The Report does not take into account the Government's policies in relation to national and regional planning. Any proposals which the Board brings forward in the future will be subject to the Minister's approval, but there is no question of my saying that everything which is written in the Report must be implemented. We all wish the Report to be used in the way in which the Railways Board has intended it to be used.

May we take it from that reply that the Minister can be counted on to see that that portion of the north-east of England and the southeast of Scotland between Newcastle and Edinburgh will not be forgotten?

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that as long as I am in this job neither that part of Scotland nor any other part of Scotland will be forgotten.

As the previous Chairman of the British Railways Board indicated that proposals of this kind, whatever the details, were essential to getting British Railways out of the red, and as the present Chairman has indicated that to do that is one of his prime objectives, will the Minister undertake to give firm guidance to the Railways Board on what is his policy in this respect?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Railways Board's policy is to get out of the red before 1984. This Report is an attempt to set out the shape of the trunk routes in the year 1984. There is no question of the implementation of this Report being essential to taking the railways out of the red. 'I his Report is not a firm plan at all.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give a general direction to the Railways Board to consult British European Airways and other airlines before undertaking development schemes on routes which they already serve and which often have a motorway planned in addition.

No, Sir. But when considering the Railways Board's investment proposals for major development schemes, I shall of course take into account the other forms of transport existing and planned on the routes concerned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the tendency now for the duplication and even triplication of our transport facilities between cities, which results in other parts of the country getting neither roads nor air services nor even adequate railways? Surely, if panning; is to mean anything at all, attention should be paid to this?

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me such wholehearted support in my attempt to get our transport services properly coordinated.

asked the Minister of Transport how many cases of sabotage have occurred on British Railways in the last year; how this compares with previous years; who has been responsible; and, in view of the dangers to the public involved, if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the British Railways Board to take action to reduce the number of such cases.

We are informed by the British Railways Board that in 1964 some 6,300 instances were reported of acts apparently intended to disrupt or hinder the operation of the railway services; this compares with about 4,100 such cases in 1963; corresponding figures for earlier years are not available, From the evidence available it would seem that the majority of these acts were committed by juveniles of school age. The Board is taking special measures to deal with the matter, and we do not consider that a general direction from my right hon. Friend would be appropriate.

Is the Minister aware that these incidents are causing very grave anxiety and concern to railwaymen and to the traveling public alike, and that if they continue it will undoubtedly be infinitely safer to travel by air than by railway? In view of the rather disturbing indication that these are mostly coming from juveniles, does this not indicate a rather peculiar and alarming trend in our society, and would he cast his inquiries a little wider, perhaps by consulting his colleages the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education and Science?

This is a very serious matter, and as a result of recent incidents considerable consultations have taken place between a number of Departments. It is a matter in which a wide number of people have responsibility and could help considerably. Special measures are being taken, but I think it will be appreciated by the House that we do not wish to give publicity to all these measures, because that might be self-defeating, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that very urgent action and inquiry are going on.

In connection with these incidents of sabotage and vandalism, and the great and growing concern now apparent among railwaymen and the railway trade union leadership, will my hon. Friend, in any discussions which are to take place, consult the trade unions and the railway workers in order to get the benefit of their experience?

Yes. My hon. Friend can rest assured that that will be done. We require the co-operation of all concerned in trying to diagnose this problem and to take proper measures of action to solve it. The House will know that there is a Bill before Parliament promoted by the Railways Board to increase the penalties for trespassing, stone throwing, and so on. That is an example of the kind of action being taken.

Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, apart from the consultations he has mentioned he is having with his colleagues, he will keep in touch with the Home Office, because it has a very important part to play?

Yes, the review of the penalties is going on. It is part of the action being taken. A considerable number of prosecutions have taken place in the last few weeks, and nearly 600 last year. We are reviewing the whole of the situation.

Has the hon. Gentleman any statistics relating to this type of offence in the current year, and do those statistics show that the measures to which he has referred are having any effect already?

I have not got fully up-to-date figures for the current year, but I regret to say that so far as we know the number of incidents is at any rate at the same rate as occurred last year.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now give the estimated cost and completion date given to him by the British Railways Board, in seeking his approval for sanction of capital expenditure for its central design establishment at Derby.

My right hon. Friend has approved capital investment of £1,025,000 by the Railways Board towards the cost of the establishment of a Design and Administration Centre at Derby. This is expected to be completed in the autumn of next year.

Will my hon. Friend say what is to happen to the design teams in the railway workshops such as those at Wolverton, and is alternative employment being provided for these excellent people? It would be a great shame if they were lost to the railway workshops.

It is difficult for me to give more information because consultations are taking place between the Railways Board and the representatives of the staff—today, at this moment. But my hon. Friend can rest assured that alternative employment for some of the staff at Wolverton will certainly be offered at Derby, For the others, of course, the normal arrangements for redundancy or offers of alternative employment will be effected.

When the right hon. Gentleman says that £1¼ million has been authorised towards the cost of this establishment, does that imply that that is only a fraction of the total cost, and, if so, a large or small fraction?

It is part of a bigger scheme of concentration by the Railways Board, including the headquarters of British Railways Workshops, the research laboratory and the design centre, a scheme which will amount to an investment of about £2½ million. Perhaps I might put out that my right hon. Friend has approved a capital investment of £1,025,000, not 1¼ million, for the establishment of a design centre.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce legislation with a view to reforming the present machinery for consumer consultation over rail fare increases.

My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to introduce legislation on the lines suggested by the hon. Member. Where London's rail commuters are concerned, however, I would refer him to the Answer given on 5th May to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon).

Cannot the hon. Gentleman alter the otherwise excellent 1962 Act as far as the consultative committees outside the London area are concerned so that they can make representations over rail fares, as the railways are in such a monopolistic condition?

I am surprised to learn that the hon. Gentleman is so satisfied with the 1962 Act, as he has protested about many of the operations under it. In relation to the new principle announced by the Government, we are considering the whole matter of the future of London railway fares, and of the commuter area, under our studies of transport co-ordination, and in relation to those studies, which are not yet complete, my right hon. Friend will have to decide whether fresh legislation is required.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, during his consideration of this matter, he will also give consideration to the existing definition of the London Transport area which, unfortunately, has proved to be totally anomalous and out of date?

That is one of the things for consideration in looking at the whole problem of London transport. We are looking at it also in relation to the future economic development of London and the regions around it, and the future pattern of employment and travel.

asked the Minister of Transport to what extent, in authorising the British Railways Board to incur capital expenditure on liner trains, he took into account the results of experimental liner train services already run by the Board; and what have been the loads and speeds of these trains.

There have been no experimental liner train services as such. The operational and technical trials now in progress began after investment in liner trains was authorised.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if he wants to make his name as a really successful Minister of Transport, one way by which he can do it is to introduce liner trains now and make them a reality? Will he also bear in mind that if he does not do something fairly soon, much of this traffic will be permanently lost to road transport and will never come back to the railways?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in thinking that it can be done now. The vehicles have to be constructed. The terminals have to be constructed. There is a lot of physical work to be undertaken at the present time. The Railways Board is getting on with the job as fast as it can and it is getting on with its salesmanship to get the traffic on to the liner trains when they are ready to start.

Divorcing this subject from the train manning side, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will be satisfied about the costing of the experimental or pre-runners of liner trains? Is not there also a danger that the common stock of railway wagons might be replaced by a specialised form of stock which will have limited value, and which, in the event of the loss of new traffic, will not be interchangeable? Will my right hon. Friend call in special advice on the costing of these trains, particularly on the terminal and servicing aspects of them?

I think that it would be a mistake on my part to call in special advisers to give me advice on this matter. After all, there are a lot of special advisers in the pay of the Railways Board, and special advisers in the pay of the Ministry of Transport. I do not think that we want to triplicate this kind of provision.

Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's previous Answer, may I ask whether he has been advised approximately when we can expect the first of these services to be put into operation?

When, just after Easter, I gave my approval to the investment required for the introduction of the liner train service, the Railways Board said that it would take about six months from then to get the trains started. The Board has not amended that forecast.

asked the Minister of Transport what further progress has now been made with the introduction of liner trains for the carriage of freight on British Rail.

The British Railways Board informs me that it is pressing forward with the construction of freightliner wagons, containers and terminal facilities. Technical and operational trials started some time ago and are progressing satisfactorily.

Is the Minister aware that in a Written Answer on 3rd May he said that the Executive Committee of the National Union of Railwaymen was convinced that to proceed with liner trains with open terminals would be detrimental not only to the interests of the country but to British Railways, and that it thought it best that the first routes should be drawn up on the terms laid down by the union. Is the Minister going to give in to the N.U.R. on this matter, or will he take the view that it is a question of making British Railways efficient—a question in which the British public are very interested?

The Answer which I gave, which has been quoted by the hon. Member, was in answer to a Question asking me what representations the Executive Committee of the N.U.R. had made to me before I made my decision. This was not something subsequent to my making my decision; I made my decision in the light of the propositions already made to me by the Executive Committee. I am hoping that the discussions which have been going on for a long time between the N.U.R. and the Railways Board will continue, and that at the end of the day wise counsels will prevail.

As the Minister took his decision and gave his authorisation on the basis that the terminals would be open to all road hauliers, does he now expect that that basis will be in existence in time for the services to start, as he indicated, six months from his announcement last April?

I expect that agreement will be reached between the union concerned and the Railways Board. It has always been my hope that the management and workers would come together and that we could have the trains operated with open terminals. I would point out that those who are anxious to get these trains operating with open terminals might exercise a little discretion in the attacks they make upon the union representatives.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the N.U.R. Executive and the members of the union as a whole are anxious that these liner trains should be put into operation as speedily as possible? Is he also aware that the only outstanding question with the N.U.R. is the refusal of the Railways Board to compete for this traffic which is being handed over to private road hauliers? Is he aware that if the Railways Board competes on proper competitive terms for this traffic there will be no trouble from the N.U.R.?

I have never rested my transport policy on competition, as my hon. Friend is now suggesting. I want proper co-ordination between the different forms of transport, and that will be secured only by having open terminals for liner trains. I do not want to have to arbitrate in these matters; it is better that politicians should keep out, and that the two sides of the industry should come together and, as adult people, sit down and discuss the best way in which these trains can be introduced.

asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has received with regard to the closure of the main express line from London, Paddington to Birkenhead via Birmingham.

None, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the report that negotiations are taking place to sell the site of Snow Hill Station?

Relative to the question which my hon. Friend asked about the closure of the line from Paddington to Birkenhead via Birmingham, I have assured him that no proposals have been received and that no advance notice of any proposals has been given. If he wishes to ask a specific question about the future of Snow Hill Station, I should be obliged if he would put it down.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received the report of the National Ports Council on the Portbury Dock proposals; and what is his policy on the future progress of this scheme.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement on the proposals of the Port of Bristol Authority for the construction of a new dock at Portbury.

I have now received the report of the National Ports Council on this very important scheme. I am considering it with the care it deserves and will announce my decision as soon as I can.

This decision has long been and is eagerly awaited in the City of Bristol. Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication how long it will take him to consider the matter?

I cannot say how long it will take me. The duties I have under Section 9 of the Harbours Act require me to consider major port investment schemes within the context of port investment throughout the country as a whole. I have a lot of people with whom I will have to have consultations, including those who use the ports, shippers and shipping companies, and those who consign their merchandise through the ports as well. So I have a lot of people to consult before I can make up my mind. I will not unduly delay my decision, but I cannot promise a very quick one.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that all sections of opinion in Bristol, and not simply the Conservative Party, are very anxious to get a decision on this matter? While taking in lo account the extra time my right hon. Friend will require, will he really do his best to reach a decision very soon?

Yes, I will, but it is a big scheme; it is a £27 million scheme; and it cannot be ready, in any case, for five years at the very earliest. It is important that I should consider the scheme carefully before making a decision.

What is the relationship of this Report which the Minister has received with the interim proposals of the National Ports Council which he was due to receive and have those reached him?

I am not so sure about the relationship between this and the interim Report of the National Ports Council. I should like to think about this, and perhaps get in touch with the right hon. Gentleman. The National Ports Council has now reported to me on this, as I say, and I shall have to consider this Report within the context of its interim proposals for the ports of the country as a whole. None the less, it has been able to come to certain views about Portbury which it indicated to me.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will issue a general direction, in the public interest, to the British Railways Board that all ports under its control should issue yearly accounts to show the profit or loss made in their operation.

No, Sir. Port operation is a relatively minor function of the Railways Board, and I do not think that publication of individual trading accounts for each harbour is warranted.

What is the reason for that? Is the Minister aware that this is a thoroughly bad commercial practice? Why are not separate accounts published for each port?

I explained why this practice is carried out. The Railways Board was created principally for the purpose of running railways. It owns a few ships and a few relatively small harbours. Up to now it has been considered better that it should be permitted to lump all the harbours together and report on them collectively. We must be very careful before imposing obligations upon the Railways Board to deal with these harbours individually in its Annual Report, in the same way that the Docks Board does. That Board has no other job to do, and it is looking after much bigger enterprises.

But does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise the validity of the general recommendation of the Rochdale Report that there was no point in having collective accounts of a number of ports operating in different circumstances, and that the operation of the utility could be judged only if they were separately accounted for? Even if this is not a matter for a general direction, will not the right hon. Gentleman, using the informal ways that are open to him, see that this recommendation is complied with in this respect?

In his own supplementary question the right hon. Gentleman qualified the reference to the National Ports Council's recommendation, because it does not follow from that recommendation that the Railways Board should account separately for each of these small harbours. I am quite willing to have a word with the Railways Board to see whether there would be some advantage in its harbours being accounted for separately. I understand that up to now the Board has not thought that there was any advantage, or was not aware of any clamour, or demand, or wish that it should account for its harbours in this way.

asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has put forward for making the Yorkshire Ouse permanently navigable between Selby and Goole, and for making the latter harbour a constant-water port.

None, Sir. Responsibility for the upper part of this stretch of the Yorkshire Ouse rests with the Ouse Navigation Trustees, and for the lower part and the port of Goole with the British Transport Docks Board.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a Selby shipbuilding firm which is generally recognised as one of the most up-to-date and dynamic of the smaller shipbuilding firms is now severely hampered by the inadequacies of this stretch of the river and that it is felt locally that the Minister should do more to develop, increase and widen the scope of the Yorkshire Ouse for shipbuilding purposes? Will he look at this again?

I am afraid that my right hon. Friend has no responsibility here. The responsibility rests entirely with the Ouse Navigation Trustees, who are the York Corporation. If the hon. Gentleman cares to make any representations, we will pass them on to the appropriate authorities for immediate consideration.

asked the Minister of Transport if he has yet received the Report of the Road Research Laboratory on the alcohol factor in road accidents at Christmas and the New Year 1964; and if he will make a statement.

I hope to have it by the end of the week. I shall decide what action to take when I have studied it.

Can the Minister say whether or not, when he introduces his legislation on the question of drinking and driving, he proposes to introduce a test of micro samples of blood rather than the use of breathalysers?

This is one of the matters which is as yet undecided. There is a working party under my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, for this really refers to enforcement, which is his responsibility and not mine. But we have not yet determined by what means the test will be made.

With regard to the accident rate at holiday times, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether his research people have found any correlation between accidents and weather? When there is a bright, sunny weekend it seems there are more accidents than when it is dull. Perhaps when it is fine and sunny special warnings should be issued—

We cannot, in dealing with alcohol, deal with all possible causes of accidents.

Has the Minister observed that during the recent Finance Bill debates the Opposition has demanded a decrease in the price of whisky? Does he not think that a decrease in the price of whisky might mean an increase in road accidents?

asked the Minister of Transport how he proposes to overcome the traffic problem at Okehampton in Devon.

In the longer term, by the provision of a bypass. Some relief is already provided by signposting an alternative route for eastbound traffic, and further traffic management measures are under consideration.

Would the Minister, having turned down the inner relief scheme which was suggested to him, and the bypass being out for a number of years due to the cost of it, look at this matter again, because there is a very real problem, causing untold hardship to the very many travellers passing through the county?

The bypass is not out. The fact is that this is a scheme which we consider necessary for the future, but at the moment its nature has not been assessed and it has not been programmed. We are certainly going to do work on it. Vie are reviewing proposals for new traffic management measures in Okehampton, and at the same time some minor improvements in the road will take place in the next few years.

asked the Minister of Transport what has been the result of his consultations with the Home Secretary in relation to vehicles written off by insurance companies and subsequently repaired and sold after an accident.

Measures are being taken to ensure that the arrangements which exist between my traffic area staffs and the police for investigating reports of the sale of unroadworthy vehicles are fully used. It would make enforcement easier if such reports were made immediately the facts are known.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this practice is becoming alarmingly prevalent? Will he also bear in mind that the purchasers of these cars very often do not know the history of them, and that they are therefore put in real physical danger? Will my right hon. Friend use the powers available to him under the Road Traffic Act to deal with this problem, and in some way safeguard the interests of the purchaser?

One of the real difficulties is that one does not know which vehicles are written off by insurance companies and subsequently repaired, nor does one know the number of vehicles, carrying only third party insurance, which are not involved in an accident with another vehicle but merely crash themselves, so that there is no question of an insurance company being involved. Such cars can be cannibalised, if that is not an improper word to use in this context, and put back on the road without anybody in official circles knowing anything about them. We are investigating this matter. We are in consultation with insurance interests to see what more can be done, but the best safeguard for the purchaser of a second-hand car is to get a report on it from a reputable garage, or from the R.A.C. or the A.A.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he will take to enforce his arrangements to improve lane discipline.

I would refer the right hon. Member to my Answer to him on 5th May. I am not at present planning to introduce legislation for the enforcement of lane discipline.

But is the Minister aware that the response to his exhortations and propaganda has been very poor and that the general standard of lane discipline on our roads is dangerously low? Will he consider legislation on the lines of that introduced by some countries abroad, for instance, the mandatory use of trafficators for vehicles pulling out of one lane into another, or, as is found in America, the statutory obligation on a vehicle pulling out to avoid interference with the vehicles in the next lane? Will he consider legislative action in order to achieve a higher standard, which will reduce accidents and improve traffic flow?

It is a fact that lane discipline is not well observed in this country at present. This is why a leaflet, giving more guidance on this, is being issued, as I stated in the reply which I gave on 5th May. The Highway Code also gives some advice in the matter. I do not rule out the possibility of legislation, but I do not want to promise that it will be introduced at an early date. It is the sort of matter on which I had better have the advice of the recently constituted National Advisory Council on Road Safety.

If the combined effect of the Highway Code and this new leaflet is not satisfactory, will the Minister then consider, as an urgent matter, the introduction of legislation, because lane discipline in this country is in a shocking state?

It is in a bad state and I have stated the circumstances in which I would consider legislation, but we have also to consider whether such legislation—if we had it—would improve lane discipline. There are some difficulties in defining the offence with precision, as is within the knowledge of other countries where legislation has been introduced. It is already an offence to drive dangerously or without due care and attention, and sloppy sliding from one lane to another can be prosecuted as dangerous or careless driving. I have said that I will have this matter taken into account.

asked the Minister of Transport what study he has made of the United States Bill to reduce air pollution from car exhausts starting with the 1968 models of United States and imported cars; and if he will introduce similar regulations in this country.

My technical officers are continually studying measures taken in the United States to combat the problem of air pollution from motor vehicles. Legislation in the U.S.A. is directed largely at a form of pollution which is not significant in the different conditions here. Similar regulations, therefore, would not be appropriate; but if our studies disclose the need for greater control of motor vehicle emissions and practical means of achieving it are available, I will certainly consider making suitable regulations.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he appreciates the extent of the public and medical concern about this form of air pollution here? Since it will be impossible to export British cars to the United States after 1968, and to California and probably some other States after next year, unless they have these anti-pollution devices, would it not be a golden opportunity for the Government to take action which would benefit public health here and would help to facilitate car exports?

We should take all reasonable actions to protect public health in this country, but we must not get out of perspective the kind of legislation introduced in another country. In California as from 1st January next year new motor vehicles having engines of 2·4 litres or more will be required to be so constructed that the amount of noxious gases emitted will not exceed certain specified levels. But there are not many motor cars in this country with engines of that size, and our exporters of engines of that size to the United States will take appropriate action to ensure that they are not kept out of that market after 1st January next year.

Nevertheless, is the Minister not aware that there is concern in America that fumes from motor cars and heavier vehicles are a contributory cause of lung cancer? Will not he consider the matter again and consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in framing future legislation?

Yes, but the immediate proposition which the hon. Member put to me is much more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the London Transport Board to coordinate its policy in dealing with property left in its buses with that of British Railways, so that passengers are not required to pay excessive sums in order to regain their lost property;

The statutory responsibilities of the London Transport and British Railways Board for lost property are entirely different. I have no evidence that there is any significant volume of dissatisfaction with London Transport's Regulations and the Board assures me that it deals sympathetically with appeals to it when hardship may arise.

How much longer is this farce to go on? Is my right hon. Friend aware that an elderly widow who left in a bus her handbag with her life savings of £267 had to give £40, which is the 15 per cent. which the authority is forced to charge, in order to get it back, and that another person who left £930 had to pay £139 12s. 10d.? If they had lost them on the railways it would have cost 4s. up to 48 hours and 8s. after that. Is my right hon. Friend aware that when I made inquiries I was told that the difference is due to the fact that the British Railways Board is allowed to make its own regulations whereas the provisions on the buses are forced on them by the London Transport (Lost Property) Regulations, 1960? Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a farce which the bus crews think is highway robbery?

My hon. Friend has under lined the fact that the London Transport Board operates under very different regulations from the British Railways Board or bus operators or anyone else in the country. Nobody else, not even the British Railways Board, has any statutory liability to safeguard lost property. London Transport has a statutory responsibility, whereas other operators have not, and it has to undertake considerable cost in protecting lost property which is handed in. The charge imposed by regulations merely meets the cost of the service which the Board gives to the public. The Board makes concessions to people where hardship would perhaps be involved. My hon. Friend mentioned the amount paid by two elderly ladies of £40 and £139. In fact, these fees were reconsidered and the amounts ultimately charged were £5 and £20 respectively.

But does the right hon. Gentleman think that the sort of scale embodied in these regulations is justified by the obligation placed upon London Transport? Surely this is a matter which ought to be reconsidered. This is a quite unrealistic ratio. The cost of safeguarding property can surely be met without this kind of a scale.

Bearing in mind that these regulations were made in 1960 and that very much bad legislation was passed at that time, it would be very improper of me not to undertake to have a look at them. But I stand by what I said: the London Transport Board at present does no more than recoup the cost which it incurs in looking after lost property. The number of complaints is small—about two per thousand of the people who lose property and who ultimately go to London Transport to reclaim it. It is not very usual for elderly ladies to lose sums of £300 and £900 when travelling in buses in this country. My hon. Friend called attention to very exceptional cases.

Mr. Shinwell. Question No. 32.

rose—

On a point of order. I should like to raise the matter—

Why?

Because Mr. Speaker called my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I beg to give notice that, because of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

I will accept the notice, but not on the basis that there is anything unsatisfactory about the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).

asked the Minister of Transport how many road accidents have occurred in the last five years at Blackford Hollow between Wincanton and Sparkford in Somerset on the A.303; what have been the numbers of casualties, fatal and injured; and how many vehicles have been involved.

During the five years ending 31st May, 1965, 25 accidents in the vicinity of Blackford Hollow were reported, involving 56 vehicles. Two persons were killed and 22 injured.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the construction of many more short lengths of dual carriageway on this and other seasonally heavily trafficked roads—as his predecessors did on the section of this road between London and Basingstoke—as this provision allows drivers of vehicles to overtake in safety without being prompted to drive dangerously by impatience or frustration?

We recognise the need for action, and in fact the county surveyor is at the moment preparing an interim scheme to widen this road to 24 feet. This is something which we hope will be paid for under the minor improvement programme, and therefore can be done urgently. In the longer term, we recognise the need to provide dual carriageway roads.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that a large part of the carriageway in Cavendish Square which has been taken out of service during the construction of the Victoria line has been used for the all-day parking of 30 motorcars; and what action he proposes to take.

This is a matter governed by Section 46 of the British Transport Commission Act, 1955, and is entirely the concern of the London Transport Board and the Westminster City Council.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large part of the carriageway is being taken out of service, thus creating difficulties for buses and other transport, and is being used for the private parking of a large number of cars within an area which has been taken for the purpose of the works in progress? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this again?

There is no point in my looking at it again, if it is not my responsibility. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have enough troubles of my own without sticking my nose into someone else's problem.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the tests which have been made on the M.2 with the use of rosa multiflora japonica bushes as anti-dazzle barriers and their advantages as road safety devices; and if he will arrange for future lengths of motorways to be sufficiently wide for the placing of these shrubs in the centre.

The tests, which are being carried out with indigenous shrubs not with rosa multiflora japonica, are designed to ascertain whether plants can survive in the difficult conditions prevailing on the central reserve of motorways in this country. The experiment has been in progress for only a few months and it is too early to draw any conclusions. Experiments at the Road Research Laboratory have shown that the central reserve would have to be several times wider than the present standard 13 ft. to accommodate a hedge of rosa multiflora japonica thick enough to act as an effective crash barrier. We do not consider that the cost of this would be justified.

Will the hon. Gentleman give this matter further consideration, in view of the fact that this device has been extremely useful in preventing accidents in other countries? Will he see to it that in future, when a length of motorway is constructed, it will he sufficiently wide to allow for the planting of this kind of bush? Is he aware that if this had been done previously many accidents would not have occurred?

We are certainly determined to carry on with the experiments, at any rate with the 11 indigenous shrubs, like hawthorn, privet and broom, whether or not we use rosa multiflora japonica. But I must tell the House that we are advised, as a result of the experiments of the Road Research Laboratory, that we should need a central reserve of 52 ft. compared with the 13 ft. we have now in order to provide for a fully effective crash barrier, and that this would add £110,000 per mile to the cost. That is the result of the work of research scientists. That is the advice that we have at the moment, but the experiments will continue in an effort to find the best results.

Is it not fantastic that five years after motorways first came into existence we still have not made up our minds what can be done to prevent dazzle from oncoming traffic?

It is not a question of making up our minds. We are continuing to investigate the possibilities of improving the methods of counteracting dazzle, and at the same time trying to provide an effective crash barrier in circumstances where vehicles are travelling at very high speeds. What I have said is based upon the experiments carried out by the people who are best qualified at the Road Research Laboratory. That is the scientific advice that we have at the moment.

asked the Minister of Transport how many road deaths occurred in the Tadcaster Police Division in the first quarter of 1965; how this number compares with the corresponding figure for 1964; and what action he will take in this connection.

There were 14 fatalities in road accidents in the first quarter of 1965 compared with six in the first quarter of 1964.

I thank the hon. Member for that Answer, and for kindly sending me the papers that he referred to. But does not he agree that the trend reflected in these figures—an increase of over 100 per cent.—is quite a disastrous one, which warrants special action being taken really to enforce speed limits in this part of the country?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a serious record and that something urgent needs to be done about it. A number of proposals, as I said in my letter to him, are under immediate consideration. We hope that some measures—both of traffic management, better enforcement of the speed limit and some road improvements—can take place urgently, pending the longer-term plan to bring about a bypass.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the experimental waiting and loading restrictions at road junctions in the London traffic area which began on 5th April.

The responsibility for this experiment lies with the several traffic authorities to which my responsibilities for traffic in London were transferred on 1st April last. It will be for them to review it when they consider that it has been in progress for sufficient time for useful conclusions to be drawn.

Is the Minister aware that, so far, these experiments have proved extremely successful in Southgate, which is one of the areas where they are being tried out? Will he use his best offices, and consider making them permanent and extending them to other parts of London?

I understand that that is so, but I think that it would be better for me not to make representations to the people who have taken over my responsibilities so recently as to how they should discharge them in future. However, no doubt they will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the recent widening of the western end of Broadmead Road, Woodford Green, and the consequent increase in the speed of traffic using the road, he will now provide a controlled pedestrian crossing over Broadmead Road at its junction with Charteris Road.

No, Sir. The London Borough of Redbridge will, I understand, be widening Broadmead Road at this junction and installing refuge islands to enable pedestrians to cross in two stages. I consider this the better course.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to look at this again? Does he not recognise that, since the dual carriageway was introduced on the first hundred yards, the remainder of the road has become exceedingly dangerous for pedestrians to cross and that even the suggestion which he has just made is unlikely to make it any safer, or significantly safer, for pedestrians to cross this road?

I have said that certain steps are being taken. The hon. Member calls attention to great danger on this road. According to all the information which I have had, since December, 1962, only two accidents involving pedestrians have been reported at this junction, so that it does not seem to have such a high accident record as the supplementary question would suggest. In any case, the House, I think, would be willing that I should have proper consultations with the appropriate highway authorities and that they should get their proper place in the scheme of things in our democracy.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to reduce accidents and the possibility of accidents on the Coventry Road, Birmingham, between Church Road and Elmdon Airport.

On the short trunk road section from Elmdon Airport, signs have recently been erected near the City boundary where the road becomes single carriageway. My classified road programme includes a scheme for extending the dual carriageways westwards to pass under Church Road.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for the prompt action which he and the Ministry took on the representations which I made on behalf of local residents' associations. Will he continue to look at the statistics of traffic on this road, because it is likely to be a feeder road to the motorway linking the M.1 to the M.6?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Transport what instructions or advice he has given to county and district council surveyors to keep him and one another informed about proposals to carry out maintenance work on classified roads which may affect traffic diversions arranged in connection with roads elsewhere.

None, Sir. We leave this to the discretion of the local highway authorities concerned.

As the Parliamentary Secretary will be aware, on a recent occasion when the traffic along the A.4 was diverted along the A.350, one urban district council on the A.350 took the occasion to dig it up in order to lay water pipes. Does he regard that as an example of good planning? Surely it is within his powers to do something about it.

Planning is not always as good as it might be, nor as well coordinated, but this is a matter in which local highway authorities and other authorities must concert the action which they are taking. We feel that it cannot be dealt with by direction by my right hon. Friend, but we certainly wish that all local highway authorities—in conjunction, of course, with the divisional road engineers—would inform one another of the actions which they are taking and would endeavour, together with the police, to concert them for the benefit of travellers.

asked the Minister of Transport what was the cost of the Cumberland Basin road improvement in Bristol; what was the cost of the opening ceremony and subsequent celebrations; and for how many hours the new bridge was closed to traffic on each day in the four months following the opening.

The total cost of bridge and roadworks was about £2½ million.

While I am very grateful for the basic statistics, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT? Will he continue to take as big an interest in this bridge now, in view of the difficulties, as he did when he came to open it?

It would be quite inappropriate to set out a full schedule of the daily closures in the OFFICIAL REPORT—

Why?

Because it could not be of great interest to the House as a whole. The hon. Member happens to be a Bristol Member. This is a matter which affects Bristol; the bridge is operated by Bristol City Council, not by the Ministry of Transport. I do not think that it would be for me to indicate to the House of Commons the business of Bristol City Council. Incidentally, the basic statistics which I gave in my reply show that the bridge, which the hon. Member thought had been open for four months, has, in fact, been open for two months.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reason for the withdrawal of this bridge from service is the list of troubles which are normal in a new engineering enterprise and that therefore the Question asked by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) is trivial in the extreme?

It ought to be made clear that the mechanism is still in the commissioning stage and that the bridge has not yet formally been handed over to the highway authority. The criticisms which have been made are therefore a little out of turn.

On a point of order.

Sit down.

Order. There should be silence so that I may hear the point of order.

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

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects the A.19 road improvements to be completed.

The diversions at Sheraton and Shotton are almost complete. So is an improvement at Trenholme Bar. Work on the length between Wolviston and Sheraton started in February of this year.

Does not my right hon. Friend consider that there is undue delay in completing the improvements on this important road? Is that due to a shortage of labour? Is he aware that there is plenty of labour available in the neighbourhood? Has he seen a report that a farmer in the neighbourhood allows his cows to pass four times over that road? When this new improvement was planned was this taken into consideration?

I should like to consider the last point made by my right hon. Friend. I had thought that the time taken was rather long for a 50-mile stretch of road, but in considering whether I could adjust the time-table for the road I had to take into account the size of the road programme nationally and the size of the road programme within the region. This road is to a considerable extent a duplicate of the A.1 travelling northwards. The two roads run virtually parallel. A lot of money is being spent on the A.1, and there are other roads in the area which are taking a lot of expenditure and resources over the next few years. If I were to give higher priority to the A.19, the question is whether it would be at the expense of any of the other highways in the area.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this road is not parallel to the A.1 but runs diagonally from it and that it is one of the most dangerous pieces of road in this country, quite inadequate for the amount of industrial traffic carried on it? Will he do something to expedite this very urgent work?

I frequently hear hon. and right hon. Gentlemen say, "This road in which I am interested is one of the most dangerous roads in the country." I begin to wonder what that means. Certainly, from the point of view of the number of accidents, this is not one of the most dangerous roads in the country. I am not saying that it is an unimportant road. It is because it is an important road that the whole road is being improved within the next four years, that work is going on, that additional work will be put in hand this year and that all the work on the whole length of road will be put in within the next four years. I was replying to a further question when I said that I found it difficult to compress the time within which the work could be completed. But let us not get this out of proportion and pretend that this is one of the most dangerous roads in the country.