asked the Minister of Transport what revised estimate of the deficit and losses of British Railways he has made following the Budget and devaluation, for the year ending 31st March 1969.

No revised estimate has been made because I still expect the deficit to be in accordance with the estimate.

Having regard to the fact that last year's losses were more than £150 million—quite staggering in character—and that losses this year are proceeding at a higher level, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can confirm or deny that authoritative sources putting losses at £200 million for this year are nearer to the mark?

No, the hon. Gentleman is committing the mistake of believing all that he reads.

May I congratulate the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box to answer Questions? Is he aware that we expect him to reduce the deficit, as was done in the years when the Tory Party was in office, without shuffling this on to the P.T.A.s and other bodies?

It is not unreasonable that we should be able to give the Board some relief from what are totally unrealistic, inherited capital burdens. This is the purpose of the policy.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that the recent increase of more than 50 per cent. in the Motorail return fare between London and Newcastle is compatible with the Government's prices and incomes policy; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on 2nd February, 1968.—[Vol. 757, c. 425.]

If an increase in fares from £19 to £29 is consistent with Government policy during a period of price restraint, is the right hon. Gentleman surprised that the travelling public is in despair?

I do not see why the travelling public should be in despair. This is the first increase since 1960. If the rest of British industry had done as well, the travelling public would have been very happy.

The travelling public will deplore this fantastic increase. If this service was showing a loss commensurate with this enormous increase in fares, why was it not determined before?

Firstly, this is the first increase on this line since 1960, which is a very good record. Secondly, the Opposition cannot have it both ways. They want the nationalised industries to conform to market pressures and the evidence here is that the market will bear more.

asked the Minister of Transport how the cost of socially useful railway lines in excess of £55 million per annum will be financed.

The figure of £55 million is an estimate of the likely total cost, not a statutory limit. The whole cost of these grants will be financed from the Exchequer.

If the figure of £55 million is only an estimate, does this mean that, if all socially useful lines are to be kept open, the figure means nothing at all and is in fact an open ended subsidy from the Government which may well be in excess of £55 million?

No, Sir. We are not in a position to improve on the broad estimate of £55 million made by the Joint Steering Group, but we have no reason to think that the figure is unrealistic.

asked the Minister of Transport when the Annual Report of British Railways will be published.

Today week.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, while these Annual Reports are very interesting, the information in them is often out of date? Can he indicate what will be the final revised figure for 1967 and in general whether there has been an improvement or deterioration in the financial position of British Railways in the first three months of this year?

We have already announced the 1967 deficit as £153 million and the 1968 deficit is estimated at £152 million. The accounts will be in the Annual Report.

asked the Minister of Transport when the report of the public inquiry into the Hither Green railway disaster will be published.

The Report by Colonel McMullen, Chief Inspecting Officer, on the Hither Green accident has been delayed by the formal investigation into the accident at Hixon automatic half-barrier level crossing on 6th January. He will complete the Report as soon as possible, but it is unlikely that it can be published before July or August. Colonel McMullen is, however, satisfied that the cause of the Hither Green accident was a broken rail and that the steps taken since the accident by the British Railways Board to improve track testing and maintenance are adequate.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reassurance. Would he agree that public inquiries, particularly where the question of human life is involved, should be completed as quickly as possible to ensure that any uncertainty that may exist is investigated and cleared up quickly? Is not 10 months too long a time to wait for these matters to be cleared up?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety, which I share. The problem here was, as I say, the subsequent accident at Hixon. It is important, in addition to speed—and I assure my hon. Friend that I accept the need for speed—that accidents of this sort should be thoroughly investigated.

Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the publication date, since I suggest that July or August is too far ahead for us to wait and since public concern about this matter is really acute? Is he aware that he would be performing a valuable service if he made the Report available long before July?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we want to expedite the publication of the Report as much as we can. However, the Hixon accident is involved and it is important that both of these inquiries should be conducted exhaustively, in terms of avoiding future accidents on the same basis and for the benefit of the people involved.

At this time of financial stringency, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that there is no cut back in measures designed to achieve safety on the permanent way?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Transport if, in order to ensure the safety of engine drivers and firemen, he will obtain a report from the Inspector of Accidents into the death of a fireman while the train passed under a bridge near Burnley.

The Railways Board has sent me a report on this unfortunate accident. I understand that a joint inquiry was made by the Burnley Borough Police and the British Transport Police, Midland Area; the inquest has been adjourned until 21st May, and I cannot anticipate the verdict. In the meantime, I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the bereaved.

While wishing to add my sympathy to that expressed by the right hon. Gentleman to the bereaved and while thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask him to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to see if something can be done through the schools to inculcate a greater degree of responsibility among young people in regard to this type of accident?

I have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by the hon. Gentleman. The tragedy is that small children do strange things from time to time; but I agree that this is a point that might well be brought home to the schools.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the Liverpool bus strike and the fact that bus services will be much reduced in Liverpool when the strike is over, he will reconsider the proposal that the Liverpool-Gateacre suburban railway line should be closed.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no power to reverse his predecessor's decision. But the closure cannot take place unless and until the additional bus services specified in the conditions of consent set out in the Department's letter of 21st April, 1966, are available.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that every train on this line has been packed by commuters and others for the last nine weeks and the five single-decker buses proposed to replace them will be entirely inadequate? Will the Minister show a little flexibility and admit that the decision made by his predecessor to close this line was shortsighted and wrong?

The question of reversal of a decision is of course not possible statutorily, but on the question of the numbers travelling it may of course be necessary to revise the number of buses put on to replace the trains.

asked the Minister of Transport, having regard to the 3½ per cent. maximum increase to be permitted for incomes and prices, what steps he is taking to stabilise railway and omnibus passenger fares during 1968–69.

Any major increases proposed in rail fares, or in underground or bus fares in London, are referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. Other bus fares are controlled by the independent Traffic Commisioners who have a duty to take into account the criteria of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966.

I am aware of all these things. Will the hon. Gentleman now apply himself to the Question? What is to be the influence on the prices and incomes policy of precipitate rises in fares for the millions of commuters in London and elsewhere? Will he resist such rises resolutely, as befits his office?

There are no precipitate rises in fares in this respect. All these matters are being scrutinised by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. Moreover, in the case of London fares, they then have to go before the Transport Tribunal, where they are open to objection. No precipitate changes are being made. London fares have been stable since January, 1966.

May I ask the Minister of State whether he is aware that a large number of services that are socially desirable but completely uneconomic can be operated only if fares are increased? Is he aware that it may not be possible to imprison that rise within 3½ per cent.?

The hon. Gentleman may be right, in which case the criteria will have to be applied. In those instances which he is thinking about, they are applied by the Traffic Commissioners, and appeals are possible from them to my right hon. Friend. That is how these matters are judged.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will issue a general directive to the Transport Holding Company to extend beyond 14 days the period within which claims for compensation for goods lost in transit may be submitted.

No, Sir. The conditions under which traffic is carried are a matter of management for the Holding Company and its subsidiaries.

Would the Minister look into this? A spokesman has made a statement to the effect that claims will not be considered after 14 days. Is he aware that this means inconvenience for customers, as good often take longer than that to arrive?

I am advised that the statement incorporated in the hon. Gentleman's Question is not correct. If he knows of any hard cases, of which at the moment the British Transport Holding Company is unaware, I shall be glad to go into the matter with the Holding Company.

asked the Minister of Transport what recent representations he has received from the farming community about the effects of the Transport Bill on farming.

We have received a number of representations, mainly concerned with the goods transport provisions of the Bill, and we, with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, have consulted the industry.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the anxieties of the farming community about the increased costs which will fall either on the farmer or the consumer or the taxpayers through the Price Review? As the Minister of Agriculture has said that he cannot calculate what will be the cost to the farming community, is not this a curious way to run the Government?

We have no evidence that there will be any marked increase in agricultural costs. Traffic will be diverted to the railways if the rail service concerned is good enough in terms of speed and cost. Where perishable goods are involved, it is likely that the railways will accept that these constitute a special case for road transport and will not even object.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the main fears of the farming community was in relation to the carriage of livestock and that, since these provisions were removed from the Bill, those fears no longer exist?

A number of other concessions have been made to the farming community as well—for instance, in relation to drivers' hours—because we recognise that it has certain special difficulties, including seasonal difficulties. These have been met in the Bill as far as possible

asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received from people or firms in Norfolk against the Transport Bill; and what answer he has given them.

We have received a number of representations from individuals and firms in Norfolk about the Transport Bill. They are mostly concerned with the road haulage provisions of the Bill and appropriate replies have been sent.

Is the Minister aware that I can send him plenty more of a severely practical and objective nature? Does he agree that the Bill, unless amended, raises the grave danger of half hamstringing a county's transport merely because of its geographical situation?

There is no evidence that any special difficulties will be anticipated in Norfolk. There are arrangements in the Bill whereby rail will only compete for traffic when it will be more economic. The criterion which has been laid down will safeguard Norfolk as well as the rest of the country.

asked the Minister of Transport what study he has made of the availability of hostel or similar accommodation in the London area for those long-distance drivers who will now be unable to return home in one day because of the proposed restriction on drivers' hours in the Transport Bill; and what conclusions he has reached.

I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) on 6th November, 1967.—[Vol. 753, c. 67–68.]

Whatever that reply may have been, is it not nonsensical to risk not making the optimum use of expensive equipment, vehicles and skilled operators by preventing their taking a return load in one day and getting home?

This is true, except that it must be accepted that the safety factors involved in the return load are also important. It is now 30-odd years since the drivers' hours were fixed at 11 and it is thought that a reduction is needed, particularly considering the very big increase in traffic over the last 35 years.

Would the hon. Gentleman consider coming to visit East Anglia during the recess to hear for himself what some people feel and fear about the Transport Bill?

I have travelled a great deal, not perhaps in East Anglia, but in many other areas and in Scotland, where we had many of the same objections. I am glad to say that the more the Bill becomes known by people in areas such as these, the more they realise that the campaign launched against it was badly organised and ill-founded.

asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received from the milk distributive trade regarding the effects of the Transport Bill; and what reply he has sent.

We have had several such representations, mainly about quantity licensing and drivers' hours. We are still considering some of the points raised.

Does the hon. Gentleman remember that I wrote to him as long ago as 16th February on behalf of an important section of the trade in Scotland and still have not had any reply or comment? Does he not appreciate that there is great concern in this industry, which provides a seven-day service, about working a seven-day week and about the effects of the new provisions for drivers' hours?

I must apologise for the delay in answering and I will take it up at the Ministry. There have, of course, been many letters and circulars from hon. Members on the Transport Bill and the Ministry is working very hard answering them. We are still concerned, although we want to help in every way possible, that milkmen must be given the same chance to be fit and ready for their work, so as not to cause accidents, as any other driver. The safety aspect is very important.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of vehicles used in milk distribution are exempt from the licensing provisions of the Bill, and that the question of the heavier vehicles, over 16 tons and going over 100 miles, are still being considered?

It is true that vehicles under 30 cwt., which are the bulk of the daily delivery vehicles, are completely exempt, not from the drivers' hours provisions but from the other provisions of the Bill.

Has the hon. Gentleman considered the Bill's serious impact on milk deliveries in rural areas over long distances, particularly in Scotland? Is he aware of the growing demand in Scotland for the withdrawal of this wretched Bill, and will he try to influence his right hon. Friend to withdraw it?

I am sorry, but I am not aware of this growing demand. As I said, I think that the campaign did not really get off the ground. I met as many Scottish hauliers as most hon. Members and I found that, once the Bill had been explained to them, they frequently took a totally different view from the popular image given by hon. Members opposite.

asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received from the various canal and waterway associations on the Transport Bill; and whether he will make a statement.

Several associations interested in the various recreational and amenity uses of the nationalised inland waterways have made constructive suggestions. Some of these have led to Government amendments to the Transport Bill which have been welcomed by the Standing Committee. We are considering carefully other points raised by hon. Members in Committee.

Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Minister is enthusiastic about the use of waterways for recreation? Will he take further note of the representations made to him to improve these facilities?

For the first time, I think, a Government have recognised the greater part which the inland waterways can play in giving amenities in a crowded island like ours. The Bill embodies a realistic appreciation of what can be done with the waterways and how they can be used. It is a very helpful part of the Bill, which should be welcomed by all.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated proportion of accidents caused by cars skidding.

In 1966, skidding occurred in 24 per cent. of personal injury accidents, but the skidding was not necessarily the cause of all of them.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps the greatest contribution to road safety which the Ministry could make is to encourage the four-wheeled drive, which is being developed on a commercial basis for the ordinary motorist?

My right hon. Friend is doing a number of things for road safety on the question of skidding including the new tyre regulations and continual research into road surfacing. Manufacturers are also continually improving the anti-skid properties of tyres and the Road Research Laboratory is doing research on anti-lock braking systems. Indeed, research is continually going on into the subject.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will place in the Library copies of the accounts of all subsidiary companies of nationalised industries under his control.

We have agreed with the nationalised transport industries to make available to the House copies of the future accounts of their active direct subsidiaries as and when they are required to be filed with the Registrar of Companies.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on reversing the policy of the previous Minister. Will this include the accounts of subsidiaries of British Railways making and repairing railway wagons?

This is not a departure from previous practice. All that has happened is that previous accounts filed with the Registrar will also be put in the Library, and perhaps save hon. Members some trouble. The hon. Gentleman is really asking about Clause 45, which was discussed in great detail in Committee. The accounts of the railway workshops, as a subsidiary, will also be placed in the Library.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will raise the salaries of the board members of the nationalised industries under his control to levels commensurate with those paid by the British Steel Corporation.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will hold a review of the salary structure for board members in the nationalised industries sponsored by his Department.

As I told the House on 15th March, 1967, the salaries fixed for members of the then new Steel Corporation were related to the special position of the steel industry. It will of course be necessary later this year to determine the salaries of members of the new authorities proposed in the Transport Bill. These salaries will be considered in the light of the need to obtain the best people for the jobs and of the position elsewhere in nationalised transport and in nationalised industries generally.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his position of pretending that the Steel Corporation is in some way special is entirely bogus and without foundation? Will he admit that the Government have made a serious error in underpaying the chairmen and board members of nationalised industries, and will he give an undertaking to put it right in the forthcoming review to which he has referred?

One of the problems that one faces, concerning the salaries of chairmen and board members of nationalised industries, is that it was not faced up to for a very long period previously, and hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot deny it.

What about Beeching?

We are now faced with——

What about Beeching?

The hon. Gentleman is even more repetitive this afternoon.

Does the Minister agree that it is essential to bring in the best people from outside industry and to recruit people from inside nationalised industries, and will he undertake not to be intimidated by the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity?

The Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity shares the views which I, as a member of the Government, share on this matter.

asked the Minister of Transport what is his estimate of the increase in commuter traffic between south and north Merseyside likely by the late nineteen-seventies; and what proposals he has for providing further river river crossings during the next decade.

Although we have some indications of the future volume of commuter traffic across the Mersey, full and up-to-date information must await completion of the Merseyside Area Land Use Transportation Study. Until then no decisions can be taken on further river crossings, beyond the duplication of the Liverpool-Wallasey Tunnel which is already programmed.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the public will have ample opportunity to consider the land use implications of the high-level bridge which is now under consideration between Bebington and Liverpool? Further, does he agree that the high costs of commuting across the River Mersey require considerable thought to be given, when future decisions are taken, over the location of new jobs in Liverpool and Wirral respectively.

The public will be consulted by the M.A.L.U.T. study. The decision on the third crossing will depend on the findings of the M.A.L.U.T. study. It is too early to say, as yet, whether it will take the form of a tunnel or a bridge. This will depend on the location, cost, and other factors.

Has any consideration been given to the possibility of a hovercraft service across the upper Mersey estuary which, being all water at high tide and nearly all sand at low tide, will be eminently suitable for such a form of transport?

This is another question. In any event, this is surely a question for the Merseyside Area Land Use Transportation Study Group.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the rapid redevelopment of the city centres of Liverpool and Birkenhead will make it difficult to find a route for a third crossing near the city centres? Will he look into the possibility of a bridge or tunnel on the line of the outer ring road?

As I have said, this is a matter for the Study Group. It is too early to say at this stage. The location will depend entirely on cost and other factors.

Does the Minister agree that Merseyside, although undergoing a little heart surgery at present in the construction of two tunnels, will in future badly need more bridges if the two sides of the Mersey are to operate as one economic unit?

No. while some forecasts of the future volume of cross-river traffic have been made—for example, in the Merseyside Traffic Survey published in 1962—we consider that the projections to be produced as part of the M.A.L.U.T. study will prove more useful for the long-term transportation planning of the area.

asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the effect of the contraction of the coal industry upon the ports in Scotland.

None, Sir. This is, in the first place, a matter for the port authorities concerned, who are in touch with the National Coal Board about future coal shipments.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that there is a strong feeling that the contractions of the mining industry cannot be considered in isolation, that this augurs badly for other industries and that investigations should be made?

My right hon. Friend and the Government have shown that they agree that the matter cannot be taken in isolation, but I am advised that, in 1967, coal amounted to only about 8 per cent. of total port traffic in Scotland and that the total level of port traffic there was maintained, but this is a matter over which, no doubt, the port authorities are keeping a careful watch.

But would not the hon. Gentleman apply himself to advising the Minister of Power to use Scottish coal, transported by Scottish rail, to the new Alcan smelter at Invergordon, thereby using Scottish resources and preventing the electoral debâcle of yesterday in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Paisley?

As usual, the hon. Gentleman has introduced a number of extraneous matters. We will, nevertheless go into them but they are, of course, the responsibility first of the port authorities.

asked the Minister of Transport what losses in revenue are anticipated by the railway industry as a result of contraction of the mining industry.

The effect on net revenue will depend on the pattern of the contraction, and the way in which the Board adapts to it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there was no electoral débâcle in my constituency yesterday? Does he not agree, to return to my Question, that the figures illustrate the financial problems for the railways of loss of revenue? Would he not agree that this would make it much more difficult for the railways to become more viable?

Of course the loss of a very big revenue such as coal has an effect on the railways, but there is close liaison between the railways, the National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board to make the best and most economic use of the railways, such as "merry-go-round" trains, to try to keep the net loss of revenue as low as possible.

Will my hon. Friend, along with the railways and coal industry, face the main problem, which is, in the modern sense, to containerise coal traffic and get rid of the difficulty of loading and unloading? There is a problem in containerising bulk coal, but could this not be looked at carefully?

As I said, "merry-go-round" trains have been a big step forward and the real investment of the railways in new types of loading and unloading coal has been very high. The C.E.G.B., the railways and the Coal Board are aware of the necessity to keep up to date in these matters.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is yet in a position to announce the location of the termini of the Channel Tunnel; and whether he will make a statement.

The termini would be in the general area of Folkestone and Calais. My Department is at present consulting local and other interests at official level on the detailed siting of terminal facilities in this country, but there will be more formal consultations before a decision is reached on the proposals to be presented to Parliament.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that until this is settled, it will hold up development in the Folkestone area? Will he do all he can to get an early decision, so that we can get on with our development?

I appreciate the problem, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that these are important decisions involving consultations. The Bill provides, of course, in Clause 154 for powers to deal with planning blight.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, apart from this decision being important from the point of view of the actual termini of the proposed tunnel, the whole question of road strategy in the South-East is held up and that there is a feeling that, in the Ministry's consideration of the volume of road traffic to the Channel ports, Dover and the two new proposed hover ports which are to be built this year are not being given sufficient priority?

This is precisely why one must embark on very exhaustive consultations. These are major decisions and it would be wrong to rush them without proper consultations.

Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no final decision has yet been taken about proceeding with the tunnel? Will he publish his latest estimates of traffic and revenue for the type of project which is now likely to proceed?

As the hon. Gentleman must be aware, we could not proceed with the tunnel until legislation had gone through the House and the approval of the House had been obtained.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a very important inter-party group, called the Parliamentary Channel Tunnel Group? In view of its patience over the last 12 months, would he consider meeting the group for an all-party or open meeting so that some of these points can be raised for inter-party discussion?

I am in favour of anything which involves hon. Gentlemen opposite in an understanding of difficult decisions, and I would be prepared to consider such an invitation.

Would the right hon. Gentleman avoid the impression of being surreptitious about this project? In view of the great upheaval which will be caused on this side of the Channel, would he appreciate that we have a right to be told more about it?

I find it difficult to understand what the right hon. Gentleman is complaining about. I have explained where the termini are likely to be. The consultations will take place on this with all the parties involved and there is nothing surreptitious about it. Consultations are going on and as soon as the decisions are reached they will be announced.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government are very keen to give the utmost information about the tunnel—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who told you?"] If hon. Members will only wait, I will inform their ignorance. Is my right hon. Friend aware that a new Clause was put down to the Transport Bill with the idea of this matter being settled, but which is receiving nothing but impediments from hon. Gentlemen opposite to avoid discussion?

This is a problem: virtue has a habit of being misunderstood.

Would the right hon. Gentleman now answer my previous question—whether or not, apart from Parliamentary approval, the Government have decided definitely to go ahead with the Channel Tunnel? In view of the fact that the figures now available to the House are out-dated, would he publish new ones as soon as possible?

Certainly, at the first possible opportunity, the up-to-date information will be given. The Government's position over the tunnel remains unchanged. Before any such move can be taken to go ahead, it would involve legislation coming before the House.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the question on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Transport how many accidents have occurred in the past 12 months involving lorries being blown over on exposed roads and bridges in high winds; and what steps are being taken by his department, other than closing such bridges as the Severn Bridge during high winds, to reduce these high wind risks to large lorries.

No national figures are available, but sample surveys indicate that the number of such accidents is very small. We are prepared to authorise the use of a traffic sign at places where there is persistent danger from high winds.

Does not that show that, when other factors are equal, tunnels are preferable to bridges?

That is another question, although expense must be considered.

asked the Minister of Transport what factors have caused the decline of road accidents per 1,000 vehicles involving death from 3·2 in 1930 to 0·5 in 1967.

The fact that road deaths have decreased in comparison with vehicle population may be attributed to a large number of factors, including the decline in the use of two-wheeled vehicles, improved roads and the whole range of road safety measures.

The figures having been reduced to one-sixth of the previous level, is it not high time that the motorist was for a change given some credit for doing something good instead of always being penalised and threatened?

I would not want to be in the position of either penalising or threatening motorists, and there is considerable evidence to show that the motorist is well aware of the responsibilities he has to himself and to others. It is, of course, important to put this matter in its right context and I agree that the evidence available at present shows that we are getting a better performance from the point of view of road accidents.

Apart from the standard of driving, which appears to be steadily improving year by year, has the Minister noticed the recent reports of the Metropolitan Police, in which satisfaction is expressed with the increased safety that has been brought about by traffic engineering improvements in the Metropolitan area, which have had the effect of bringing about an improvement of perhaps 30 per cent. in terms of road accidents?

Certainly that is a contributory factor. However, we must remember that the present accident rate is appallingly high in this country. Anything more that we can do to help to bring down the rate it is right for us to do.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will seek to amend the law so that drivers will not have their driving licences endorsed for parking offences.

Purely parking offences, as distinct from leaving a vehicle where it creates danger, are not endorsable under existing law.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that a stationary vehicle, however badly parked, is not as dangerous as a moving vehicle? Is it not unfair that the totting up process for disqualification should be the same for leaving a vehicle parked dangerously as for driving dangerously?

The hon. Gentleman must have missed the point I was making; that purely parking offences—that is, leaving vehicles stationary—are not endorsable at the present time. The categories in which stationary vehicles commit an endorsable offence are leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position—in other words, causing a dangerous obstruction, and this is not a parking offence, its essential ingredient is the causing of danger—stopping on a special road, except on the hard shoulder—this not only dislocates fast-moving traffic but causes a danger—and leaving a vehicle on or near a pedestrian crossing, and I do not think that anyone would argue about this. All of these offences attract endorsement and the court has discretionary power to disqualify.

asked the Minister of Transport what discussions he has had with London Transport regarding the provision of Underground services in South-East London.

London Transport plans to extend its rail services in South-East London and elsewhere are regularly discussed between the Ministry and the Board.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we have had promises about this for a very long time? Will he consult his right hon. Friend and obtain his confirmation that travelling daily from South-East London to Central London is well-nigh impossible and that, with future population increases, it will become absolutely impossible within the next five years?

My right hon. Friend is only too well aware of the seriousness of the situation. My hon. Friend will no doubt wish to bear in mind the decisions taken by my right hon. Friend's predecessor about the extension of the tube line. Discussions are now taking place between London Transport and British Railways about possible improvements and extensions of these services, and I hope to make an announcement shortly.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is likely that these extensions, if they take place, will be financially self-supporting or carried by subsidy?

This matter must be investigated. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of, for example, the proposal for the Fleet line. All these proposals must be examined, like those for the Victoria Line and the Brixton extension. They must all be subject to careful scrutiny and we obviously cannot yet say whether they would be profitable.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the present growth of long-range commuting is squeezing out short-range commuting and overloading the system? Would he agree that supplementing short-range commuting by the underground in South-East London is the only solution?

All these matters must be the subject of investigation and, as I said, London Transport and British Railways are now looking into them. I have no doubt that they will be considering the question of the system becoming overloaded and what further facilities should be provided. The question is what form these facilities should take, and this is a matter for technical investigation.

asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received on the building of motorways in South-East London; and what reply he has sent.

We have received various representations, including proposals from the G.L.C. for the primary network. We hope to reply shortly.

Would my hon. Friend confirm that there is a good deal of opposition to these projects in South-East London, perhaps because of inadequate compensation being paid to householders when they are displaced? Will he consult with his colleagues to ensure that house owners receive adequate compensation so that they are able to replace their existing properties with comparable properties?

The question of compensation is another matter which is under investigation. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that we are programming various sections of these proposals from the point of view of examining those which are particularly urgent. Naturally, the whole question of proposals about, for example, motorway boxes may be challenged when the Greater London Development Plan comes under inquiry.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Greater London Council is really getting on with this work and that, while it was left for many years, it is now making a good job of it and that the G.L.C. deserves all the support he can give it?

Very substantial progress has been made in the last few years. The reason is, of course, the level of the roads programme. We hope to continue on that course, and that is the approach we will take in considering the proposals of the G.L.C.

asked the Minister of Transport what investigations he has made into the cost of a low-level bridge from Speke rising to cross the Manchester Ship Canal, so that traffic can flow more easily between the south end of Liverpool and the Wirral.

None, Sir. This matter is within the purview of the Merseyside Area Land Use Transportation Study.

Since traffic needs to flow freely round the periphery of great conurbations and since there is no such means at present for this to happen on Merseyside, will the hon. Gentleman look into the economies to be achieved by, for example, the pre-stressed concrete bridge built by the Tasmanian Government over the Derwent at Hobart and costing about one-third of the price of a tunnel?

I will commend the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to my right hon. Friend, but at present it is too early to go into detailed consideration of the type and location of such a crossing. It is also too early to comment on the issue of cost.

When my hon. Friend is considering what type of crossing it should be, will he bear in mind the fact that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board provides the Manchester Ship Canal Company with the use of a crane called "The Mammoth" and that, unless there is consideration of the need for a high-level bridge, Manchester may not be able to rely on this type of assistance from Merseyside in the future?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make it compulsory for heavy duty vehicles to have mud flaps fitted to their rear wings.

Mudguarding must be tailored to the many different types of commercial vehicle and could not readily be specified in regulation; nor are we satisfied that the cost of compulsory fitting could be justified by accident savings.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the hazards and great danger of windscreens being obscured by dollops of mud when following heavy duty vehicles, the wheels of which are high off the ground?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of this problem. However, only a very small proportion of the total number of accidents is directly due to mud on windscreens, although the number of accidents in which this is a contributory factor is not yet known.

Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Road Research Laboratory is doubtful whether mud flaps are effective?

The Road Research Laboratory has conducted long-term research into this matter.

asked the Minister of Transport when work on the Dovercourt bypass will now start.

I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 27th March.—[Vol. 761, c. 1523.]

Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the road from Parkeston Quay Road to Harwich Quay? I understand from the county council that it has no information of the Minister's intentions and that the reply that he gave me was misleading.

It was not misleading. There are two stages to the scheme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the first stage has been put into the preparation list and has been prepared by the Essex County Council, which is responsible for the whole scheme. If it wishes to put further proposals, we shall consider them.

asked the Minister of Transport what has been the result of the operation of the free controlled parking zone scheme in the London Borough of Enfield; and how it com- pares with meter parking in other boroughs.

The scheme is so far working satisfactorily. It differs from meter zones in other London boroughs in that there is generally enough off-street parking space to meet demand.

Does the Minister agree that in view of the amount of taxation imposed on motorists, the extension of this kind of scheme is more preferable than having meters, particularly from the point of view of street parking?

This kind of scheme is possible when there is an equation of demand and supply for parking space. We want to do everything to encourage boroughs to create more off-street parking space, but in some places it is not possible to produce this equation. Therefore, it is necessary to resort to other techniques.

asked the Minister of Transport at what date his Department first held discussions with the Birkenhead County Borough over the proposed Rock Ferry bypass; what subsequent consultations have taken place on the proposal; and what is the present position regarding its completion.

A proposal for a Rock Ferry bypass was first put to the Department in March, 1961. Since then we have been consulted about the route of the bypass and about its detailed design. A completion date cannot be forecast until a planning decision has been given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this has dragged on far too long? Has he considered putting a bomb under somebody responsible for the planning process, because this is causing great planning blight and inconvenience to the local authority? Can we be assured that before too long there will be a decision on this long overdue matter?

I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. The inclusion of the scheme in the roads programme is without prejudice to the outcome of the statutory processes. This is a matter for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

asked the Minister of Transport what were the recommendations contained in the joint reports of the Somerset County Council and the consulting engineers, appointed in 1964, to investigate a possible route for a new dual-carriageway road between the present proposed M5 terminus and the vicinity of Exeter, on the question whether it should be built as a special road or as an all-purpose road with restricted access.

The joint reports recommended that the road should be built as a motorway.

Is it proposed to accept these recommendations? If not, what is it proposed to do?

Last month's truck road preparation announcement made provision for the Edithmead-Exeter scheme to be built to motorway standards. A final decision on the standard of the road must, of course, await the results of this assessment in the preparation pool, but there must be a strong presumption that it will be built as a motorway.

asked the Minister of Transport when he will announce his decision on the recommendations from the chartered land societies and others on the problems of compensation in relation to highways to owners of houses deleteriously affected by new road developments.

The study of this question is being co-ordinated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. It has implications of great importance for both public and private developers and the timing of any decision cannot be forecast.

Would the Minister bear in mind, in the meantime, that a blight has fallen over property near to projected urban motorways? Is he aware that many people have put all their savings into their homes, many of which have become unsaleable?

I am aware of this difficult problem. We are doing our best, under the present law, to overcome it by obtaining clear decisions on these schemes as quickly as we can. As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, there are complex matters concerning the reform of the compensation laws. We are in possession of information on the subject supplied by various societies and this is being considered as rapidly as possible.

Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that at a time when betterment is taxed where "worsement" is caused by the community, good compensation should be paid?

We agree that it is fair to say that the position is not satisfactory at present. While this is a difficult problem in the development of the motorway and roads programme, the whole matter is to be reviewed in all its aspects and we will make a statement as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the confusion caused by the lack of uniformity of regulations governing the parking of vehicles at night without lights in different areas; and whether he will take the necessary steps to eliminate local variations of parking restrictions.

We are aware that the present regulations are subject to criticism on various grounds and are considering possible ways of amending them.

Is this matter being considered in consultation with chief constables and officials of the various local authorities to get their co-operation?

This type of consideration always has the ear of chief constables and local authorities.

Would my hon. Friend consider tightening up the regulations governing single parking lights on vehicles, because in certain circumstances vehicles so parked may be totally invisible to oncoming traffic?

That, too, is a point well worth bearing in mind.

asked the Minister of Transport when he now proposes to make a further statement on the nationalisation of the ports.

asked the Minister of Transport what consideration he has given to options, other than nationalisation, for the reorganisation of the ports; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's intentions with regard to the future ownership of the docks.

As I said yesterday in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), I will make a further statement as soon as I have completed my consideration of the views expressed in the consultations we have had.—[Vol. 764, c. 60.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman now scrap the ridiculous proposals of his predecessor, which are doctrinaire political nonsense and make no business sense?

I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is being objective about this.

Will the right hon. Gentleman pay particular regard to the observations of the Rochdale Committee, which seems to propose a formula far less complicated and distracting than nationalisation?

Certainly, in our consultations all the advice tendered will be considered. Of course the Government are committed to taking steps in relation to our ports which, unfortunately, right hon. Members opposite did not take for such a long time, with such dire consequences.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side are eagerly awaiting the proposals of the Government to implement the undertaking to nationalise the ports, but this is important both as a social reform and as an economic necessity?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fear that Wisbech port might be adversely affected is causing local concern? Is he further aware that, with the development of the East Anglia and particularly the Peterborough expansion, the Wisbech port will be put to good use?

It is our intention to take all these matters into account. I regret the uncertainty which exists, but on the other hand these are very important proposals.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether he is considering the whole future of the basis of organisation of the ports or is considering the form of nationalisation? Presumably he is considering whether or not to nationalise.

I am considering the views expressed in consultations I am having.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the very great developments by private enterprise at Felixstowe, which have given great pride to all of us in Suffolk? It would be a tragedy if the port were nationalised in view of these developments.

Certainly I will bear these things in mind.

asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of compensation for nationalisation of the ports, as set out by his Department on 7th July, 1967; and whether he will apply the test rate of discount laid down in the Government's Review of Economic and Financial Objectives for Nationalised Industries to this proposed investment.