asked the Minister of Transport what study he has made of the feasibility of underground motorways passing underneath London from north to south and east to west with access to the centre of London; and what is the estimated cost of a three-lane each-way motorway scheme of this type.

A study of proposals put forward in 1966 for a network of underground motorways in London showed this approach to be unrealistic on both technical and economic grounds. The cost of a complete underground network would be several thousands of millions of pounds.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the later part of what he has said is not the answer to what I asked for precisely in my Question? What I have asked for is probably the most simple long-term approach from the point of view of providing links with the future Channel Tunnel, the possibility of an airfield at Foulness, and of bringing thousands of commuters into the city centre? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is worthy of a further long-term study?

No, Sir, I am afraid I would not. The technical problems of constructing, operating, and maintaining a system of 60 ft. diameter highway tunnels is not simple, and the difficulty of finding thousands of millions of pounds for them seems insuperable at the moment.

Are not there grounds for considering roads under major amenity areas such as Greenwich Park and Hampstead Heath?

Roads in such areas will be considered, but it is a very expensive proposition to build a total network of tunnels.

asked the Minister of Transport what figures are available of the number of accidents resulting from collisions with fixed objects on roadsides; what study he has made of the use of folding collapsible telegraph poles; and what plans he has for promoting the extended use of collapsible poles on roadsides.

The most recent estimate for a 12-month period ending in March, 1968, gives a total of 900 accidents of this type. A small trial installation of breakaway lighting columns was erected in 1964. The results of this experiment are satisfactory and trial columns of this type will be erected shortly on the A1 in Yorkshire. The question of using folding collapsible telegraph poles is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members will find the results of the original experiment and the suggestion that there will be further developments in this direction very welcome, but will he consider giving some general advice to people constructing motorways and other roads of this kind that they should not introduce more and more rigid obstacles which are likely to cause further accidents?

We are studying this. I have already referred to the breakaway lighting columns, and we have other ideas in train, but we must ensure the proper and economic positioning and prominence of fixed roadside objects.

asked the Minister of Transport with which outside bodies he has discussed his proposals for the M6 motorway at Levens Park, Westmorland.

The usual consultations with local authorities and statutory bodies took place before draft proposals were published.

I will, with permission circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on his official visit to Levens Park, Westmorland.

I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) on the 2nd April, 1969.—[Vol. 781, c. 122.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us concerned about Levens Park appreciate his change of heart since this Question was put down?

I have not changed anything at all, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for thanking me for it.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now received an interim report arising out of the project feasibility study of alternative routes north and south of Preston designed to resolve the congestion caused to traffic travelling to Blackpool and the Fylde; and if he will make a statement.

The interim report is expected at the end of this month. The final report on which decisions will be taken is due in the autumn.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, as long ago as 1964, studies showed that, by 1970, a motorway link between the M6 and the Fylde Coast would pay for itself within two years and would save 24 deaths and 740 other casualties a year? Will he give the report urgent consideration when it is received?

I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

asked the Minister of Transport what percentage of the total mileage of trunk roads now under construction will have continuous hard shoulders.

None, Sir, except a very small proportion of all-purpose trunk roads which will eventually become motorways. All motorways under construction have hard shoulders.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I referred to trunk roads? I am very concerned about those trunk roads of motorway standard which are not actually motorways. They tend to be dangerous because there is no safe area for cars to come off the road when they break down and stop. Could the hon. Gentleman look closely into this, also, in connection with the proposed widening of the M4 on the Slough and Maidenhead by-passes?

We have looked into the question of the all-purpose trunk road and we have put down hard strips, but usually the policy is to provide sufficient lay-bys—about two, each 100 yards long, for every mile—to enable people to get off the road if necessary.

asked the Minister of Transport how many persons were injured or killed in road accidents in 1968; and if he will make a statement.

In 1968 6,810 people were killed in road accidents, 88,563 were seriously injured and 253,835 were slightly injured. This represents an overall reduction of 7 per cent. on 1967.

This is the second year running in which deaths and injuries have been reduced, and the total is the lowest since 1962, despite increases in traffic. This shows that a steady rise in accidents is not inevitable. But the total is still far too high for complacency: the provisional figures for January, 1969, suggests that a renewed effort is needed if this favourable trend is to be maintained.

The whole House will welcome the improvement in 1968 and 1967 and will hope that this can be continued. But was the Parliamentary Secretary not rather concerned at the provisional figures for the beginning of the year, which showed a sharp increase? What steps is he taking to try to identify the causes of this increase? Will he investigate to see whether the introduction of British Standard Time had any relevance?

Clearly, my right hon. Friend is extremely concerned about the increase in the figures for January, but nevertheless we are the only country in Europe which has succeeded in reducing casualties over two successive years. We are determined to try to maintain that improvement by continued publicity and, if need be, by further legislation.

Has my hon. Friend any figures to show in what percentage of cases excessive speed was a factor?

I should need notice of that question.

asked the Minister of Transport by what percentage work on motorway and major roads projects in 1968 fell short of the planned programme; and what were the comparable percentages in each of the previous four years.

I would refer to the Answer given to the hon. Member on 14th April.—[Vol. 781, c. 207–8.]

Is it not deplorable that, over the last five years, about £60 million of the planned road programme has disappeared in cuts or administrative slippage? Why did we have an 8·7 per cent. or £21 million reduction in 1968–69? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking, as a matter of urgency, to ensure that some of our road programme this year does not disappear in the same way.

There has been faulty forecasting about the programme, largely because of the availability of new techniques now, and steps are being taken to rectify that. The underlying reason is that the Government have decided to build roads on a scale so much bigger than was ever envisaged by the hon. Gentleman's party that obviously we are coping with a great deal more. The hon. Gentleman mentioned 1968–69, when road building was 9 per cent. up on the year before, and was just over double what his party spent in its last year in office.

Can my right hon. Friend explain why, although the Conservative Party continually says that if it comes to power it will cut the social services, every time we have one small cut in the social services right hon. and hon. Members opposite make a large outcry?

It is the nature of the beast. But the roads are not social services—[Interruption.]—they certainly are not—and it is important that we should have a much higher level of expenditure on them in the future than we have had in the past. That is why I am pleased that the House, through the present Government, is spending six times as much on road building as it did 10 years ago.

Is it also in the nature of the Socialist beast to increase taxation and enlarge expenditure?

One of the things the hon. and learned Gentleman will realise eventually is that if one wants to spend more money it has to come from somewhere.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now give instructions for a crash barrier to be erected on the central reservation of the Ml between markers 53 and 55 in the two miles north of the service area at Newport Pagnell.

A working party is investigating the whole question of crash barriers on motorway central reserves, and this section of the M1 will be considered in the light of its report.

Is the Minister aware that this must be the most dangerous section of motorway as regards cross-over accidents? Is he aware that in the past seven years nearly 20 people have been killed in such accidents, and that many have been seriously injured? Will he now pay heed to the representations made to him by the coroner for that area?

I am not aware of the number of accidents to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am aware that the number of cross-over accidents is rather higher in relation to the volume of traffic than on adjacent lengths where traffic volumes are higher.

asked the Minister of Transport what major road developments are planned which will affect the constituency of the hon. Member for Putney; and to what extent they will involve the destruction of houses or blighting of amenities.

The Greater London Council's plans for London's primary road network include sections of Ring-ways 1 and 2 in this area. It states that these routes are being planned so as to have the minimum effect on property and amenities.

Is my hon. Friend aware that changes appear to be taking place all the time in the G.L.C. plans? Has the G.L.C. kept the Ministry of Transport in touch with precisely what its present programme is? Will my hon. Friend encourage the G.L.C. to make up its mind and let everybody know where it stands?

Yes, Sir. The proposals form part of the Greater London Development Plan, which is due to be submitted to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government by 31st July.

Has the Minister any idea when Ringway 2 will be built?

Subject to the Greater London Development Plan public inquiry findings, Ringway 2—the "C" ring—is unlikely to start before the mid-1970s.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now announce his decision on the road improvements to the A5 trunk road in the borough of Tam-worth; and when he estimates work will start on them.

No decision can be taken on the need for or the timing of any improvement of this section of A5 until the highway network for the expanded town of Tamworth has been settled, and of course the effects on A5 traffic of that network and of other trunk road works in the area have been studied.

That is a very disappointing reply. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the road problems at Tam-worth, particularly the A5, have been shelved by successive Ministers of Transport over the past 20 years; and that if no action is taken in the near future both the A5 and the borough of Tam-worth will grind to a standstill?

I would not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman has said about some previous Ministers, but I certainly believe that my right hon. Friend is getting on with this job as expeditiously as possible. The hon. Gentleman should understand that this work depends on the completion of the transportation study which has been put in hand by the Staffordshire County Council.

asked the Minister of Transport what, in money terms, was the amount of planned road construction in the county of Cornwall in the road programme for 1968; what was achieved in that year; and what lengths of roadway these figures represent.

During the financial year 1968–69 the value of new trunk and principal road improvement work programmed for commitment or grant assistance was £541,200. The value of work actually committed or approved for grant was £542,550, representing work on approximately 3½ miles of new or improved road.

The amounts of actual expenditure during 1968–69, including work on schemes programmed earlier, are not yet available.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that Cornwall, being a development area, is particularly dependent on transport? Will he ensure that all possible progress is made for the rapid improvement of transport facilities in that area?

The Government are very well aware of the needs of Cornwall as a development area. That is precisely why the A30 and the A38 have now been given relative priority as the main route to Cornwall. This policy is supported by the South-West Economic Planning Council and by the Joint Committee for the South-West.

Will not my hon. Friend agree that major road improvements are an integral part of regional policy, and in a peripheral area like Cornwall that work is even more important than in development areas as a whole? Will he continue to look at the special need for main road improvements in this county?

Yes, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that the figures he has just given are deplorably low? Even though the improvements to the A30 and A38 are to be welcomed, they will not be helpful unless there is similar development of the roads within the county to accommodate traffic.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should be quite so pessimistic. In terms of road mileage, it is true that 3½ miles is not much road, but the hon. Gentleman should understand that one can create quite a considerable improvement by spending a fair bit of money simply on junction improvement.

asked the Minister of Transport what was the estimated cost of the programme for building motorways and other roads in the South-Eastern Region in 1968; and how much was actually spent in that year.

Central Government expenditure on new and improved motorways and other roads in the South-Eastern Economic Planning Region in 1968–69 was estimated at just over £50 million, excluding land costs; about £46 million was actually spent. Data for spending by local authorities in the region is not yet available.

Can the Minister say why there is a shortfall of £4 million? What steps are being taken to see that the programme is kept up?

The shortfall of £4 million was caused mainly by delay in statutory procedures in connection with the two radial motorways M3 and M23. As to future shortfalls, we shall certainly aim to see that we keep to the programme as forecast but, as I have said, public interest and individual rights come into this.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if he endeavours to meet the wishes of many hon. Members opposite in building new roads and so on and so forth, he will then be attacked from the Front Bench opposite for incurring public expenditure?

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the programme "as forecast". Will he say which programme? Is he not aware that his Ministry has recently published a document delaying for periods of up to two years the start of a large number of major projects? To which forecast did he refer?

I should be interested if the hon. Lady could enlighten me as to the document concerned. London highways now come under my general purview in the Ministry, but I am not aware of the document she mentioned.

asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the difficulties experienced in securing the observance of road safety regulations, if he will introduce further amending regulations with a view to ensuring greater safety on the roads.

I am not clear what particular regulations my hon. Friend has in mind, but we are ready to consider any proposal for amendments if they are really likely to assist road safety.

In view of the fact that my hon. Friend referred to a speed limit of 70 miles an hour in reply to my previous Question, may I ask whether he is aware that on the motorways that speed limit is regularly abused and disregarded? Is he aware that passing on the left on motorways is quite common? What will he do to enforce the regulations?

Enforcement of the regulations is a matter for the police. We believe that enforcement is working well, within the limits of available manpower. I should be anxious to know of any ideas my hon. Friend has for furthering the ability of the police or the Department to enforce the regulations which have already been made.

asked the Minister of Transport what studies he has made of traffic flow from the M6 along the A34 into Birmingham when the Great Barr interchange is completed; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the A34 can carry the increased load.

The West Midland Transport Study has enabled long-term traffic flows along the A34 between M6 and Birmingham to be estimated. Dual carriageways are under construction on the trunk road part of A34 between the Great Barr interchange and the city boundary, and there are schemes, both in progress and in this year's programme, to provide further dual carriageways on A34 within the city boundary.

Will my hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that the full dual-ling of the A34 between Great Barr and Birmingham will be completed before the Motorway actually reaches A34 at Great Barr, and also ensure that when the Gravelly Hill main interchange and the Aston Expressway into Birmingham are constructed, the bulk of south-bound traffic into Birmingham will be channelled along that expressway and not along A34 through the middle of my constituency?

I am sorry that I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. Unfortunately, we do not expect the A34 to be completed by the time the Great Bar interchange is opened. The dualling from Queslett Road to Aldridge Road is expected by the autumn of 1971. Then the dual carriageways will extend from the city boundary to High Street, Aston. Efforts are being made to accelerate this, but it will depend on land acquisition.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the concern of citizens of many towns about the proposed destruction of homes to make way for urban motorways, he will prepare and publish a second Green Paper on urban roads; and whether he will establish criteria to ensure that all community costs are incorporated in any cost benefit analysis of an urban road.

It would not be practicable to publish a Green Paper with proposals for urban roads similar to Road for the Future". Large urban schemes are the responsibility of the local highway authorities and have to be seen in the context of local town plans and policies.

Cost benefit criteria are being developed and will become increasingly valuable in the evaluation of major road schemes. It must be for the local communities in the first place to assess the social effects, along with the economic costs and benefits.

In view of the fact that in Cardiff, London and other major cities there is a citizens' revolt against such proposals for new urban motorways and deep questioning by planners, does not my right hon. Friend think he should take some account of bringing order into financial and social responsibilities, which does not seem to be shown at the moment by many local authorities concerning such massive urban motorway schemes?

As I have explained to my hon. Friend, we are at the moment developing cost-benefit criteria to enable us to do this effectively. One of the difficulties is that economic and Parliamentary tools have not existed in the past.

In this connection, has the right hon. Gentleman seen a recent report by a Committee of Justice on the effect on people owning land or homes in the vicinity of motorways? Will he give its recommendations sympathetic consideration?

I have not read the report yet. It is my intention to do so this evening.

asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has to rationalise the use of the various bus undertakings throughout Wirral, Cheshire; and if he will make a statement.

This is for the operators themselves. Rationalisation will be facilitated by the establishment of the National Bus Company and the appointment shortly of the Executive for the Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority and these two bodies have a statutory duty to co-operate with each other.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the present division of labour between the Corporation and Crosville Bus Services dates from 1930, and now that we are 40 years on and the bus service is getting steadily more afar and asunder, is it not important to have an urgent rationalisation of the system before it is too late?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, but rationalisation is a more difficult and complicated exercise, and has more repercussions, than many people seem to realise. It is not the sort of thing to be embarked upon with responsibility about to be transferred to the new P.T.A.

Are we to understand from the hon. Gentleman that the difficulties of rationalisation which were pointed out from this side of the House before there was the expenditure of £50 million on the B.E.T. buses have become apparent to hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Not at all. I am not saying that. I am suggesting that the acquisition of the B.E.T. and the establishment of the N.B.C. and the P.T.A. will make rationalisation a better and easier proposition.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will publish a Green Paper setting out his Department's proposals for implementing the Report of the Merseyside Land Use and Transportation Study.

It is for the local authorities on Merseyside to formulate proposals for implementing the Report, and it would be inappropriate for my right hon. Friend to publish a Green Paper.

In view of the value of Green Papers so far published by my hon. Friend's Department, among others, does not he agree that it would be a useful innovation for local authorities dealing with major proposals such as those likely to come from this Report similarly to provoke and encourage public participation?

I agree with that suggestion. It is open to local authorities to encourage public participation and I hope that they will.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the appointment shortly of an executive for the Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority. Cannot he be more specific? Will it take weeks or months?

This is a matter for the Authority itself. It will need to advertise the suitable people, and so forth. I think that it will take months rather than weeks.

When considering the Report, will the hon. Gentleman also consider that the mole appears to have broken down on the Wallasey-Liverpool Tunnel and that it might be cheaper to have a bridge from Garston to Easton to unite the two parts of Merseyside?

The study itself will make it easier for Merseyside authorities to determine the priorities for these various projects.

asked the Minister of Transport what factors he takes into consideration in appointing members of transport users' consultative committees.

In accordance with Section 56 of the Transport Act, 1962, I appoint the Chairman and two members of each Committee without consultation. My choice is influenced mainly by individual ability and experience. I appoint the other members after consulting organisations which are representative of a variety of transport users. I consider the suitability of their nominees in terms of age and experience, the need to avoid overlarge committees, and the geographical distribution of membership.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is only one season ticket holder in the whole of the membership of the South-Eastern T.U.C.C.? Does not he agree that, among the organisations which should be consulted in deciding who to appoint to these committees, the organisations representing passengers, such as the Orpington District Railway Passengers' Association, should be consulted? Will he ensure that such a provision is written into the Transport (London) Bill when the consultative machinery comes to be discussed?

A very large number of bodies are consulted. They make their nominations and one of the biggest problems is having to limit the sheer size of such an organisation. I do not know how many of the members hold season tickets but quite obviously a very large proportion probably travel by train.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the primary job of these committees to represent the consumer—the passenger—vis-à-vis British Railways and the Ministry, and that it is not primarily their job to take account of costings?

They are there to represent the transport users. The costs of services are obviously involved. A wide range of organisations are consulted.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to encourage research into the reduction or elimination of noise from internal combustion engines, by producing sounds of a frequency range inaudible to the human ear, or otherwise.

We shall continue to encourage steps towards reducing vehicle noise. Research indicates that sound vibrations inaudible to the human ear can sometimes be more injurious than ordinary noises.

I agree with my hon. Friend's final point, but would not he agree that many remedial measures such as improved mountings can be instituted at comparatively small cost and that, even in purely economic terms, this would be a good investment?

While not wanting to go into details, I would point out that considerable research into engine design is going on, notably at Southampton University. I hope that the engine manufacturers themselves will increase their development effort.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a growing problem in urban areas where existing roads are being developed as major roads, and that it is particularly worrying in parts of the Midlands?

I accept that there has been an increase in this worrying problem but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are taking cognisance of it.

How much is spent per year on investigation and research into the costs of such noise as opposed to the amount we may spend, for example, on Concorde or other enormous capital investments in transport?

Clearly, my hon. Friend will have to put down a separate Question about that.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce into the periodical testing of motor vehicles a requirement that engine noise at normal speeds shall not exceed a reasonable level

We are considering whether a noise test can be included as part of the annual examination of heavy goods vehicles. It would not be practicable to check noise as part of the annual private car test.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the noise made by some vehicles, particularly commercial vehicles, is wholly unreasonable, and subjects their drivers to quite unwarrantable health risks? Has he no remedy to offer?

The police bring thousands of successful prosecutions each year, and the 1968 Regulations provide a new method of roadside enforcement which will help, but it is very difficult to do anything about a small minority of people who are determined to drive their cars as noisily as possible.

Instead of introducing new regulations, will the Minister do something to see that the 20 per cent. who do not now have their vehicles tested for roadworthiness certificates have them tested? It is no good introducing new regulations unless the others are enforced.

This is another question, which has been fairly well ventilated with my hon. Friend in the past.

asked the Minister of Transport what additional lending there has been by the joint stock banks to the National Freight Corporation and the National Bus Company since 1st January, 1969.

On 10th April, the latest date for which we have information, neither undertaking had an overdraft.

Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to say that, for any future requirements, the various organisations listed—the National Freight Corporation and the National Bus Company—will be compelled to go to the Minister for their money and not have recourse to the joint stock banks, as they were doing late in 1968?

They do have borrowing rights under the Transport Act, 1968—the National Bus Company of £3 million and the Transport Holding Company of £15 million. As for their day-to-day work, the National Freight Corporation has loss-making activities like its sundries activities and it must have working capital for these because it is paid a grant by the Minister only every four months. So for their working overdraft they go to the joint stock banks. Otherwise, they have special drawing powers.

asked the Minister of Transport what estimate his Department has made of the percentage of drivers now regularly using their safety belts; and what further steps he proposes to encourage the wearing of them.

Nationwide estimates are not available, but a survey in south east England in July, 1968, showed that outside towns 23 per cent. of all drivers were wearing safety belts but in urban areas only between 5 and 9 per cent. did so. The need to wear safety belts on every journey will continue to be the major feature of our road safety publicity campaign.

I thank the Minister for that reply, and support what he has just said. Will his Ministry try to encourage a feeling against the school of thought which seems to be growing in some areas that safety belts are not as efficacious as they were originally thought to be?

We most certainly will. We will continue to try to put right the erroneous idea that the only time one needs to wear safety belts is on highspeed journeys. The facts are that if everyone in a car or van had worn a belt last year about 15,000 serious and fatal casualties might have been avoided.

In view of that particularly alarming figure, and as I think that it is accepted that the use of safety belts would have a most dramatic effect on casualty rates in this country, has the Minister any more comprehensive proposals to try to encourage people to wear belts, rather than just relying on publicity techniques?

If the hon. Gentleman has any alternative remedies, he should offer them to us. We are spending about £315,000 on direct publicity to encourage people not only to have the seat belts but to wear them.

Has my hon. Friend considered the possibility of making the use of seat belts obligatory?

We have considered this, by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has just been talking about enforcement on another issue, and clearly there is not a great deal of wisdom in introducing unenforceable legislation.

asked the Minister of Transport how many vehicles were tested in his Department's heavy goods testing station at Brechin to the nearest convenient date.

The goods vehicle testing station between Aberdeen and Perth is located at Montrose. The first tests at Montrose were introduced on 27th January, and 33 vehicles had been tested by 31st March.

Does not my hon. Friend think that in view of the small numbers of vehicles that have justified, in the Ministry's mind, a vehicle testing station at Montrose, the Ministry should reconsider its attitude towards establishing a testing station in Dundee?

No, Sir. An extra station was needed primarily for the benefit of those operating half way between Perth and Aberdeen to save them the unreasonably long journey for the test which would otherwise have been necessary. In consultation with the operators' association, we decided that either Brechin or Montrose was the right place, and the Ministry finally settled on Montrose.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the decimalisation of speed limits, road signs, milestones, road maps, and speedometers on motor vehicles; what the cost of the change is estimated to be; and what increase in productivity will be achieved.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the Government's policy regarding road signs being expressed in metric terms; and what is the estimated total cost of the changeover.

asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the proposal to change the United Kingdom's method of measurement to kilometres in 1973, he will state the estimated cost of this conversion in transport matters.

asked the Minister of Transport what further consultations he is undertaking in connection with his decision that road speed limits should be expressed in metric terms in 1973.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has made a study into the cost of altering traffic regulations and administrative procedures that will result from a change to the metric system.

The Government have accepted 1975 as the target date for the change to the metric system in all sectors of the economy. Conversion in the transport field must be seen in this context.

I shall soon be consulting those concerned on how best to convert speed limit signs. I have already announced that these signs will be converted in 1973. The actual change-over will have to be made quickly. The preliminary estimate of cost is £1½–2 million. Conversion of other road signs, etc., will be spread over a period of time. I shall be consulting representative organisations on the timing and procedure to be adopted and on how to minimise both administrative and physical costs.

When one adds to that not inconsiderable total cost the bewilderment which drivers must inevitably suffer over a period of years, is it not quite clear that any attempt to carry the metric system into transportation is just a gimmick, and a further attempt by the Government to try to look trendy and "with it" in the computer age—rather unsuccessfully?

First of all, there is no need for these initial changes to take place over a period of years. Secondly, once the decision to metricate generally by 1975 has been taken, I think that it would be even more bewildering to drivers and to the travelling public to find themselves faced with two systems.

Has the right hon. Gentleman given consideration to the alteration of marine charts? Does he appreciate that, for international reasons, the Pilots Association in this country is generally opposed to such alteration? Would the Minister reconsider this matter in the light of this representation?

I will look closely at the items to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

What makes the Minister think that there is any logical connection between this area and other areas for decimalisation, and whose brain child was this daft idea anyhow?

It has been round the world for a long time now. As to the general concept, one can have an argument against or an argument for metrication, but to say that we should submit our children to both systems for all eternity would be, I should have thought, most confusing.

This fantastic and grotesque conception arises from the frenzy to get into the Common Market. Has it not everything to do with going continental? I thought this thing had been abandoned.

My right hon. Friend and I have had many discussions in other days on the Common Market, but this is not a question of going into the Common Market. The arguments for metrication generally are well known, and have been dealt with by the House. What the House has to consider is whether it wants to perpetuate two totally different and irreconcilable forms of measurement.

asked the Minister of Transport when he proposes, under the Transport Act, 1968, to reduce the hours worked by transport drivers.

I have nothing to add at present to the reply given to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on 3rd February.—[Vol. 777, c. 18.]

Can the hon. Gentleman say why there is this delay?

My right hon. Friend intends to make an announcement soon, but he still has to complete consultations with organisations of trade unions and employers.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce regulations to institute a statutory limit to the height of fully-loaded commercial vehicles and to impose a speed limit of 50 miles per hour on such vehicles.

We see no advantage overall in setting a height limit for loaded goods vehicles. Goods vehicles generally are at present subject to a 40 m.p.h. speed limit on general purpose roads and a 70 m.p.h. limit on motorways. We are now preparing regulations to reduce the limit for heavy goods vehicles on motorways to 60 m.p.h. and raise that for lights vans on other roads to 50 m.p.h.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in passing under some older bridges high vehicles have to go under the middle of the bridge where the camber is greatest, thus blocking both lines of traffic and causing congestion of traffic? Does he not think that a regulation imposing a limit on height is absolutely necessary in these conditions?

I think it would be too much to make a general regulation on height. It would be commercially very disadvantageous to the nation if vehicles had to be of a lesser height than some are at present. All new bridges with a height of 16 ft. 6 in, cater for the regulation height of vehicles. We rely on advertising and notices on the roads to notify vehicles when they are coming to older bridges which are lower.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to make available to disabled drivers a special identification disc which will entitle them throughout the United Kingdom to the same exemption from parking restrictions as is normally extended to the drivers of goods vehicles.

Under the National Car Badge Scheme for Disabled Drivers, yellow identification discs are already issued by local welfare authorities to drivers who have considerable difficulty in walking.

Waiting restriction orders frequently include exemptions to permit drivers to stop to enable people to board or alight or for goods to be loaded or unloaded. These exemptions apply to all drivers; they are not confined to the drivers of goods vehicles.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many disabled drivers are finding difficulty in parking outside in their own localities, often because of the unimaginative way in which traffic wardens carry out their tasks? Would he not agree that there is a case for some disc which confers reasonable privileges throughout the country for disabled drivers?

The question of a national scheme is not an easy proposition, because clearly traffic conditions vary.

indicated dissent.

It is no good the hon. Member shaking his head. If we were trying to lay down a national scheme we would have to lay it down on the worst of traffic conditions, and this would be to the detriment of disabled people.

Would my hon. Friend consider a scheme for allowing invalid tricycles to mount the pavement for parking purposes? Is he aware that this would be a tremendous help and, I think, a marginal disadvantage to pedestrians?

This question is being reviewed, not in terms of parking but in terms of the invalid tricycle type of vehicle, such as the thalidomide babies use, for instance.

asked the Minister of Transport how many passengers were carried by British Railways in 1968; and what were the comparable figures for 1967 and 1966, respectively.

The approximate figures are: for 1968—831 million; for 1967—837 million; and for 1966—835 million.

No doubt the hon. Gentleman is pleased with this sustained level of travel. What is he doing to restore the slashed investment programme of the railways, especially the reduced investment on the Southern Region, where the service is far less than that to which the passengers are entitled?

The subject of railway investment is another question. It would, however, be wrong to say that there has been a slashing of railway investment. A great deal of effort has been put into the design and ordering of new stock for the Southern Region, some of whose stock, as we are well aware, is rather old. On the other hand, the Southern Region presents a tremendous problem because of the vast numbers travelling on it during the peak periods.

While the figures appear to indicate a considerable overall reduction between 1967 and 1968, has there not been a considerable increase on the electrified lines? In view of this, will my hon. Friend consider expediting the electrification programme in the interests of the viability of the railways as well as of safety and mobility on the roads?

I am not sure that my hon. Friend heard the figures clearly. They were 831 million in 1968 and 837 million in 1967. The reduction was, therefore, 0·75 per cent. Of course, we do not like to see any reduction but the figures are reasonably steady, although we naturally hope for an improvement. Where appropriate, electrification can bring not only more passengers but more viable services, and obviously my right hon. Friend looks at any suggestions for improvements very thoroughly and in the most favourable light.

Was not my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) right in emphasising the relevance of investment to passengers carried? The hon. Gentleman says that there has been no reduction in expenditure in the last four years, but is not railway investment down from £120 million to under £90 million? Is not the outlook grim?

I did not say that there had been no reduction. I said that investment had not been cut in the catastrophic way suggested. The number of passengers carried shows that the railways, even with this reduction in investment, are doing very well.

asked the Minister of Transport what consultations he had with users of the railway service or local authorities before recommending the diversion of the High Wycombe-Marylebone service to Paddington.

We consulted the South-East Economic Planning Council, whose advice reflects regional considerations. All those concerned will have full opportunity to make their views known before any decision is taken.

Surely the South-East Economic Planning Council's members are not exactly the same sort of people who use the railway service from South Buckinghamshire to London. Would it not be better to ask those who use the railway what they would like in service, treating them as customers?

People who use the line will have full opportunity to make their views known if the decision is made to publish formal closure proposals. There will be the usual procedure by which they will be able to appear either collectively or individually before the transport users' consultative committee. Of course, the Greater London Council will be formally consulted in accordance with the provisions of the Transport (London) Bill.

What has been done to advertise the services, particularly from the two Wembley stations into Marylebone? Will any extra services be run next Saturday to cope with the Cup Final crowd, so as to help London Transport?

The last question is one for London Transport, who should be aware of the date of the Cup Final. This service is being heavily grant-aided and we believe that my right hon. Friend's proposals could give a better use of the amount of the grant. This question is being discussed—not the number of passengers, but the fact that the service could, apparently, with little inconvenience compared with the money spent, be taken to Paddington instead of Marylebone.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in the light of representations made to him since November last, he will now withdraw the proposal which he made to the railway authorities that the High Wycombe service should be diverted from Marylebone to Paddington.

No, Sir. As explained in Answer to the hon. Member on 28th March, there appear to be major advantages in this proposal which merit full consideration.—[Vol. 780, c. 383–4.]

Surely the hon. Gentleman could not deny—he did not try to—that he must have received overwhelming opposition to this proposal from the travellers. If that is so, are they to be ignored? Are their views about what constitutes advantage and disadvantage to be ignored?

My right hon. Friend pays great attention to the views of all the local bodies, which have, as I said earlier, the right to appear before the transport users' consultative committee. Many other organisations and departments are consulted, as well as the local authorities. There is a long procedure before a final decision on whether to close a line is taken.

I am sure that what my hon. Friend has said is right, that his right hon. Friend has studied the representations of the people involved, but does he not think that he should dispense with this proposal, since most local folk are bewildered about it? I believe that he should reconsider.

I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend, but my right hon. Friend has great difficulties. This service attracts a grant of over £500,000 and he must, in the public interest, ensure that the best possible use is made of this line and the greatest possible economy made compatible with a reasonable service to the public.

asked the Minister of Transport what further plans have now been submitted to him for constructing underground lines in London.

No firm plans, Sir, but London Transport is studying possible extensions to the system and is seeking Parliamentary powers to build the first section of the proposed Fleet Line from Baker Street to Trafalgar Square.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not recall that the Victoria Line, which was opened last month with great praise all around—rightly—particularly from the Minister, was started by the last Conservative Government? Would he not agree that it is important not to waste time and to look into not just the one he mentioned but a general enlargement of underground lines, since they are so important for solving commuter problems in the London area?

Yes, Sir. Underground lines of this sort can show big incomes, but they are only applicable where there are heavy concentrations of passengers. Unless one does the arithmetic properly, it is also possible to waste a great deal of money.

Has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility of an outer as well as an inner circle connecting the Greater London lines, which might prove cheaper and easier than having lines through London?

Not at the moment. A scheme of this sort, of course, would be very expensive. As I said, I have no proposals to have such a thing at the moment.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received any proposals for underground tunnels of a sufficient diameter to take main line rolling stock? Would not this be a very good way of integrating the underground service with British Rail?

I have no such proposals.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to British Railways to supply copies of Press notices to any association of passengers which may ask for them.

No, Sir. This is a matter of management for the Railways Board.

Is the Minister aware that by refusing to give Press notices to organisations representing thousands of passengers, such as the Orpington District Railway Passengers Association, the British Railways Board is causing large volumes of correspondence with the Chairman of British Rail and the General Manager and Divisional Manager of the Southern Region, which would be unnecessary if only those Press releases were given to the Secretary of the Association?

I doubt whether sending them the Press notices would noticeably cut down the correspondence. The Press notices are intended for normal newspapers, agencies and magazines for publication. The extension of their circulation to one organisation would mean that thousands of others would ask to be involved, and the list would be endless. Information can be obtained from the Railways Board by writing to the appropriate authorities, as can copies of the Press notices.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will issue a general direction to British Railways and London Transport to co-ordinate their advertising policy.

No, Sir. Advertising is a matter of management for the two bodies concerned.

Is my hon. Friend aware that London Transport refused to display a Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament poster which British Railways displayed, and, indeed, broke a contract in doing so? Is it right that the transport authorities should exercise a political censorship in these matters?

I am aware of the incident to which my hon. Friend referred. I understand that the London Transport Board accepted the poster when it knew the wording only, but, when the accompanying picture was ultimately produced the Board decided that the poster had entered into a political field. It is a matter for the judgment of the bodies concerned. British Railways, which accepted the poster, has roughly the same advertising code, but the final decision is a matter of judgment for the two bodies.

Order. Long answers mean fewer Questions.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will request the Transport Users' Consultative Committees to publish punctuality statistics supplied to them by British Railways.

No, Sir. The Central Transport Consultative Committee already draws attention to punctuality trends in its Annual Reports, and I am content to leave to it the question whether any further publication of railway punctuality statistics is appropriate or desirable.

Is the Minister aware that these reports have shown that punctuality has been declining over the past year or so? Does he not think that the travelling public and the taxpayers have a right to be provided with a reasonable breakdown of the punctuality figures so that the bad regions are not lumped together with the good regions?

If one were to provide punctuality statistics in this way one would also have to provide the reasons for the loss of punctuality. I cannot see the purpose of publishing these, because British Rail is well aware of the need to improve punctuality.

Will the Minister inquire why last year 44 per cent. of all express trains did not arrive at their scheduled time, and why 22·9 per cent. of other trains were also late? In view of these shocking figures, which demonstrate a great deal of inconvenience to the travelling public, has he ascertained what steps have been taken for improvements in the coming year?

A great many things are being done to produce an improvement, but the problem here is underlined by the hon. Gentleman. He asks what were the reasons for the loss of punctuality, and then describes the position as being shocking in any case. This is the whole problem. If one gave the figures one would have to give the reasons for each individual loss of punctuality, and this is a problem of which British Rail is already well aware.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will estimate the cost to British Railways of changing to the metric system of measurement.

This is a matter for the Railways Board. It tells me, however, that at this stage no worth while estimate can be made.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this change will not cost the railways a lot more than might be thought? Is he aware that the 1921 railway amalgamation caused so many alterations of notices that the notices were not all completed by 1928? May he not find that the changes involved will be much more substantial than is now thought?

This is solely a question for the British Railways Board. The way the Board metricates the railways, if it does, and the cost, are matters for the Board. At this stage, the Board has no estimates but clearly will produce them before it goes ahead.

As most of our railways are measured in feet and inches, can my right hon. Friend tell me what effect this change will have on British exports of railway equipment?

Like all the rest of the Government's policies, I think that this policy will assist exports.

asked the Minister of Transport why he has directed British Rail to refuse to make public a breakdown of costs and earnings on the Wickford-Southminster branch line; and if he will publish the required figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

My right hon. Friend has not given the Railways Board any such direction. The Board does not publicise the figures it sends us with its grant applications, but there is no secret about them. I will, with permission, circulate the figures for 1969 in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he say when this decision was taken, since it is only a month since a representative of British Rail, Mr. Dickinson, at a meeting with the local residents, said that it was a Ministry directive that he should not release the figures?

I cannot understand the question of this being a "Ministry directive". Certainly the Railways Board regards the figures as confidential to the Minister unless and until the Minister chooses to publicise them.