asked the Minister of Transport when her negotiations with the National Union of Railwaymen and the Transport and General Workers' Union about making the liner train terminals open to private hauliers will be completed.

asked the Minister of Transport what progress she has made in her talks with the National Union of Railwaymen on the question of open access for private hauliers to liner train terminals.

asked the Minister of Transport if the Transport and General Workers' Union is now no longer frustrating efforts to have open freight-liner terminals; and if she will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Transport what priority she gives to the British Railways freightliner train terminals being open without discrimination to all private hauliers.

asked the Minister of Transport if she will give the three most recent dates on which she made representations to the National Union of Railwaymen urging them to comply with the Government's policy that the freightliner train service should go ahead on the basis of open terminals.

asked the Minister of Transport if she is still having negotiations with the Transport and General Workers' Union on the question of its members' participation in the operation of open freightliner terminals.

It is my policy to encourage the wider availability of freightliner terminals and I have on several occasions pressed my views upon both the National Union of Railwaymen, the Transport and General Workers' Union and the other road transport unions concerned; most recently in my address to the Labour Party Conference. I shall continue to do this.

Is the Minister aware that it is now 12 months since the Prime Minister stated that we had successfully tackled the opposition to the liner trains? Can she explain why for 12 months she has been unsuccessful in her efforts?

I do not for one moment accept that we have been unsuccessful in our efforts. The growth in the use of liner trains is most heartening for their future development. There are now 1,000 containers being carried per week compared with 30 in the first week of operation. Six routes are in use compared with one at the start of the scheme. The remaining nine routes of stage one of the network are expected to be introduced next year.

What has been the effect of the decision of the National Union of Railwaymen to allow access to the freightliner terminals by private hauliers' vehicles on hire to the Railways Board?

I cannot give the figures, but undoubtedly this decision by the N.U.R. has meant that a large number of additional loads have been carried by the freightliners which would otherwise have gone on our overcrowded roads.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the continuing drift and complacency in this matter is one of the major scandals of her Ministry? When will she speak up strongly for the nation rather than the vested interest of one particular union?

It is not a question of the vested interest of one particular union. We are proceeding to expand the use of these freightliner terminals. British Road Services are now using the Glasgow route and hope to use the Aberdeen route shortly. The service is expanding all the time. If hon. Members would stop trying to wreck it, we would make even better progress.

Does my right hon. Friend's reply indicate that the trade unions as a whole accept the establishment of freightliner terminals, not just for the benefit of railwaymen only, but also for the benefit of nationalised road haulage?

It is true that the unions have accepted the principle of the freightliner train and that its benefits are increasingly being brought home to them, and the success of the use by British Road Services of the Glasgow route is paving the way for further expansion of the scheme.

Is the Minister aware that her complacent attitude that the liner trains are doing well in spite of this restrictive practice will do a great deal to encourage the continuance of the restrictive practice?

I do not accept that. We would have been a great deal further on than we are if my political predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), had not delayed the introduction of the scheme for a year.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the present growth of freightliner traffic? What further steps does she intend to take to expand it? Has British Rail enough vehicles to service the terminals?

I have already told the House that expansion is continuing all the time, and we shall continue to ensure that.

British Railways have had to hire some privately-owned vehicles, and the N.U.R. agreed to that last May. I have just authorised another £1 million of investment in British Railways road vehicles which will be needed for the scheme.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister of Transport how many British Railways workshops are now disused; and whether she will give a general direction, in the public interest, to British Railways to bring them into productive use.

Twenty-two workshops of various sizes have been closed since 1962, because they were surplus to the current needs of British Railways. Their policy is to sell them or adapt them to a new railway use. A general direction is unnecessary.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the railway workshop in my constituency was one of the first to be closed by the party opposite when in office? It is now standing empty and derelict, and it is ugly. Is it not time that some productive use was made of the building in the national interest? Will my hon. Friend look at the matter again?

I know of the workshop to which my hon. Friend refers. It was closed on 30th June, 1964, and there has been a two-year delay in selling it, because the developer had to get planning consent, and there were difficulties about access, because part of his plan was to let it in sections. However, I understand that he has now exchanged contracts of sale with B.R.B.

In the light of the economic situation, will my hon. Friend consider having consultations with the British Railways Board, in anticipation of the legislation which the Minister has promised, to ensure that the existing capacity of the workshops is utilised fully in manufacturing for their own internal needs, thus releasing private manufacturing resources for production elsewhere?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend's aim is to ensure that British Railways make the best use of an important and valuable asset. In giving her approval to British Railways investment projects, my right hon. Friend will do her best to ensure a steady flow of work for the railway workshops.

asked the Minister of Transport if she will make a statement about the proposed £25 million rail link for London Airport.

The Interchanges Group of the Transport Co-ordinating Council for London is now considering how and when access between central London and Heathrow airport should be improved.

Have the surveys of the tube, the rail and the monorail now been completed? What progress has the Minister been able to make in choosing one of the six schemes which were put before the Ministry? Can the Minister give any indication where the London terminal is to be located?

No, Sir. These surveys have not been completed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are several schemes involving many millions of £s, and they are still being evaluated by the Interchanges Group. But I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Minister has informed British Railways and the London Transport Board that they may seek Parliamentary powers within this Session in preparation for the adoption of any scheme.

asked the Minister of Transport if she will make a statement about the safety record of goods carried by liner trains as opposed to the safety record of goods carried in other ways by British Railways.

Total claims paid in respect of damage and loss on freightliner services amount to approximately ⅓d. per ton on traffic carried. Though I cannot give a precise figure this is a very small fraction of the payments made in respect of comparable general merchandise carried on conventional services.

May I welcome the figure given by the Parliamentary Secretary, while regretting that this excellent service is not given greater availability because of the supine negative approach of the Ministry in allowing the unions to abrogate the functions of management by not allowing free access to liner train terminals?

Neither I nor my right hon. Friend accept for one moment anything that the hon. Gentleman has said.

In the light of the hon. Gentleman's original reply, does he not think that it would be useful if he could persuade the Minister to make it clear that she is determined, as the Prime Minister said he was on 20th July, that liner train terminals should be open to all hauliers?

My right hon. Friend has stated that repeatedly.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the reason for the delay in bringing fully into operation the liner train system.

Development of the freightliner system is making good progress. Five terminals are now in operation. The British Road Services are already using the London-Glasgow route and they hope to start on London-Aberdeen shortly. Two thousand four hundred and sixty containers were carried in August, 3,358 in September, and 3,908 in October.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that she simply has not answered my Question? I asked her to tell the House the reason for the delay in bringing the liner train system fully into operation. All that she has done is read out a lot of figures, really repeating an answer given to one of my hon. Friends earlier on. Why is there this delay, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister said on 20th July that this was going to go ahead on the basis of—

Order. We have a lot of Questions on the Order Paper.

One reason for the delay is that when the freightliner project was approved by the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) he imposed restrictions on investment before agreement with the unions on open terminals and therefore the scheme did not start until a year ago. If the right hon. Gentleman had had the sense to get it going, and to let it spread by example, instead of trying to make an ideological fight out of it, we should have got somewhere.

Is one reason for the delay that relationships with the N.U.R. have been exacerbated by party political sniping by hon. Gentlemen opposite?

I say in all seriousness to the House that, if we are all united in wanting to make a success of these freightliners and to proceed to their expanding use by industry as a whole, it would be wise to allow the agreements to proceed as they are doing step by step. As the Prime Minister said, we prefer to do this by voluntary agreement, and we are proceeding to do it. I suggest that we allow the voluntary agreements to work as they are doing successfully.

asked the Minister of Transport what action she is taking to ensure that the activities of the British Transport Docks and the British Railways Freightliner Depot, situated within a few hundred yards of each other at Garston, are co-ordinated, in order to further her liner train policy.

The Railways Board consult the appropriate Harbour Authorities about the siting and use of freight-liner terminals near ports. They are in close touch with the British Transport Docks Board and I am sure that full advantage will be taken of the opportunities offered at Garston.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a daily containerised service between Garston Docks and Belfast, that every container passes within one hundred yards of the entrance to the freightliner depot into and out of the docks and that absolutely no contact has been made between the two managers of the two nationalised undertakings to attract this traffic to the freightliners?

I am not aware of the lack of co-ordination to which the hon. Gentleman referred and I will certainly look into the question, but I understand that a relatively small percentage of traffic at present passing through Garston Docks is suitable for transfer to freight-finer trains. I will certainly bear in mind what he had to say.

asked the Minister of Transport when she expects to have completed working on details of the new National Freight Organsisation referred to in her White Paper on Transport Policy, Command Paper No. 3057.

In good time for the presentation of the necessary legislation early in the next Session of Parliament.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the uncertainty about the details of her suggestions is causing difficulty in the investment programmes of some parts of the transport industry? Can she give details as soon as possible?

My answer to the first part of that supplementary question must be "No". I am not aware that it is having the effect to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am in the process of working out the details of the scheme, and I am widening my consultations for that purpose. All users will be brought into those consultations as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made with the discussions envisaged in paragraph 126 of the White Paper on Transport Policy, Command Paper No. 3057, with regard to the future of inland waterways; and with what bodies discussions have taken place.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells—[Vol. 736, c. 115]—on 16th November and to my remarks in the debate on 18th November—[Vol. 736, c. 879–85].

Am I to understand from that reply and from the White Paper generally that the Minister has closed her mind completely to the creation of a separate waterways trust on the lines submitted to her by responsible bodies, including the Parliamentary Inland Waterways Group? If so, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the extent of the network to be retained by the Board or its successor and the security of tenure to be granted will be considered carefully before final decisions are made?

As regards the trust referred to by my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend has set out her intentions fairly clearly in the White Paper. It is not her intention to have a separate trust. There are very good reasons for having the management of both the commercial and the amenity sides of the network under one roof.

The size of the network and the security of tenure are matters, obviously, which will be raised in the course of the consultations.

asked the Minister of Transport when she expects to conclude the investigation she is making, with the help of local authorities, into the costs of providing an adequate public transport service as part of a comprehensive local transport plan; and when she will make a statement on what these costs will be and what proportion she proposes should come from the reserves, from the local community and from central Government.

The investigation is a continuing one but by the middle of next year I hope to have an assessment of the costs of alternative public transport systems.

The need for external financial support, will vary from place to place. As stated in the White Paper on Transport Policy (Cmnd. 3057), central Government financial help will be available for certain major capital projects.

Will the Minister be a little more precise? It is a little vague to say "the middle of next year". So far, we have had only paper plans, and we want to know when she will be able to spell out the method in detail.

Economic research is going on in my Department under the Economic Planning Unit, and some local authorities are helping. That research will enable us to ascertain the costs of alternative public transport systems. The policy set out in the White Paper will be translated into legislation at the earliest possible moment in the next Session.

asked the Minister of Transport when she expects to receive the transport recommendations from the regional economic planning councils.

asked the Minister of Transport on what date she expects to receive the transport recommendations from economic planning councils in the regions.

I have already received advice from the economic planning councils on some aspects of transport and I shall continue to keep closely in touch with them on the planning of transport in the regions.

In view of the refusal to accept Portbury after consultation with the Regional Development Council, does that mean that the reference to consultation in the White Paper is complete eyewash if it does not fit in with the Minister's preconceived notions?

Of course it is not eyewash. Equally, I cannot delegate complete responsibility to the regional planning councils. They are supposed to be advisory planning bodies. Their advice on a number of things has been considered by me, including railway closures, road plans for the 1970s and so on. However, in the end, I must bear the responsibility of making a decision, and I shall not shirk it.

Will my right hon. Friend give special sympathetic consideration to the recommendation which she has received from Scottish sources for a direct air link between Edinburgh and Glasgow and the continent of Europe?

Air links are not a matter for me, but I am in close touch with the Scottish Economic Planning Council on all the questions which are within my responsibility.

asked the Minister of Transport if she will make a statement outlining her policy on the public control of privately-owned car parks.

The Government's policy towards the control of privately-owned car parks is contained in Joint Planning Bulletin No. 7 on "Parking in Town Centres". In brief, we encourage local authorities to ensure that such car parks are properly related to parking needs, highway capacity and general planning.

Does the right hon. Lady still stand by the statement which she is reported to have made in Washington? If so, does she agree that statements of this kind can only reinforce the suspicion that so long as she is Minister the tackling of the real transport problems will be subordinated to the irrelevant dogmas of Left-wing Socialism?

Certainly I stand by my statement in Washington, where I was referring specifically to the American problem and where there is no planning control comparable to the British system.

Will my right hon. Friend consider, as a general policy, the erection of car parks above the platforms, buildings, and railway tracks of commuter railway stations?

Oh, yes, certainly. This is an essential part of an integrated transport policy, and it is a matter in which I am very much interested.

asked the Minister of Transport what is her policy regarding a system of road pricing and taxing meters for motor cars in London.

I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 9th November to a Question by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell.)—[Vol. 735, c. 296.]

How does the right hon. Lady reconcile that pussy-footing Answer with her dogmatic utterances made before the entire New York Press on 15th October, when she and I were both in New York—[Interruption.]—when the right hon. Lady and I were both on business in New York—and reported verbatim in the New York Times that high fees were about to be imposed on cars entering the congested areas of London?

I did not make any such statement in New York. I said, and I stand by it, and indeed I have said it in other places repeatedly, that it is essential for us to consider whether we need to go further than the parking controls which were introduced by the previous Conservative Administration. In this connection, I said that we were studying the feasibility and desirability of introducing road pricing systems, but I have always made it clear that this will involve at least another two years of research before any decision can possibly be taken.

Will my right hon. Friend flatly renounce the principle of licensing by wealth and any such suggestion as this which discriminates in transport in favour of the rich at the expense of those who are less wealthy? Will she fully develop public transport, and also consider licensing cars by size, so that large cars which take up three times as much road space as smaller cars pay their fair share of taxes?

In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I would point out that parking fees are a form of licensing by wealth. The alternative to control by that kind of pricing is administrative control. I would prefer this—and I agree with my hon. Friend—but it raises enormous practical difficulties. How does one decide which is an essential car, and which is not? This is the simple problem which we have to face. In the meantime, every extension of priced parking control is a form of road pricing.

With regard to public transport, I have made it clear time and again that we are going to encourage it. For the first time the Government are going to give a capital grant for it.

The question of the size of cars in cities is too big a one to enter into in reply to this question.

Would the right hon. Lady agree that the grant for the Victoria Line was a grant by the Government?

It is a good indication of how right are the policies in the White Paper, which will supersede those of the 1962 Transport Act.

asked the Minister of Transport whether she will revise the fee payable to garages for carrying out of the Ministry of Transport test on cars of 10 years of age.

We are at present in consultation with organisations representing the motor garage industry on the extent to which revision of the fee would be justified.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. I hope that the Ministry now intends to cease to rely on a sense of public duty by garage proprietors, and to allow them a reasonable remuneration for this service.

I must point out that the original fee was fixed in consultation with the trade, and agreed by it. I think, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that any revision of fees in relation to the service demanded should also be a matter for consultation and agreement between the Ministry and the organisations.

asked the Minister of Transport when the regional transport co-ordinating committees will be set up; and what will be their powers.

asked the Minister of Transport when the regional transport coordinating committees will be set up; and whether she will state their terms of reference.

As soon as I have received the necessary nominations from all the various bodies I have approached.

The terms of reference of the Committees are: to study the transport arrangements in the region, advise on, and where possible arrange for, the implementation of the steps necessary to get a more effective and co-ordinated service by public passenger transport and secure its greater use by the travelling public.

Am I right in thinking that they have no powers except persuasive powers?

It is true that they are purely persuasive bodies, but a lot can be done by joint discussion and by persuasion, as we have found as a result of setting up the Transport Co-ordinating Council for London.

Do the terms of reference cover the problems of containerisation in ships?

No. They are designed to improve facilities in passenger transport.

asked the Minister of Transport what proposals she has to relieve the congestion of traffic in central London.

It is for the Greater London Council, as traffic authority, to initiate such proposals. My right hon. Friend's job is to create the conditions which will help make possible the provision of better transport.

Is the Minister of Transport aware that if action were taken to relieve central London of trucks and lorries, although a few people would grumble she would receive the blessings of many people in the capital city?

I am sure that the Greater London Council is wide open to any proposals and suggestions that my hon. Friend or any other Member may make for a higher standard of traffic management in London. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend, by establishing for the first time a Transport Co-ordinating Council for London, has enabled the authorities to consider these matters together.

Might not a licence plate for private cars be the best method to deal with this extremely difficult problem—a plate similar to that displayed by public service passenger vehicles?

I am prepared to consider any suggestions that the hon. Member may care to make. As he may know, we have under consideration some new regulations which will affect that very matter.

asked the Minister of Transport whether she will give a general direction, in the public interest, to London Transport to improve the bus service in the Greater London area.

No, Sir. I do not think this a practical way of achieving the improvements my hon. Friend wants.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the tremendous hardship and inconvenience that has been suffered by so many Londoners in the last few years? Will she try to do something about bus services in outer London, especially over the weekends?

I am aware that there is a need for improvements in bus services in London. The London Transport Board has been under difficulties under current legislation, but we are bringing every effort we can to bear through the Transport Co-ordinating Council for London and elsewhere to improve bus facilities. I think that progress is being made.

asked the Minister of Transport what representations her Department has had from rural bus operators concerning the difficulties created by recent Government measures.

Certain representations have been made by the national associations of bus operators about the method of refund to bus operators of the increase in fuel duty and of Selective Employment Tax.

Does the Minister realise the appalling difficulties under which these bus operators are trying to work, as a direct result of this Government's methods—increased taxation, the cost of licences, fuel tax, investment allowances and many other things? Will she take steps to deal with this problem? Otherwise many of these operators will go out of business.

I cannot accept that Government action has added to the difficulties. S.E.T. is refunded to bus operators, and so is the increase in fuel duties. It was on the previous occasion. We are the first Government to put forward some practical proposals to help bus operators.

Is the Minister aware that the fuel duty, put on in July, is causing difficulties? So far the legislation to rebate it has not been passed. We on this side will do everything we can to facilitate such business going through the House.

There is a later Question about legislation.

Apart from the question referred to by the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), can my right hon. Friend state whether the deep-rooted cause is one that might be cured by fiscal measures? Will she make representations to the Chancellor in regard to fiscal measures which might to some extent relieve bus operators of the burden imposed by oil duties?

A complete refund of the duty would be very costly—about £25 million. We have outlined in the White Paper our comprehensive plans for helping public transport financially.

asked the Minister of Transport what plans her Department now has to take powers to maintain and increase rural bus services, particularly in the South-West.

My proposals for helping rural transport are stated in paragraphs 78 and 79 of the White Paper on Transport Policy (Cmnd. 3057). They are now being considered by the local authority associations.

Will the Minister bear in mind that what is needed is immediate action to save these operators before they go out of business? Will she take steps to get a rebate scheme going quickly? Otherwise we shall see a further depopulation in our rural areas, because of lack of transport.

It is because we realise that public transport in rural areas has been running into increasing difficulties that we made proposals in the White Paper, which, for the first time, said that we would seek powers to enable local authorities to give financial assistance and for my Ministry to contribute to the cost. The details of these proposals are now being discussed with the associations.

Does the Minister appreciate that this matter has been under discussion for many years now? Is it not about time that some action was taken? Otherwise we shall be in serious difficulties.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Complaints have been heard in this House for years about the state of public transport in rural areas. The Conservative Government did nothing about it. Nothing will be done to solve this problem unless and until powers are given to me by the House to carry out the proposals contained in the White Paper.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the logic of her argument is to take all forms of public transport into public ownership?

Certainly there are publicly-owned vehicles among those which we are going to help.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that one thing which a Conservative Government did was give investment allowances to buses, which this Government have taken away?

That did not make any difference to the plight of the bus industry or of rural transport, which hon. Gentlemen from rural areas voiced in this House for years. The Conservative Government were not willing to take the key decision, without which nothing could be done, namely, that there must be financial help from public funds.

asked the Minister of Transport if she will now make a statement on the prospects for the making of the Channel Tunnel.

asked the Minister of Transport if she proposes that the United Kingdom share in the construction of the Channel Tunnel shall be partly, mainly or exclusively financed by private capital; and if she will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Transport if she will make a statement on the construction of the Channel Tunnel.

asked the Minister of Transport whether she will make a statement on her recent discussions with the French Government on the proposed Channel Tunnel.

I would refer to the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) on 2nd November.—[Vol. 735, c. 119–1919320.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that even some of us who are hostile to the entry of Britain into the Common Market regard this as extremely important? Is she aware that there have been deliberations about the Channel Tunnel for nearly a hundred years?

Yes, I am, and I am glad that at last this Government, as on other fronts, are taking some action.

In view of the many claims on public expenditure which will arise from socially desirable projects over the next few years, will not the right hon. Lady take this occasion to assert that she will regard favourably the proposition that this form of expenditure shall be primarily financed by private capital?

I stated in my reply of 2nd November that it is very much for the reasons which the hon. Gentleman has advanced that we have agreed with the French Government that, although the Channel Tunnel shall be operated by a public authority, its construction shall be largely financed by private capital.

Would my right hon. Friend take note that some of us are a little disturbed that this will be private investment and not public investment, in view of Britain's possible entry to the Common Market? Would she also consider the County of Kent's special claims for extra finance for roads because of the heavy traffic problem which the tunnel will create?

Any entry to the Common Market would not affect the method of finance. I agree with my hon. Friend: I would have preferred it to have been financed by public money, but there are so many competing claims upon our resources that it is legitimate to use private capital for this purpose. With regard to traffic resulting in the southeast of England, I would point out that cross-Channel traffic is increasing anyway and that what we shall have here is rather a diversion of traffic to the tunnel. We are, of course, carefully considering the road consequences.

asked the Minister of Transport by what date the study done by Martech Consultants Limited in 1964 on traffic flows for all Great Britain's ports will cease to be relevant to the planning of those ports.

This study was completed in March, 1966. Its analysis of traffic flows in 1964 will continue to be relevant until superseded by later studies.

When the later studies take place, will the Minister reconsider the Portbury scheme, because this lot of studies has been used to kill the Portbury scheme at the present time?

These studies are continuing all the time. The National Ports Council and its staff have the job of analysing statistical data made available by any of the port authorities or their consultants. Therefore, it will be a continuing work to establish a national survey.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that any evidence about the Portbury scheme will be considered, that any decision will be taken in the light of that, and that a decision in favour of Portbury will not be ruled out until all the available evidence has been studied?

In the White Paper, we say that the case for a third major liner terminal at Portbury or anywhere else has not yet been made out. We are always prepared to consider further evidence.

asked the Minister of Transport when she will announce the date for inclusion in the road building programme of the link between Blackpool and the M6 at Broughton.

asked the Minister of Transport when she will announce the date for inclusion in the road building programme of the link between Blackpool and the M6 at Broughton.

My right hon. Friend hopes to announce before long a list of additional trunk road schemes to be prepared for inclusion in the programme for the early 1970s. The Blackpool Link Road is being considered for this list.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. Is he aware of the great concern felt in the area about this road, and also that all the local authorities concerned regard this project as of the greatest priority? Will he assure us that he will consider it in that light?

We recognise the need, which was stated by my right hon. Friend's predecessor last year. It is a question now of deciding what schemes and designs should definitely be prepared. My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement within the next couple of months.

Can my hon. Friend say whether, included in this list, will be the road from the M6 to Liverpool?

No, Sir. Until the list has been agreed by my right hon. Friend, I think that I had better not say what might be in it.

asked the Minister of Transport when it is intended to remove the roundabouts on the Al in the North Riding of Yorkshire.

Work is expected to start on the replacement of the Scotch Corner roundabout in 1968. Schemes to replace the remaining roundabouts have not yet gained a place in the roads programme.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that in conditions of poor visibility on fast stretches of dual carriageway roundabouts are major road hazards, and many accidents occur on them? Will he consider introducing flashing lights similar to the ones on the motorways for bad weather conditions?

We will consider that. We recognise the need that exists. We have recognised it for some time. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that these schemes are extremely expensive. The Scotch Corner replacement scheme will cost £500,000. We will consider this further replacement in the next roll forward of the programme, and in the meantime we are willing to consider any proposals for increasing road safety.

asked the Minister of Transport when she expects the X-ways pedestrian crossing signals to be installed in the Wokingham road at Reading.

I am not yet able to give the hon. Member any firmer indication than I did in my letter of 10th October.

Surely the Minister realises that I have been in communication with the hon. Gentleman's Ministry for three years. I have the whole of the blooming correspondence in my hand! Cannot the hon. Gentleman improve on what he has said and make sure that by the turn of the year these lights are: in operation?

I am well aware that the hon. Member has been in communication with the Ministry of Transport for years. He has been most assiduous. When he first applied for a crossing he was turned down by the previous Government. What we have told him, as set out in the letter of 10th October, is that as soon as possible one of these crossings will be set up in the road he has in mind.

asked the Minister of Transport when the order will be made imposing a 40 miles per hour speed limit on the A3095 Bracknell to Warfield road.

My right hon. Friend gave her consent to Berkshire County Council on 13th October, 1966.

I am obliged to the Minister. Is he aware that by a strange coincidence the signs were put up two days ago?

This is a matter for the Berkshire County Council. My right hon. Friend dealt with it with the utmost speed.

asked the Minister of Transport when work on the Dovercourt by-pass to Harwich will begin.

Essex County Council, as highway and planning authority, is considering the line for a Dovercourt bypass. Until proposals are received from it we cannot judge when work might begin.

As Harwich is one of the terminals of the liner trains, who is guilty of restrictive practices—the Government or the Essex County Council?

I have just told the hon. Member that the Essex County Council is both the highway authority and the planning authority in this respect. It is therefore not for my right hon. Friend to initiate proposals. As the hon. Gentleman knows, many improvements down the A12 and from Colchester to Harwich are being made for just the purpose he mentioned.

asked the Minister of Transport what plans she has to amend existing legislation so that householders whose property borders new urban motorways and who suffer a consequent loss of amenity can claim proper compensation, even though the construction of such motorways may not actually involve the acquisition of any part of their property.

I have no such plans. It seems to me to be reasonable to apply the general law on compensation to the effects of road schemes and I am satisfied that special legislation for highways would not be justified.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, in London, in view of the G.L.C.'s outline plans for a new primary road network, this is very pressing? Would she also agree that the onus is very much on the G.L.C. and her Ministry to make the case to the public for the routes which are proposed?

I understand that my hon. Friend is now complaining about the choice of routes rather than methods of compensation. I am not quite clear from his supplementary question, but as far as compensation is concerned, obviously any changes would, first of all, be very far reaching and would have to affect other than road schemes, and, second, would create as many anomalies as exist at present.

But does not this illustrate one of the great weaknesses in the whole of the Government's outlook, in that, when the community increases the value of somebody's property, the Government proceed to tax it, but when the community damages somebody's property, the Government do not make proper compensation?

I do not accept that for a moment. In the case of the present law about compensation for the effects of road schemes, it is very difficult to establish the extent to which amenity has been damaged and whether there are not offsetting factors. Various Administrations have looked at this and have found it difficult to solve this problem, however much sympathy one may have with those on whom this kind of disturbance has been inflicted.

asked the Minister of Transport whether she will take steps to speed up the way in which applications for pedestrian crossings are dealt with.

Applications are dealt with as quickly as possible. But delays sometimes arise in obtaining the necessary detailed information about accidents and traffic volumes at the proposed site.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the complicated negotiations which have to take place among the local authorities, the Ministry and the police often have a disillusioning effect on members of the public who have to petition because they feel that these problems are urgent? Is it not possible to streamline this machine?

I will bear the hon. Gentleman's remarks in mind, but there are of course the difficulties of ensuring that there is not an undue proliferation of these crossings. In 1951, two-thirds had to be done away with because they were not properly regarded. In the meantime, we have to take proper consultations. Divisional road engineers have to have a proper census. Consultations with the police and, in London, with the G.L.C., have to take place, and this may take from time to time a little longer than usual.

asked the Minister of Transport when the construction of the extension of the M4 from Maidenhead westwards beyond Reading will be commenced.

As soon as possible, but the exact date must depend upon progress made in dealing with objections to the proposed route, especially those lodged by local authorities.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this problem is becoming more and more serious, and that the opening of the South Wales motorway and the further extension from Southampton mean a confluence of a large amount of traffic which is at the moment clogging up many roads?

We know that it is serious; that is the importance of trying to adhere to this programme. As my hon. Friend is aware, three local authorities have raised objections to the proposed route—Berkshire, Reading and Cookham. If these objections are sustained, we are bound by Statute to have a public inquiry. If we can resolve them, we have the opportunity of getting on with the programme.

asked the Minister of Transport if she will make a statement about the improvement of east-west communications to the city of Kingston-upon-Hull.

My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to do so soon.

Before the Minister makes her statement, would the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that all the local authorities in the East Riding wish to see this new link cross the A1 at Ledsham rather than at Ferrybridge? This is, I believe, the unanimous view of the authorities.

My right hon. Friend and the Minister of Housing and Local Government met the local authorities concerned. Some very complicated suggestions were made, which have taken some time to evaluate. I promise the hon. Gentleman and the House that my right hon. Friend will make a statement very soon, which they will be able to consider.

Is my right hon. Friend not convinced that the communications in and out of Hull are scandalously inadequate for this the third largest port in the United Kingdom? Is he further aware that there is now talk of closing the Hull-Scarborough line? Will he use his good offices to scotch any rumour of that type at the earliest possible opportunity, since any attempt to close this line would be extremely detrimental?

There is a procedure—although I will look into that point—covering these matters. I recall that my right hon. Friend's predecessor approved an extremely expensive scheme for the improvement of communications in and out of Hull.

asked the Lord President of the Council how many private rooms are now available in the Palace of Westminster for the use of back-bench Members.

I have been asked to reply.

Twenty-nine single rooms and 8 double rooms.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware, having regard to the fact that the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) are together in this matter—I believe that that causes the imagination to boggle—that many of us are concerned about the present position? If a lot of changes are taking place in the allocation of the rooms, will he inform us—we believe that it is impossible—

Order. We must have brief questions. Will the hon. Gentleman put his question quickly?

Would the hon. Gentleman inform us how the existing procedure works in the allocation of rooms in these buildings?

That is another question, but I can give the hon. Gentleman some encouragement by telling him that, when the new Star Court building is completed, there will be about 50 more places, both double and single, for hon. Members as a result of the reshuffle which will take place then.

asked the Lord President of the Council on what principles, and by whom, private rooms in the Palace of Westminster were allocated to Members.

Private rooms are allocated to back-bench Members by the Accommodation and Housekeeping Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services).

How does the existing system work? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members are becoming increasingly concerned about this matter? If it is a question of accommodation being allocated by a lottery, will my right hon. Friend take steps to let hon. Members know exactly how the system works, because, as I said, some of us are very disquieted about it?

I do not think that there has been any attempt to conceal the way in which the system works. Rooms are allocated in equal proportions to back-bench hon. Members on both sides of the House, more than 100 Members of the Labour Party having rooms in their capacity as Ministers. The method of allocation is now being reviewed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that, from the point of view of the share of rooms for Conservative hon. Members, they are allocated strictly on the ground of seniority?

That is not within my purview. The Accommodation and Housekeeping Sub-Committee is responsible for the allocation and has given the detailed job to a Member of each side of the House, who does it according to his wisdom.

asked the Lord President of the Council when it is proposed to re-establish Annie's Bar, or a similar institution, for the joint use of Members of the House and members of the Lobby.

The accommodation and servicing of such a room raises difficult problems, but this proposal is under consideration by the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), which fully recognises the importance of the matter to both sides.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the present conditions for members of the Lobby and hon. Members of the House are terribly old-fashioned and undignified, and ought not the proposal to be speeded up?

Yes, Sir. There is a genuine need on both sides, and we are hoping that something will be found which will enable us to service both sides.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will now take steps to provide facilities in the House for the wives of Members.

I have been asked to reply.

The provision of facilities for the wives and husbands of Members is under consideration by the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) which hopes to present a Report to the House on this subject very shortly.

asked the Lord President of the Council when the investigation by the Catering Sub-Committee into the salary scale of employees will be completed; and whether the wages of the staff of the Refreshment Department will be increased on 20th January, 1967.

I am not yet able to say when the Catering Sub-Committee will complete its investigations into the salary scales of staff of the Refreshment Department because the investigations are part of the more general review which is being conducted into the finances of the Department. In keeping under constant review the level of the salaries and wages of all members of the staff, the Sub-Committee must take into account the Government's prices and incomes policy.

Would the Lord President ask the Sub-Committee to speed up this investigation? Would he not agree that this House should give an increase in remuneration to its staff, who are serving the Members extremely devotedly?

I answered the second part of that supplementary question by explaining that the Sub-Committee is bound to take into account the Government's prices and incomes policy. I assure the hon. Gentleman, in answer to the first part, that the investigation will certainly be accelerated.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that only last Monday a new manager, Mr. Mitchell, took control of the Catering Department, that the Committee would very much like to have a short period at any rate while the new manager gets familiar with the position and that we would prefer not to be bombarded with Questions, which, particularly at this stage, only make his position very much more awkward?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of that. I am sure that we all wish the new manager success in his work.