asked the Minister of Transport how many accidents took place on roundabouts on the A.1 in 1962, 1963, 1964; and what improvements he intends to make.

118, 123 and 149 personal injury accidents. Of the 47 roundabouts existing in 1962, three have since been eliminated. The Durham Motorway will bypass eight more. Schemes for the elimination or improvement of another 11 are in progress or due to start within the next five years. Further schemes as necessary will be included in future extensions of my roads programme.

In thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that a great many of these accidents happen when visibility is bad and there is fog? Is it not worth while considering painting on the road warning of the fact that there is a roundabout ahead? Might not this cut down the number of accidents? In addition, will the Minister consider reducing the use of kerbstones at roundabouts which are such hard things to hit?

I shall be happy to take into account and to consider the suggestions made by the hon. Member.

Are not the cuts announced yesterday an ideal opportunity for reviewing the use of roundabouts, which are wasteful of land and were abandoned in America many years ago?

In many cases the alternative to a roundabout is grade separation, which, I believe, costs five times as much as a roundabout.

asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the present heavy volume of traffic passing through the City of Carlisle, and the need for the bypass road, if he will now bring forward the operational date for the starting of the Carlisle Bypass.

We agree that a bypass is urgently needed. Our proposals for the route have been published and objections are now being considered. When the route is fixed we shall complete the remaining statutory procedures, including land acquisition, as quickly as possible. Until they are further advanced it is not possible to say when construction can start.

While appreciating the difficulties of my hon. Friend, may I ask him to do all in his power to speed up the provision of this bypass, which is desperately needed for the northbound and southbound traffic?

Yes, we appreciate the urgent need. The processes required, especially the acquisition of land, are going forward as rapidly as possible.

Is this one of the schemes which will fall victim to the £100 million worth of cuts in the road programme which was indicated yesterday? Is it the Minister's intention to make a statement about his personal position in view of his repeated assurances that the road programme would not be cut and the fact that his colleagues have now thrown him over?

I do not know to what the right hon Gentleman is referring. Evidently he did not hear yesterday's statement very clearly. There was no reference to any £100 million cut in the road programme. Nevertheless, we are considering the revision of the programme in the light of the Chancellor's statement. We cannot say what its effect might be on any particular project.

asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made towards carrying out the large-scale experiment in traffic control by means of computer-controlled traffic signals.

The planning stage of the experiment in West London has been substantially completed and tenders have been invited for the main items of equipment. In addition, proposals for conventional traffic measures necessary if the maximum benefit is to be obtained have been put to the Greater London Council as traffic authority. Preliminary planning work began recently on the complementary experiment in the centre of Glasgow.

While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's reply, may I ask whether he is aware that computer control would keep the traffic moving smoothly? Will he, therefore, consider this as a matter of urgency?

Yes, Sir. That is the object of the experiment that we are carrying out.

Without knowing whether the urban traffic in Ross and Cromarty is worthy of a computer, may I ask the Minister to tell me what advice he has received on this subject from the Minister of Technology?

I am not sure that I see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's question. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology and I are in the closest touch on this and other matters concerned with the advance of technology in transport in this country.

asked the Minister of Transport what are the criteria used to decide whether an urban motorway or an all-purpose road should be built.

The most important considerations are the function of the road as part of the highway network, the nature and volume of the traffic it will carry, and the relative costs and benefits.

Does the Minister agree that it is far more costly to build all-purpose roads and then convert them into motorways? Does not he agree that it is better to build motorways in the first place?

There are conditions in which it is out of the question to build a motorway, and in which the needs of the traffic in the area are better served by building all-purpose roads. But there are other conditions in which the opposite conclusion would be reached by a consideration of the problems involved.

Can the Minister say how many urban motorways he is planning to build in Ross and Cromarty?

I cannot see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's question, but in any case the answer is "None", because I am not responsible for roads in Ross and Cromarty.

Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that these questions and answers are fully reported in the John o'Groats Journal?

asked the Minister of Transport what consideration has been given to providing motorway links between the main ports and the present basic motorway network; and what proposals he has made.

When the first 1,000 miles of motorway are completed, road access to almost all major ports will be greatly improved. Whether the connection with the main motorway network should itself be a motorway or an all-purpose road has to be decided in the light of local conditions. Possible further improvements will be included in my studies of the longer-term development of inter-urban routes.

Is the Minister aware that it is gratifying to know that he regards this problem as one of such urgency? Will he conult his colleagues at the Board of Trade in view of the fact that a lack of linkage between the main productive areas and the ports is in many cases harmful to the export trade?

This is one of the aspects of road development to which I am giving the closest possible consideration. I think it essential that access to the ports should be speeded up.

Can my right hon. Friend say what steps he is taking to carry out the promise given yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that urgent action was to be taken to improve access to the ports?

My right hon. Friend asks what action I am taking in furtherance of a statement made only yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I can only say that in considering any adjustment of the road programme over the past months I have been giving the utmost attention to bringing forward, if possible, those roadworks which are essential for improving access to the ports.

Is it not evident from the Minister's reply that he was taken completely by surprise by what the Chancellor said yesterday, and that he has no idea what is meant by the reference to access to the ports?

The right hon. Gentleman himself does not believe the accusation that he has just made. I was not taken by surprise. My right hon. Friend in his statement yesterday picked up capital projects in the ports, including access to the ports, as being projects which would be given preferential treatment in the allocation of resources in the six months' period to which he said his statement applied.

Does my right hon. Friend realise what a surprise the right hon. Gentleman had yesterday?

Do we understand that there are certain projects relating to the access to ports to which the six months' period of delay is not to apply, and when will the Minister be able to say what these projects are?

My right hon. Friend in his statement yesterday did not say that there would be an absolute ban on starts on all road projects. He indicated that there would have to be a reduction in starts if we were to make the best use of our resources in the period immediately ahead, and he went on to call attention to the priority that would be given to ports and to the access to ports. I would have thought that that was a statement of policy which would have been welcomed on both sides of the House.

Would not the Minister be well advised to give all possible incentives to get long-distance traffic to the ports off the roads and on to the railways? Could not there be stricter control in this regard so far as the nationalised industries are concerned?

Yes, Sir. I have been giving a lot of attention to this. I have had consultations with the Railways Board, which is engaged in improving the services which it is able to give to manufacturers in this country so that we might use the railways a little more to get goods quickly to the ports.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to have completed the study of future motorway requirements.

During next year.

In view of the importance of a network of motorways in this country to the economy of the country and to its economic recovery, is the Minister satisfied that the surveys so far undertaken are adequate for our development? In particular, can he say whether it is intended to cut down the development of motorways, in view of the Chancellor's statement yesterday?

In view of my right hon. Friend's statement yesterday, it will be necessary for me to review those projects which would have started within the next six months, but I do not expect that my right hon. Friend's statement will affect the prospect of having 1,000 miles of motorway completed by the early 1970s, and it will not deter me from going ahead with the study which I am making at the moment of future motorway requirements.

Could the right hon. Gentleman clear up a difficulty which has been caused by the statement which he made just now? He referred just now to projects which were due to be started in the next six months, and said that they would have to be reviewed. His right hon. Friend's statement yesterday referred to contracts which had not yet been signed and said that, in the case of those contracts—that is, of course, all future projects under the five years' programme—the starting dates will be postponed for six months. Can we have some reconciliation of these statements?

I can understand the right hon. Gentleman's confusion today after what happened to him yesterday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The right hon. Gentleman has quoted what my right hon. Friend said about postponing starts of capital projects, not only for roads but for other projects over the next six months. All I have said this afternoon is that I do not expect that this will make it impossible to complete a thousand miles of motorway by the early 1970s. That is the position.

Has my right hon. Friend anything further which he could tell the House about the Manchester-Liverpool motorway and that for the so-called "missing link" between the M.1 and the M.6?

I have said that I expect the Midlands link to be completed by 1970–71. In the light of what my right hon. Friend said yesterday, I cannot repeat with any assurance that it will be completed by then, but I hope that it will not be long delayed beyond 1970–71. I wish that the House would recognise, however, that the programme on which I am now working is a programme which my predecessor based upon a 4 per cent. growth in the economy. I inherited the programme, but I did not inherit a 4 per cent. growth in the economy.

May I ask the Minister to make this clear, because it is a point of vital importance? It relates to the words in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement yesterday:

"… the starting dates will be postponed for six months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1965; Vol. 717, c. 228.]

I do not recognise the difference—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I do not. We are in a period of great economic stress. We have been advised many times by hon. and right hon. Gentlement opposite to make a cut in public spending. We have undertaken—the Chancellor made his statement to this effect yesterday—to do a holding operation on some projects which would have gone ahead in the next six months. Let us see how we get on and let us all do—[Interruption.]—I should have thought that hon. Members in all parts of the House would have wanted to see our economy grow and that they would have wanted to see it so strengthened that we could carry through all the essential public works which we have lying ahead of us. I want to see them carried through with the minimum of delay.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated annual rate of completion of the motorways at present proposed; and what is the rate necessary for them to be completed by the early 1970s.

Work in hand should result in the completion of about 210 miles in this and the next two years. To complete the 1,000 miles by the early 1970s would require an average rate of 70 to 80 miles a year.

Does not the hon. Gentleman's reply indicate that we are falling behind many of our Continental neighbours in the construction of motorways? Would he accept that the absence of fast communications between centres of production and ports of exit is one of the great obstacles to the export drive in this country? Does he not think that there is a case for reviewing the priorities, in view of the urgent need to step up exports? Finally, what questions and discussions with the First Secretary of State have there been in order that the road communications in this country can help exports?

It may well be that, owing to a considerable amount of negligence in the past, we have fallen well behind other European countries. We are faced with a very difficult situation in order to try to make our way forward. These are regarded as essential projects for communications. We are getting along with them as speedily as we can, according to the economic resources of the country. We are in constant discussion with our colleagues in the Government about how to improve them.

Can the hon. Gentleman indicate broadly the value of the motorway projects which will be affected by the Chancellor's statement of yesterday, as now interpreted by his right hon. Friend?

We are engaged, as I told the right hon. Gentleman before, in reviewing the programme at the moment in the light of the criteria stated by the Chancellor yesterday, and, in particular, the points made by the Chancellor about improving communications to the docks and everything connected with the export drive. Announcements will be made shortly about the effects on particular projects.

Does my hon. Friend realise that every hon. Member of the Opposition—whether the Conservative Opposition or the Liberal Opposition—is wholeheartedly in favour of reducing public expenditure, on the terms that nothing in which he is interested himself is reduced at all?

I realise that very well.

asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has for modifying the grant system for classified roads, in view of the extra demands being made on such roads through continually increasing traffic.

I will shortly be putting proposals to the local authorities associations as part of the general review of local government finance.

In putting forward proposals to the local authorities, will the Minister bear in mind that it is because of the absence of motorways and the closure of many railways that there is an increasing amount of traffic on A and B roads and that this particularly affects constituencies and areas like mine? Has he any proposals to increase the grants available to local authorities to improve the standards of these roads, which bear such a heavy amount of traffic?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of the general review of local government finance. Discussions have already started with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and with the local authority associations. In the course of these discussions I shall be putting forward some proposals about further road grants, but, obviously, it is impossible for me to say, at present, what these will be.

Without worrying the Minister too much about ways and means, may I ask whether he is aware that, on 3rd and 10th March, he said that the road programme would be maintained in real terms? In view of what has now happened and the six months' postponement, which is probably worth about a £75 million loss to the road programme, will he now reconsider his position and his resignation?

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make provision for an increase greater than the national average in the amount of funds to be made available for road development in the West Country.

Not unless the studies of the longer term needs of the country as a whole show this to be justified.

But the hon. Gentleman has referred to the needs of the country as a whole. Is he not aware of the plans of the First Secretary to stimulate the growth of the neglected regions of this country, which is rather different from that Answer? Would he not agree that the main obstacle to attracting industrial investment and extending the tourist trade in the West Country is our appallingly bad road communications? Will he accept that those in the West Country will not be satisfied if all that this Government do is catch up with the backlog of the Tory Administration which preceded them?

I appreciate the needs and difficulties of the West Country, which we hear about weekend after weekend in the holiday season. We have in hand at the moment £12 million-worth of trunk road schemes in the West Country and are making grants of £5 million on classified roads. We have just published a line for the extension of the M.5 into the West Country. I think that this shows a fairly good record of progress at the moment.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, in view of what has been said this afternoon, there is apparently a complete lack of co-ordination between his Ministry and the Chancellor, and that the figures which are being given are quite worthless? When can the House expect a White Paper or some such document telling us what is to be done, with the leave of the Government, before the Recess?

I find it extraordinary that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not acquainted with the facts. The facts which I have just stated are about money which is actually being spent now, and construction work which is going on in one part of the country. We are in constant consultation with other Departments in the Government about how to improve these communications.

asked the Minister of Transport in view of the importance of tourism to the economy of the West Country, if he will initiate a study of the economic effect of road conditions on the tourist industry, with a view to improving the system of roads in the West Country.

The effects of road conditions on the tourist industry will be taken into account by the Economic Planning Council for the South West when formulating proposals for future economic development in the region.

Will the hon. Gentleman use his best offices to urge his right hon. Friend the First Secretary to speed up the review so that we can get the roads which are so necessary for the general development of the South-West, particularly bearing in mind the undertakings given by the Government to develop this area as a matter of priority?

I am well aware of the importance of the area and of tourism especially, which I myself have indulged in in the South-West. We have now—which we had not before—a highly intelligent planning council in the South-West, and I am sure that it is coming to grips with the priorities. We shall be governed by its advice and the scale of priorities that it draws up.

In considering the South-West, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, apart from the tourist trade, there is very substantial long-distance carriage covering both the china clay and the horticulture industries? Therefore, we have an industrial user of the roads, not merely a tourism user.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the statistical average of vehicle breakdowns expressed in vehicle-miles; to what extent this factor is considered in designing urban and rural motorways and all-purpose roads, respectively; and what account is taken of it in deciding whether an emergency hard shoulder is to be included.

I apologise for the length of this Answer.

Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the fact that with three-lane motorways there is the great advantage of being able to use the central reservation as an additional draw-in for vehicles in an emergency?

The question of the use of the central reservation and its rôle is a matter which is under constant discussion. We are persistently being pressed to erect anti-dazzle and anti-crash screens on the central reservation. We give high priority to the carrying out of experiments into this important subject.

Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the suggestion put to him by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) is fraught with danger, and should not the Ministry reconsider its whole attitude towards the three-lane motorways?

That is another question. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct in that it is far more important for us to experiment to find the right answer to the question of the use of the central reservation as a means of preventing accidents and safeguarding motorists against dazzle.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to compile statistics and data on the provision or otherwise of, or need for, parking facilities by local authorities in view of the wide difference in parking policy between authorities.

No, Sir. Parking policy must fit local needs, which vary from town to town. In a planning bulletin issued last March, we and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government gave local authorities advice on all aspects of parking and urged them to adopt positive and comprehensive policies.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that on the outskirts of Greater London different local authorities adopt very different pricing policies in relation to the parking facilities which they provide and that these are in no way co-ordinated with the parking facilities which are provided by either London Transport or the British Railways Board? What steps is the Ministry taking to see that the policies of all the various authorities which provide parking on the peripheries of our major cities, particularly Greater London, are properly co-ordinated?

I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman that we want a co-ordination of policy on this matter, co-ordination which we have sadly lacked in the past. We are endeavouring to get this co-ordination, particularly among the nationalised boards. However, traffic conditions vary considerably from town to town and, as I said to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) the other night, the parking policy of one authority—such as the use of disc parking—may not be suitable for others. We must, therefore, depend on the local highway authorities to adopt the policy which is best suited to their local needs.

Is the hon. Gentle-aware of the increasing irritation in the London area because of the parking of heavy lorries in residential roads and streets? Is it not time that the Ministry took a lead in attempting to solve this problem?

The local highway authorities and local police have a considerable degree of responsibility here. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to enforcement, then that is the responsibility of all concerned. If it is an offence—and it often probably is—for heavy lorries to be parked in residential streets in the way described, that is a matter for police action.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will initiate research into the effect on property values in town shopping and business areas of the absence of adequate parking facilities.

My Department is already sponsoring a research group whose work includes the inter-relationship between transport facilities and urban development. My right hon. Friend does no think he should give special priority to this particular aspect of the problem.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in many suburban areas around Greater London parking facilities which were originally provided for the benefit of people using the shops are being used by commuters who leave their cars there the whole day while they are in London and thereby prevent people who come in by car using the shopping areas? Does this not indicate that the imperative need is co-ordination between British Railways and the local authorities in outer London?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It emphasises the imperative need for a policy of co-ordination, which we have lacked for so many years. We are trying to come to grips with the problem of having parking facilities available at the rail terminals.

Lord Dalkeith.

Will the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

The hon. Gentleman did not hear me. I called Lord Dalkeith.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Question and other Questions today mark an historic occasion, namely, the sudden and belated transition of the Liberal Party from the horse and carriage age to the motor car age?

Order. I do not think that the Minister's responsibility extends to that degree of historical research.

asked the Minister of Transport what study he has made of the extent to which town shopping centres with adequate parking facilities attract shoppers from towns without such facilities.

In the joint planning bulletin "Parking in Town Centres" issued last March, we and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government advised all local authorities that towns without an adequate policy for both on-street and off-street parking are likely to lose trade to those that have.

Is it not extremely important to stress not only the convenience aspect of the matter but also the basic commercial value of providing adequate parking facilities in urban areas?

Yes, Sir. It is extremely important that all local highway authorities should consider this, and a bulletin was issued as a matter of urgency in the light of the continued build-up of ownership of vehicles. This is something which will be essential in the co-ordination of transport in the future.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the time is approaching when it would be wise to have a full-scale and thorough investigation into the economics of parking from every point of view—charging, land use, and so on—and that this is a task which might usefully be entrusted to an independent body?

It would have been wise to have had this many years ago. With the advantage of the advice of his Transport Advisory Council, my right hon. Friend is considering this matter as one of urgency. That is why we have issued a bulletin to local authorities.

How does the Minister explain the fact that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who we thought was a 100 per cent. capitalist, is now demanding public initiative?

The Minister of Transport has no responsibility for giving such explanations.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour Party suggested that they were poised and ready to swing many policies into action? It is no excuse for him to say that the Conservative Party did nothing for 13 years. What have hon. Gentlemen opposite been doing for 13 years?—[Interruption.]

We have swung policies into action. That is why my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Housing and Local Government issued a bulletin on car parking facilities last March to local highway authorities. It indicates to them the policies that we wish to see adopted.

I would remind the House that parking, whether by discs or by meters, seems to be rather noisy, and that we have had the Answers to 20 Questions only by 17 minutes past three o'clock.

asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the continually increasing traffic, he will encourage the carrying out of more road work at night, and so help to relieve daytime congestion.

I am aware of the need to minimise traffic congestion caused by road works. But, in addition to other objections, more general night work would add substantially to their cost.

While the right hon. Gentleman's last remarks are undoubtedly true, may I ask him to bear in mind that the obvious extra costs of night work might be offset by reducing the hidden costs of increased congestion during the day?

The cost is quite an important factor, but there are other objections. There is the constant objection to night work of this kind made by residents, who complain about the noise occasioned by the work that is going on and by the traffic which is engaged for the purpose of that work.

Has the Minister any plans for carrying out road works, at night if necessary, to accommodate the Liberal juggernaut which only today appears to be on the move?

asked the Minister of Transport what local authorities have now approached him regarding parking schemes based on the use of discs.

Only Cheltenham.

Has the Minister carried out a study of the use of disc schemes in Continental cities? Is any comparative work going on between the use of discs and parking meters, in relation to the financial outlay and efficiency in the provision of parking space?

We are well aware of what is going on in Continental cities and, over the years, the Government have advised local authorities of these developments. The former Government sent out a memorandum in 1961 and a circular in 1962. In March of this year the present Government sent out a bulletin called "Parking in Town Centres" to all local authorities. In that bulletin we suggested the various systems which might be employed by them to deal with this problem.

Would my right hon. Friend welcome additional schemes from local authorities which desire to try out other methods of parking, or is he inevitably wedded to the idea of parking meters?

In the bulletin which we sent out a few months ago we indicated that disc parking was one system which might be considered by local authorities. If local authorities put forward suggestions, as Cheltenham did, we, of course, shall be glad to consider them. I assure my right hon. Friend that we do not impose our wishes or possible prejudices on local authorities in this matter.

Would the right hon. Gentleman look at his records again to see whether the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has not put forward proposals of this kind? Would he accept two points: first, that the introduction of parking meters in residential districts can create real hardship for residents and, secondly, that the interests of residents from the parking point of view should take priority in any scheme which is in the interests of others?

I will certainly look at my records again to see whether I have misinformed the House. I have given the House the information which is now available, that only Cheltenham has proposed such a scheme. However, on the wider question raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I must leave some work to the local traffic authorities and the matters to which he has called attention are matters within the responsibility of those authorities.

asked the Minister of Transport what he estimates would be the cost of providing dual carriageways on the existing main road between Popham and the Winchester Bypass.

About £650,000.

Is the Minister aware that parts of this road are now narrower than in Roman days, when the road was first put down? Will he consider with his Department the possibility of extending the M.3 from Popham to the Winchester Bypass, for I fear that if he does not do so now he will have to do so ultimately at greater expenditure of money than is otherwise called for?

I think that the part of the road which the hon. Gentleman has asked me to extend as a motorway—that is, south of Popham to the Winchester Bypass—is the most lightly loaded part of the whole of the London-Southampton road. I should have thought that the proposition which has just been made for the expenditure of resources on it is one which I could not reasonably pursue.

Does the Minister realise, in the context of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, that this road, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) refers, is an essential link with the Port of Southampton and is vitally necessary for exports through that port?

Yes, Sir. I did not say that we would not spend any money on this road. Indeed, we shall spend money on it.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps in the process of land acquisition for motorways and all-purpose roads can be carried out simultaneously; and if he will make such a procedure standard practice in order to eliminate unnecessary delays.

Proceedings for the compulsory acquisition of land for motorways and trunk roads are, so far as practicable, taken concurrently with the proceedings for making the schemes and orders which settle the lines on which those roads are to be built and the consequential alterations of the existing roads.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the amount of time it takes to acquire land for motorway and all-purpose road construction? Will he consider introducing the necessary legislation to speed up this process?

It might be desirable to speed up the process. This matter is constantly under review and it is only proper that I should inform the House that as the road programme has been planned for some years—in other words, this is not something that has happened only recently—Governments have always given themselves time to carry through all the procedures, statutory and administrative, by the time it is anticipated that it will be possible to find the necessary resources to put the project in hand. That is the position at present, and it would be foolish of me to pretend that I could speed up the road programme merely by speeding up these processes.

Instead of spending almost unlimited money on new roads in one way or the other at a time of financial crisis, would not the right hon. Gentleman be better employed in trying to get more traffic back on the railways, which are only half-used? At a time when we are really up against it financially, would it not be wise to use the railways more fully instead of spending money in this direction?

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I think that I shall be serving the interests of the country well if I can get some traffic off the roads and on to the railways.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that I recently sent him a letter from a constituent—I have had another today—saying that the railways are losing so many of his goods that he is having to send them by road? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to improve the efficiency of the railways in carrying goods?

The Question is concerned with land acquisition.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now install telephones along the M.20.

Yes, Sir. Following a review of policy I have decided to install emergency telephones on all trunk road motorways, including the Maidstone Bypass.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that this decision about the M.20 will be warmly appreciated? Will he bear in mind when siting the telephones that the nearby M.2 has one telephone per mile on either side?

It is my intention to install telephones at this distance, one telephone per mile, on all trunk road motorways.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider introducing legislation to lay down a code of conduct by motor insurance companies in meeting claims.

Claims on motor insurers arise under insurance policies which are contracts enforceable at law. We see no need for further legislation on this matter.

Does not my hon. Friend recognise that there is widespread discontent among the clients of many insurance companies and those involved in accidents with the clients of many insurance companies at the frustration and delay which they encounter in getting their claims settled? Is there no appropriate action that my hon. Friend can advocate in these circumstances?

If my hon. Friend is concerned about any particular case, I shall be glad to take it up with the motor insurance companies. I am aware that there is frustration, but it is not a matter which we think can be dealt with by legislation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the position concerning highway liability generally is unsatisfactory? Can he say, in the wider context, whether his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has any further comment to make to the House about an inquiry, promised some weeks ago, over the wider field?

I am not quite sure to what my hon. Friend is referring. We are, however, at present discussing with the Motor Insurers' Bureau the possibility of changing the law to overcome certain difficulties and anomalies which are well known.

Will the Minister tell his hon. Friend that British insurance companies have a reputation throughout the world for the manner in which they carry out business, and that this is why we do the most insurance business in the world?

I do not think that it is the Minister's responsibility to tell his hon. Friend that.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will set up an inquiry into the conditions on which motor insurance companies are prepared to allow a no-claim bonus on insurance premiums, with a view to legislation on the subject.

We see no need for the Government to intervene in this matter. Policy conditions, including no-claim bonuses, are a matter of contract, and there is no reason to suppose that legislation to control the present insurance market in this respect is either necessary or desirable.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some motor insurance companies do not allow a no-claims bonus to their clients who are involved in an accident in which they are completely innocent? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with this state of affairs? Does not he consider that some action is required to satisfy the needs of the public?

It may be that some action is required by the citizens themselves, but this is a matter of contract between the motorist and the insurance company, and it is not a matter than can be dealt with by legislation.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he will now take to help the maintenance and expansion of rural bus services.

The reports of the local inquiries and experiments which were undertaken in selected areas of England and Wales will be published early next week.

I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is going to publish the reports. Three months ago, in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), he said that he would do so very soon. In reviewing this matter, will he give very careful consideration to the possibility of using school buses which often go with vacant seats through rural areas which sadly lack transport for the carrying of fare-paying passengers?

This is one of the matters dealt with in the reports to which I shall have to give consideration, particularly in consultation with the local authorities.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us who represent rural areas do not very much like the sound of his answer? Unless he is very careful, he will run into the same danger of the delay in dealing with rural transport which we experienced for 13 years on the part of the Conservative Party. Is he aware that if there are financial difficulties, they must be faced up to, especially in the overspill areas where there is a substantial traffic increase potential?

I think that my hon. Friend would, however, wish us to give proper consideration to the reports made following these local inquiries and experiments. I should have thought, too, that hon. Members in all parts of the House would want to read what is contained in those reports before they start jumping to conclusions about what we should do in implementation or otherwise of any recommendations contained therein.

Is the Minister in touch with the Postmaster-General who, as he may have heard, is engaged in experiments and research into the possibility of co-ordinating rural services with postal services in certain areas where people are so scattered that it would be totally uneconomic to run an actual bus service?

I am in touch with a great many of my right hon. Friends who have responsibilities for services in the rural areas, with a view to seeing if we can co-ordinate services to make them more economic, and in some cases to run them more efficiently.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will take steps generally to restrict the hours during which road goods vehicles shall be allowed within an eight mile radius of Charing Cross;

asked the Minister of Transport what restrictions he has decided to impose on the entry of goods vehicles and private cars into Central London.

I think that any such far-reaching measures can be considered only in the light of the study of restraint of traffic generally which I announced on 14th April.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the inner part of south-east London traffic congestion caused by the presence of heavy goods vehicles is notoriously bad and that some streets are almost completely congested by parked heavy lorries, especially during rush hours, when the unloading of heavy goody vehicles is a notorious practice?

Yes, Sir, but I think my hon. Friend will appreciate that he is raising a matter with me which is the responsibility of the Greater London Council. I think he knows that there are at present many schemes which restrict the use of roads by commercial vehicles during certain hours and restrict stopping for loading and unloading in many other streets during given hours. The speech I made on 14th April, to which I have referred, mentioned a further study which we are making of possibilities for further restraint of traffic in cities. I am in the closest consultation with the Greater London Council. I am hoping very much to be able to say something positive on this matter before the end of the year.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the day has already come when we must decide that certain categories of road traffic have got to be kept out of central London altogether, at least during certain hours of the day? This is an inevitable decision which we must come to, particularly in regard to the use of private cars coming into central London, which must be severely restricted.

It is because I believe that restriction will be needed that I have been making speeches in recent months and that the study I have mentioned is under way.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very great burden we put on people receiving goods in this way if they have to do so out of ordinary hours? Is he aware that it will make a great increase in the cost of running these businesses?

What I do know is that if one looks round many streets in London at present one finds pubs at nearly every street corner and at 9 o'clock in the morning lorries are unloading at those pubs, hindering the traffic not only of private cars, but of public service vehicles.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the great complexity of the purposes, economic and other, which vehicles of different kinds are serving and therefore the necessity for a most careful study before any restrictions of the kind implied by these questions are imposed?

What I recognise is that we have to make better use of the road space in the centres of cities than we are doing at present. I believe that we shall do that only by working out carefully—I did not say that I would be doing it without care—the restraints that will have to be put upon certain traffic using those roads. I honestly believe that we shall get proper use of these busy streets, particularly in city centres, only by curtailing the use that can be made of them by commercial vehicles, I should have thought that not only commercial vehicles but private cars would have to suffer some restraint on the use they make of city streets—[An HON. MEMBER: "Too long."]—This is what I think and this is the object of the study I am having made at present.

On a point of order. You did refer to the slow progress with Questions today, Mr. Speaker. Is it not almost entirely due to the waffly answers we are getting from the Government Front Bench?

I do not think that the epithet "waffly" has any part in a point of order.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in the interests of road safety, he will take steps to ensure that political and other organisations refrain from distributing printed slogans to be stuck in the rear windows of motor cars, in view of the fact that they obscure vision and act as a distraction to other road users.

I have no power to prohibit the distribution of printed slogans. The Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1963, already require the driver to have a clear view through the windows of a motor vehicle.

Would not the Minister agree that a more definite instruction is necessary in view of the present vogue? Would he also agree that now that motor car designers are attempting to get maximum all-round visibility the need for this instruction is becoming increasingly apparent? Would he not agree that when a motorist is involved in an accident it is no consolation for him to learn that the motorist in front is not to blame because he voted Conservative?

As I have said, I have no power to prohibit the distribution of printed slogans. I think it would be a mistake for me to contemplate putting a ban on the insertion of messages in the rear windows of motor cars. I can think of some which fulfil a very useful purpose, such as, "Disabled Driver" or "Running In, Please Pass." Quite a number of these messages are useful and I would not want to ban them.

Would not the Minister agree that the motives which prompted this Question are not road safety but political safety in view of all the excellent signs which have been put on our cars for so long warning everybody of the chaos of Socialist Government?

I am reliably informed that the car which bears the label, "Don't blame me. I voted for Enoch", is not the car of the hon. and gallant Member.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that many motorists fail to dip their headlights when approaching oncoming traffic; and if he will take further steps to see that they do so.

The law already provides penalties for driving without reasonable consideration for other users of the road. We do not consider that there is need for legislation making failure co dip headlights when meeting another vehicle a specific offence. The Highway Code provides that when meeting other vehicles drivers should dip their headlights and should slow down or stop if they are dazzled.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that a substantial number of drivers using the motorways fail to dip their headlights and that perhaps some research is needed in this direction? Will he also bear in mind that a substantial minority of motorists, when approaching oncoming vehicles, undip their lights in the split section before the vehicles pass and this makes a great hazard? Will he look into this matter and see whether or not a publicity campaign in association with the motoring organisations is needed?

Yes. We recognise that this is a problem on the motorways. That is why we are giving urgent consideration to anti-dazzle devices.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the hazards of undipped lights would be substantially removed if in future all lights were fitted with yellow bulbs, as is done so widely on the Continent?

Will the Minister stop all driving on sidelights, especially in towns and cities?

The matters raised in that supplementary question and in the previous supplementary question are being discussed now with the motor manufacturers in relation to the design of lights. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that there are so many variations of conditions in towns, according to the standard of lighting which has been established—or which, as is true in some cases, has not been established at all—that it is extremely difficult for us to generalise and lay down regulations on the subject. Nevertheless, we hope to be able to give more guidance shortly.