The gist of my hon. Friend's case is that road conditions between Ipswich and Martlesham are bad. He wants something done to improve them, and very understandably so. My hon. Friend has even made several specific suggestions, which I shall try to deal with in the time remaining to me, but, before I do so, I wish to say a word about the road itself.

The road has an average width of about 23 feet, which is sufficient for two lanes of traffic. Free flow conditions allow about 6,000 passenger car units a day. For most of the day, traffic on the road is within this capacity, in spite of the very high figures which my hon. Friend mentioned. One can prove almost anything with figures; it depends how one uses them. But on this road, as on so many other main roads at present, there are periods of congestion.

Apart from holiday traffic, however, this congestion is restricted to the morning and afternoon peaks when people who work in Ipswich, in the hon. and learned Gentleman's Constituency, are travelling to and from the residential area of Woodbridge which my hon. Friend represents. In other words, what we are faced with here is mainly a commuter problem, which, I am sorry to say, is a problem not unknown on the approaches to many others of our main towns.

My hon. Friend suggested that there were two major forms of improvement which he wanted. One was a bypass and the other was dualling. As for the bypass, we had originally planned to construct a short length at Martlesham and to improve the existing carriageway between Martlesham and Ipswich. With the growth of traffic, however, it became evident that this would not do, and revised plans for a comprehensive bypass of the whole section were then made. At this stage, the South-East Study, envisaging a large increase of population at Ipswich, threw everything into the melting-pot once again, and, as a result, a new survey will have to be carried out to determine the best trunk road pattern to fit in with any future plans for the expansion of Ipswich. My hon. Friend probably accepts that this is some way away now and that, for the time being, there cannot be a bypass.

This leads me to his suggestion about dualling. Here, I must part company with my hon. Friend because, on dualling, it seems to me that the position is very much as it is on the bypass. Priority here is also dependent upon the results of the survey which is being carried out. We estimate that the bypass which was originally planned would have attracted two-thirds of the traffic from the existing roads and that the residual traffic left would not have justified dual carriageways. I should, perhaps, point out that, if, in fact, there is a bypass, the existing road would then be detrunked, and the highway authority would be responsible for any further improvement, not the Minister.

So what it amounts to is that, after the survey has been completed and decisions taken on the future expansion of Ipswich, it will then become a question of what is the right course of action for improving the road pattern in this district. It may be to start a bypass; it may be to carry out dualling. At this stage, I simply do not know. I should, perhaps, add that dualling itself is not likely to offer much prospect of reducing the accident rate, to which my hon. Friend referred. Right-hand turns would still be necessary, and the higher speeds of oncoming traffic might, in fact, increase the risk.

If we accept that, for the time being, major improvements are out of the question, what can be done to better conditions? My hon. Friend has made several interesting suggestions. He is quite right that a major cause of congestion is the making of right-hand turns, and it is often possible substantially to reduce this hazard by improving the layout of junctions and providing waiting lanes or waiting spaces.

We have already authorised the improvement of the layout at three of the most important junctions between Ipswich and Martlesham, enabling waiting lanes and traffic bollards to be provided. Several other minor improvements, including the provision of four bus draw-ins, have also been undertaken.

My hon. Friend suggested that some side-road junctions should be closed in the interests of road safety. I am certainly willing to examine this possibility, but we must remember the convenience of those at present using the junctions and also the cost which would be involved in the provision of service roads. If, however, it proves possible to add service roads over a substantial distance, we will consider making that part of the trunk road a clearway, and this would obviously help. Other possibilities are the improvement of carriageway markings and the provision of additional traffic signs. There may well be something in these suggestions and I shall ask our divisional road engineer to consider them in consultation with the county engineer to see whether anything on these lines can be done.

My hon. Friend is full of bright ideas and he and the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich have suggested that something should be done to light up the road at night. As, I am sure, both hon. Members know, this is a matter primarily for the local lighting authorities, in whose hands Parliament has placed authority to light the streets. It is for those authorities to take the initiative in this instance, and not the Minister. On trunk-roads, my right hon. Friend has the power to contribute to the cost of installing, maintaining and operating lighting installations of adequate standard, but the approach must be made in the first instance by the lighting authorities. I understand that the county council has recently invited the authorities concerned to attend a meeting to discuss the matter. If the lighting authorities put up a satisfactory scheme, we will certainly be prepared to pay half the cost, which is our share. I hope that this will please both hon. Members.

My hon. Friend also referred to the pedestrian tunnel connecting the school at Kesgrave, on the north side of the road, with the south side. This tunnel, as my hon. Friend probably knows, was constructed by the education authorities at their own expense and the northern access actually comes up in the school grounds. If, however, the education authorities were willing that the public should use the tunnel, we should certainly be prepared to make any necessary adjustments and to pay our share of the cost of maintenance. The best thing to do to find out the position is to ask our divisional road engineer to get in touch with the local education authority to see what it thinks about the possibility of allowing the public to use the tunnel.

Then there is the main question raised by my hon. Friend concerning the speed limit, which he has particularly stressed. I have noted in this connection what he has said about the view of the local police and this, of course, weighs heavily with us. Unfortunately, however, we have to look at problems of speed limits not only from the local angle, but also from the national point of view. We have to try to attain a measure of consistency in our treatment of the problem in different parts of the country.

I am sure that both my hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich know that the Ipswich-Martlesham road does not really fit into the character either of a 30 or a 40 m.p.h. speed limit. It is mainly rural in character and development, where it exists, is generally set back from the road. There are adequate footpaths and wide verges. In short, it is not the kind of road on which a driver would expect to find a 40 m.p.h. speed limit. If such a speed limit were imposed on this road, it would tend to be disregarded and make no real contribution to road safety. To impose a speed limit in such conditions would debase the value of speed limits generally throughout the country by bringing them into disrepute.

In such circumstances, we think it better that the driver himself should be the judge of what speed is safe and that he should regulate his speed according to the traffic conditions. Measurement of speeds which has been carried out has not disclosed any widespread tendency towards excessive speed, nor is the accident record, a fact that should interest both hon. Members, out of line with that of A.12 generally