asked the Minister of Transport (1) what steps are being taken by his Department, the local authority and other bodies involved, to replace the condemned bridge at Kensington Road in Northolt, Middlesex;

The highway authority for Kensington Road is the London Borough of Ealing.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a feeling of great frustration among people who have to use this bridge, and that a large and important area of my constituency is upset industrially, commercially and socially by what appears to be a bureaucratic row with regard to responsibility for the building of a new bridge? Replacement of the bridge may take two years. Will my hon. Friend use his endeavours to see that those who are responsible adopt my idea for a Bailey bridge structure in this area while the new bridge is under construction?.

I cannot go further than to say that the responsibility is that of the local council. I shall see that the local council is made aware of my hon. Friend's views.

asked the Minister of Transport whether the Committee set up to consider the problems raised by urban highway building will consider the question of the payment of compensation for damage, injurious affection and serious loss of amenity already suffered by such building, or which will have been suffered before any changes in the law which the Committee may recommend.

The question of retrospection does not arise unless and until changes in compensation are, in fact, introduced. The problem of injurious affection is being tackled, on the one hand, as part of the general study of the compensation code initiated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, with which my Department is closely associated. The main task of the Urban Motorways Committee, on the other hand, is to tackle this problem at its source by considering how urban roads may be better related to their environment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that cases of severe personal hardship occur under the present rule and further cases will occur between now and any change in the law? Does he not think it necessary to give some hope to those who are suffering in this way?

It was because of the growing public concern that my right hon. Friend set up the study, and that is a factor which will be very much in the Government's mind when they come to determine what action should follow the study.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement about the future size of goods vehicles allowed on British roads.

asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has to increase the maximum weight of road vehicles allowed on British roads to 44 tons.

asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for increasing the maximum weight and length of goods vehicles using the roads.

I would refer hon. Gentlemen to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) on 3rd November. —[Vol. 790, c. 66.]

Does my hon. Friend realise that there would be widespread dismay if some of the proposals being made by the road hauliers were accepted, and will he tell them that there are more important factors in this world than their profits?

I am aware that there are several considerations to which the Government will have to give careful thought, including, not least, the question of road safety, about which, I know, my hon. Friend thinks deeply.

What demand has there been from the industry to have 44-ton vehicles on the road, and, if it were accepted, what would be done to designate such roads as could carry these enormous vehicles?

The situation is that we have had the request from the industry, and that the existing roads, given suitable vehicle design, would be capable of accepting the loads requested.

If the Minister does contemplate allowing bigger vehicles on the roads, will he seek to ascertain the views of other road users, both pedestrians and drivers, who may well object to having the roads made even less safe?

I can give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks, that all the considerations—and there are certainly very many—will be carefully weighed by the Government before we make any decision.

In view of the very real public concern about the matter, will the Minister consider publishing all the representations made to him in a Green Paper before the Ministry makes decisions in the matter?

I will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion of a Green Paper. It is worth repeating that there are many considerations, and it will take a great deal of time to give them the type of thought they deserve.

Has my hon. Friend with him the figures of these vehicles already travelling at 44 tons gross vehicle weight on British roads under special licence?

I cannot answer that without notice.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied with the working of the breathalyser law; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Transport to what extent the breathalyser laws have reduced fatalitiesand accidents; what amendment to existing statutes on the subject he proposes in view of the inconsistencies and contradictions in the present law; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he will introduce an early amending Bill to the Road Safety Act, 1967;

During the 12 months before the Road Safety Act came into force there were 7,870 deaths in road accidents. During the following 12 months there were 6,727. During the six months to August this year there were 3,413. The Act still appears, therefore, to be having a very substantial effect on accidents.

We all welcome those figures, but is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a growing belief that certain gentlemen in the legal profession are determined to sabotage the breathalyser law? If this is proved to be the case, will he take the necessary action?

It is precisely because recent judicial decisions have suggested that there are deficiencies in the Act that I am conducting the present review. A number of cases are still pending appeal in the other place, and it would be wise to await those decisions as well.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is not a party political matter, and that the majority of us support the breathalyser law, but that there are widespread inconsistencies in judgments, notably in Scotland? Would not it be wise to proceed with amending legislation during the current Session?

Until the review is concluded I am not sure whether changes are required, or what they will be. I cannot comment on judicial decisions, but the benefits in road safety, in people being alive today who would not otherwise be alive, as a result of the Act are such that I will not lose those benefits easily.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of the anomalies are caused by our failure to introduce random tests when we had the opportunity to do so? Does he now accept that those of us who sought to introduce those tests when the Act went through the House were quite right?

Random testing is obviously one of the matters that we shall consider, but there is here a normal conflict between increasing police powers on the one hand and the rights of the individual on the other. I am sure that the House will want to see that Road Safety Act works, and works efficiently, and I have to pay attention to this aspect as well.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will state the proposed route, the proposed cost and the proposed commencement and completion dates for the M5 to Ml motorway link, having regard to the effects it will have in South Worcestershire.

A project feasibility study is being carried out to examine traffic movements between the M5 to M50 junction and the proposed Birmingham-Nottingham link. We shall not be in a position to announce any decisions before the middle of next year at the earliest.

asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has made to the French and Italian Governments on the restrictions they have imposed on the carriage of United Kingdom goods in their respective countries; and if he will make a statement.

The Anglo-French agreement has not yet come into force. It would be premature to raise the matter with the French Government until we know by practical experience whether the quota is inadequate, and to what extent. When negotiating the Italian agreement, the British delegation represented strongly that the quota was inadequate. An Anglo-Italian meeting will be held early next year to review the operation of the agreement.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Italian quota is definitely inadequate? A firm in my constituency has already used up its November quota, and cannot now deliver export orders until December. Will he make the strongest possible representations to the Italian Government with a view to increasing the quota?

There are other methods of taking goods to the Continent, but the mere fact that in the agreement we have ensured that there is a periodical review will enable cases such as my hon. Friend has put to be raised.

In view of the representations to the hon. Gentleman about the total inadequacy of the quotas, has the Ministry conducted any investigations into the effect on our balance of payments of the loss of revenue the quota would impose on us?

Not as far as I know. But countries can exclude lorries anyway, and the point of the agreement on quotas was to get half a loaf rather than find the bakery closed.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the total sum which will be authorised for capital investment for British Railways in 1970; and what were the total sums spent on capital investment by British Railways in 1967 and 1965.

Up to £76 million in 1970. The board invested —121 million in 1965 and —96 million in 1967.

Is not it deplorable that, unlike that for all the other industries in the public sector, the capital expenditure allowed to the railways has been reduced in each of the past five years? Does the Minister really think that the figure of £76 million will be adequate to enable British Rail to carry on with modernisation and electrification?

The earlier figures include some expenditure on activities that have since been transferred to the National Freight Corporation and the Scottish Transport Group, but British Rail is getting a fair share of the allocation for public investment in nationalised industries. Whilst in all fields of our endeavour we would like to see more investment, I am satisfied that this is adequate to carry on the modernisation programme and satisfy the requirement that the investment is likely to be profitable in the long run.

Can my right hon. Friend say how much of this sum will be invested in modernising the railway between Crewe and Glasgow?

I cannot give a specific sum for a particular section of line. There is considerable new signaling expenditure going on, and there is the question before me, for a decision which I hope to announce shortly, of the proposed electrification from Weaver Junction to Glasgow. But I cannot give the specific figure.

asked the Minister of Transport how many derailments of trains occurred in the first 10 months of 1969; and what were the comparable figures in the first 10 months of 1967, 1965 and 1963, respectively.

The provisional figure for reportable derailments on all railways in Great Britain for the first 10 months is 342. The comparable figures for 1967, 1965 and 1963 are 256, 207 and 190 respectively.

Is it not very disturbing that derailment figures have continued to increase despite a substantial reduction in track mileage? When does the hon. Gentleman expect we shall see the improvement in the figures which was expected earlier this year when the Minister called for special measures?

All sorts of steps are being taken by the British Railways Board on speeds, driver training and route knowledge. All of us want to see a reduction in these figures, but it should be borne in mind that in terms of millions of freight miles the figure is very low.

Can my right hon. Friend give a further breakdown of those figures between passenger and freight?

I think my hon. Friend will find that the passenger train derailments have kept fairly constant. Inthe first ten months of 1963 the figure was 34, in 1965 it was 20, in 1967 it was 23, and in 1969 so far it is 19.

Can the hon. Gentleman pay particular regard to the problem of trains carrying ammunition, asI gather that some concern has been expressed that these trains have been particularly prone to derailments?

Again, the number since 1945 is very low indeed. The Ministry is very much aware of this problem and is taking the necessary steps with British Railways.

asked the Minister of Transport what study he is making of the provision of sound-proofing on urban sections of motorways; it he will develop sound-proofing on the urban section of the MI motorway running through Luton; and if he will make a statement.

A temporary experimental sound barrier is to be erected shortly on the MI near Markyate but Luton would not be suitable for this initial experiment. We must await the results of the present experiment before deciding whether sound barriers should be provided on other sections of the motorway.

But would my hon. Friend not agree that it is simple common sense that it is far better to test the sound-proofing system in urban areas than rural areas, as one gets not only meter readings in urban areas but also human reactions? This section in Luton of the M1 is one of the few urban sections outside London.

I would not agree with my hon. Friend. The first task is to determine the acoustic properties of the proposed new barrier. The next stage will be the development of a more permanent type of barrier, suitable not only acoustically but also aesthetically for an urban area. We will be pursuing this experiment, of course, in an urban area later.

How much per mile does the hon. Gentleman expect the permanent barrier to cost, and of what sort of material will it be made?

Clearly, the purpose of the experiment is to discover the best types of material. The experiment will cost £15,000.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will give further consideration to the question of motorway building with special reference to night work in heavily populated residential areas; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. The Department is examining what steps could be taken in future contracts to limit night work in heavily populated areas. I am extremely sorry for any disturbance or inconvenience which motorway construction work may cause but I am afraid that some is inevitable if only because of the magnitude of the task.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he is aware that it is not good enough that elderly people, in particular, should be kept awake at night, sometimes for two years or more, while a particular section of road is built. Is he aware that what tends to happen is that the construction companies feel that they can deal with the complaints for a little while, which will be long enough for that section to be built, when they can move on to some other stretch, and some other old people can have the problem? Would he review very seriously the whole question of night work on this sort of work?

I have the greatest sympathy with my hon. Friend's constituents and everyone else who suffers this inconvenience of night work. I can only repeat that we are examining what steps we can take in future contracts to limit this.

asked the Minister of Transport what further examination he has given to a cross-Channel link.

The final period of technical, commercial and economic studies of the Channel Tunnel will begin when the British and French Governments have received from private interests an acceptable scheme for its finance and construction.

I understand the obvious reluctance of private industry to come forward with the money required, but when does my right hon. Friend intend to publish the correct and revised figures for the1963 White Paper?

I am not aware that there is any need to publish new statistics. Obviously, the important studies which will bring the thing up to date will not start until an acceptable scheme for financing the construction has been agreed with the interests concerned. When these studies begin, it will of course be desirable and necessary to keep the House fully informed.

Will the Minister agree that his predecessor continually referred to the changing facts which are available supporting the cross-Channel tunnel, and that it is worth while that these figures should be published before decisions are taken, so that worth-while public examination of those figures can take place before conclusions are drawn?

It is clear that no final decision can be taken whether or not to build a tunnel until the two-year final study has been concluded. That study has not yet begun, and in any event the approval of Parliament will be required for the necessary legislation.

Is the Minister aware how disappointed my constituents will be with that reply? Does he realise the planning blight which is taking place because we cannot get a decision about this important project?

As was made clear, the position is that both the British and the French Governments confirmed their intention to go ahead with a rail tunnel project subject to acceptable financing terms and, of course, the outcome of these studies, which we agreed would have to take place with the French Government. Unfortunately, all these large and impor- tant issues take time and it is more difficult when it has to be done not purely as a national decision but jointly with an other Governement.

Is this not another example of international co-operation which is shaping up to be a money spinner comparable only with the Concorde?

I do not think that it is for me to comment on the Concorde. It is some years since I had responsibility in that connection. But certainly it is because of the importance of satisfying ourselves and the House on the financial and economic aspects of the proposed tunnel that we want to have the final studies in the light of the prospective proposals which we hope to get shortly from the groups concerned.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now completed his feasibility study for the construction of an East-West Motorway, joining Sheffield to Manchester and Liverpool; and when he expects to publish its findings.

I expect to receive the final report on the Sheffield—Manchester project feasibility study at the end of the year. When its recommendations have been fully examined I will announce details of the scheme on which advanced preparation work will continue.

Sheffield welcomes the fact that the Minister is a Sheffield Member. He knows how disappointed Sheffield is that it is not an intermediate area and that it has been disappointed in a delegation to Whitehall today. Will the right hon. Gentleman give this his urgent consideration, as Sheffield goods must get freely to Manchester and the Liverpool port?

I am aware of the importance of this proposed road. That is why it is included in the strategic plan in the Green Paper published by my predecessor. Naturally, I am aware of the strong claims for this road, but, equally, as Minister, I have to take into account the strong claims from other parts of the country as well.

I do not minimise the importance of this road, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it should be designed, if it is going to be carried over its projected route, so that there is no damage at all to the priceless amenity value of the Peak District National Park? Would he carefully study the implications for the National Park before giving any approval to the plans put forward?

This, of course, is one of the aspects which will be considered in the study, but I cannot pronounce on the study until it is concluded and I have received it. I shall, of course, want a little time to reflect on the points which both hon. Members have put to me.

In his original reply, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the special consideration which he was giving to the link between Sheffield and Manchester. Will he assure the House that this does not mean that the link between Manchester and Liverpool will be in any way neglected?

I thought that I had made it clear that, while I was conscious of the importance of this road, I had also had borne in upon me the great importance of other projects, including the one which the hon. Member mentions.

Would my right hon. Friend take it from me that the people of Liverpool are very pleased with his announcement about road construction and Government support when he was in Liverpool last week? Would he also take note that we are absolutely delighted with his remarks when he agreed that the chips on Liverpool docks are much better than those in the House of Commons?

Some of my observations may not command universal admiration, but I am sure that all hon. Members, if they could have tested the chips in the docks canteen, would have realised that they are much better served, at least in this respect, than we in this House.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is now taking to ensure that motor vehicles entering this country from abroad are adequately insured, particularly against third party risks, in view of the fact that the Automobile Association is no longer undertaking this work.

We are arranging with the A.A. and the R.A.C. to resume checks at ports that such vehicles have third-party insurance valid for this country, and, if not, to offer temporary British insurance.

Is it not a fact that a number of vehicles come into the country without adequate third-party insurance cover? Is it not vital that checks be carried out, but without preventing the flow of traffic to and from the Continent?

That is why we have asked the A.A. and the R.A.C. to resume the checks. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a statutory offence to drive a car on the road without at least third-party insurance.

While the A.A. and the R.A.C. do excellent work, they are private clubs and the work costs them money. Does the Treasury or the Ministry make any contribution towards the payment of the enormous costs which are now borne by the contributions of the members of private clubs?

I am not certain about that. The A.A. and the R.A.C. were unwilling to continue these checks because of the expense, and the Ministry will be contributing towards meeting the cost of the checks.

asked the Minister of Transport when he will be in a position to compile a future preparation list for inter-urban principal road schemes; and when these schemes will be undertaken.

We hope to announce the list of selected schemes early next year; progress on the schemes selected will be a matter for the highway authorities concerned but the present assumption is that their construction will start during the five-eight year period beginning 1971–72.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain what a preparation list is? Will the by-pass at Ampthill in Bedfordshire be included? Does he appreciate the wide and mounting concern at the danger in this town and his Ministry's apparent lack of interest in it?

The preparation list is precisely that. It is a list of schemes which are put in for preparation prior to their becoming firm proposals. The future of the Ampthill by-pass is another question. If the hon. Gentleman will put one down about it, I will answer it.

asked the Minister of Transport when he will make a decision about rail and underground links with Heathrow Airport.

I hope to be able to announce a decision early in 1970.

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that that answer is satisfactory? The last time I asked about this matter I was told that there were still points to be cleared up and that a decision would be taken as soon as possible. Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is the gateway to Europe for many travellers who bring in much foreign currency and that a decision will affect them and the Londoners who use the roads between Heathrow and Central London? Surely a decision can be made between now and Christmas.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, following studies in 1967 it was impossible to get agreement with the parties concerned and new studies have had to be undertaken. These are in their final stage, but until they are concluded I cannot come to a decision, and a number of other Departments and interests are also affected. However, as a frequent user of the road, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about relieving traffic on the M4 as soon as possible.

In view of the imminence of a decision about the third London airport, at Foulness or some other point, will my right hon. Friend avoid over-developing facilities at Heathrow?

I am not responsible for the airports themselves. I am concerned only with the question of a rail or underground link to the airport, which is necessary whatever decision may be taken about other airports.

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

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will seek to amend the London Transport Act 1969 so as to enable him to control the provision of concessionary fares for the retired and disabled.

No, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Tory-dominated London Boroughs Association has turned down any scheme for concessionary fares for retired people who want to travel within London, which means that retired people in Greater London are denied the rights of concessionary fares which are enjoyed by many pensioners in many other parts of the country?

The purpose of the London Transport Act, 1969, was to place the people of London in the same position as people in other parts of the country. It provided that the local authorities concerned would have discretion to grant concessionary fares and about the kind of concessionary arrangements they wanted to make. It was the proper arrangement for London to be on the same footing as the rest of the country. It is open to individual London boroughs to take what action they consider appropriate in this respect.

Will my right hon. Friend use his influence with the London boroughs to persuade them to exercise the powers which at long last they now have and which are similar to those exercised by provincial local authorities? Would it not be ridiculous for one or two of the London boroughs to exercise this power while other boroughs in the immediate vicinity did not allow concessionary fares?

The point about giving discretion to local authorities is that they decide for themselves, obviously having regard, I hope, to the views of the people in their areas, which is the right course to pursue. I should like concessionary fares schemes to be operated as widely as possible, not only in London but in other parts of the country. I understand that the situation in some parts of the country is the same as it is in London at the moment.

asked the Minister of Transport what money has been allocated to the improvement of the A66 from Scotch Corner to Appleby in 1970 and 1971; what section of the road will be improved; and when it is planned to by-pass the village of Bowes.

About £lm. has been allocated to improvements of the length between Thorpe Cottages and Smallways, and at Browson Bank and Dunsa Bank, and to a by-pass of Brough. The Bowes by-pass scheme is in preparation but has not yet been included in the firm programme for a particular year.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware how many serious and even fatal accidents there have been on this stretch of the road? Will he not try to do a little more than that?

I am aware of the accidents on this road and I naturally regret them. I cannot go further than I have gone in my Answer, but I can say that the consideration we are giving this road is being conducted as quickly as possible.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this road constitutes the most important bottleneck on the main road between Glasgow and London and that it should have high priority for that reason?

When the 35-mile length of the M6 from Carnforth to Thrimby is completed in August next year, the motorway will be fully open to traffic as far north as Penrith, with a further extension as far north as Carlisle due to beopen by December, 1970. Undoubtedly this route will be used by heavy and through traffic in preference to the A66. It istoo early to judge the full extent of the effect of the M6 on A66 traffic.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the findings of a mobile unit set up by the Optical Information Council, a copy of which has been sent to him, he will introduce regulations to tighten up the present eyesight requirements of the driving test.

No, Sir. We have had no evidence from the Optical Information Council that a change in present arrangements is necessary.

Since between 500,000 and 1 million people driving on our roads cannot pass the basic eyesight test required for the driving test, surely they constitute a considerable road accident hazard? Is not the Minister being too complacent if he feels that nothing should be done?

The figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman are not quite accurate. The percentage given by the Optical Information Council was 2.44, and this reckons out at about 400,000 drivers. The law is clear. Drivers should have a minimum standard of eyesight, and, of course, it is an offence if they do not. But the point is that so far there is no correlation between bad eyesight and road accidents.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will initiate a study into the cumulative effect on the environment of all current road schemes proposed for Brentford and Chiswick.

Environmental factors are taken into account in all road planning. These aspects will be examined with other issues arising from the road proposals in the Greater London Development Plan. A special study of Chiswick and Brentford would not be justified at present.

Is my hon. Friend aware that he said that he would take this matter up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning in view of my right hon. Friend's responsibility for environment? Can my hon. Friend assure me that I shall have an answer on this point?

I think my hon. Friend will find that there is a letter for him in the post on this matter right now.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now arrange for the provision of a footbridge or subway at the junction of Stockbridge Road with the Chichester By-pass on the A27.

I wrote to the hon. Member on 27th October explaining that we intend to go ahead with a scheme to provide a roundabout at this junction and hope constructional work will be able to start next summer.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there were two more deaths recently at what is a notorious death trap now? Will be accept that it would be wrong to provide this roundabout before providing either a subway or a pedestrian crossing

I regret very much the accidents to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If a footbridge is decided on, the design of the proposed roundabout can be modified to make provision for it. But a footbridge could not be suitably provided in advance of the roundabout scheme.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will review the requirement that only a doctor may take a blood sample in the case of drivers suspected of driving while under the effects of alcohol.

I understand that the present arrangements are not giving rise to any serious difficulty.

asked the Minister of Transport what investigation his Department is making into the use of drugs by drivers; and what action he proposes to take to deal with this problem.

The Road Research Laboratory is continuing its investigations into the relationship between drugs and road accidents, but the present indications are that the number of accidents attributable to the use of drugs is very small.

What investigation is being made by the Ministry into new methods of testing the reactions of those drivers who may have used cannabis or other harmful drugs?

I understand that the results of the R.R.L. study will be completed early next year.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the proposed increases in bus fares in outer London; and why he has indicated his intention of approving these increases without such reference.

No, Sir. These limited increases did not in the Government's view justify a reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. My right hon. Friend's approval of these increases is to facilitate the very necessary reorganisation of public transport in London.

Although these increases are unwelcome everywhere, can my hon. Friend tell me why is it that people in outer London are considered better able to put up with them than people in other areas?

This is not an across-the-board increase. I know that there is concern regarding the differential in the increases, but the broad answer is that it costs more to provide transport in the central area than in the outer areas.

Are these increases sufficient to eliminate the proposed estimated loss on the buses to be transferred to the National Bus Company as from 1st January, 1970?

I understand that these increases will make the services viable.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to improve the street lighting on the A19 trunk road in the town of Easingwold.

Traffic conditions on A19 at Easingwold have been reviewed. Until more dangerous stretches of trunk road have been lit, schemes such as this cannot be included in the programme.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is the only built-up area on the A19 that is not adequately lit? Is he further aware that there are two important schools on this stretch of road and that the cost of installing street lighting would be less than £2,000? The parents of the children are naturally indignant at the risk the children are having to take because of the parsimony of his Department.

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituents but I must reiterate that our funds are limited and that we have to operate a priority system or merit rating based on saving injury and death in accidents. Under that priority system, lighting is installed on the more dangerous stretches of road and unfortunately the A19 is not at the top of the league for merit rating.

asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning if he will take steps to establish a National Environmental Research Unit to investigate all major cases of environmental imbalance which may be the result of pollution.

asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning what examination he has made of Natural Environmental Research machinery following the recent deaths of sea-birds; and if he will make a statement.

The Government already have the advice of the Natural Environment Research Council, which is the main co-ordinating body for research in this field. But, as the Prime Minister has announced, I am reviewing the whole machinery for dealing with environmental pollution.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this will be an increasingly urgent and important problem for this country? Would he set up a unit of scientists who could act speedily and promptly with co-ordinated activities when something occurred, such as the disaster to sea-birds a short time ago?

I certainly think that this is a problem of the greatest urgency and importance, but I remind my hon. Friend that in this country we have probably gone further in the successful control of pollution than has any other country. I must ask my hon. Friend to await the result of my review of what kind of organisation is necessary.

Has the Secretary of State seen the disturbing findings of the Consumer Association about the exhaust from motor cars? Is he satisfied with what appeared to be the rather complacent dismissal of those findings by the Minister of Transport?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is anything but complacent, and I certainly cannotaccept that. I have read the findings with great interest. This is a specific and technical problem, and it is one of thethings to which my right hon. Friend will be paying great attention.

asked the Prime Minister what further consultations he has recently had with the heads of the Commonwealth Governments regarding Rhodesia.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to Questions by several hon. Members on 14th October.—[Vol. 788, c. 206–8.]

Can my right hon. Friend give further information about Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Gallahen, the two latest victims of the police State in Rhodesia? Does not he agree that in the four years since U.D.I. the Leader of the Opposition bears some responsibility in that he has become a sort of pushover for the pro-Rhodesia Front element in his party?

I have no comment on the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. On the first part, I am sorry to say that I have no information about these two gentlemen who have been interned by the regime. Butapologists in this country for the Smith régime will note what is happening to the freedom of the Press in Salisbury.

Does this not illustrate the difficulty which has arisen as a result of the withdrawal of our residual mission from Salisbury? This country is alone in the world in having no one in Rhodesia, of either diplomatic or consular status, able to look after the interests of its citizens or to do so on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. Does this not show how unwise the withdrawal of the mission was? Would it not have been better to have kept some sort of organisation in Rhodesia, if only to carry out these functions?

No, Sir. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should wish to give that degree of recognition to a regime which has now decided to break with the Crown, despite being in law a British colony, and which hasalso decided to introduce a constitution which has been universally condemned by all parties in this House.

Surely, while Her Majesty's Government had a residual mission in Rhodesia for three and a half yearsthere was no legal recognition of the illegal régime. Why suddenly should it be legal recognition of the illegal régime if a residual mission had been left there to look after these interests?

I said "that degree of recognition". I did not say legal recognition. It has long been clear that British citizens who stay in Rhodesia under the illegal régime do so at their own risk.

Will my right hon. Friend consider that everything in Rhodesia still depends on the oil sanction? Will he consult other members of the Commonwealth about how to make the oil sanction effective, which can certainly be done if the right measures are taken?

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the communiqué issued on 24th September following the last meeting of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee on this and other matters.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, outside the United Kingdom, only one Commonwealth country has taken proceedings against a firm operating from its territories for evasion of sanctions? This was Malaysia. Will he make representations to the Heads of other Commonwealth Governments that the best way to assist in bringing about the downfall of the Smith régime is to take firm action against evaders?

There is no doubt about the attitude of Commonwealth countries in this matter. When facts come to our notice they are brought to the attention of the Government concerned or the United Nations Secretariat dealing with these matters, or both. The problem about the evasion of sanctions arises from the fact that Rhodesia is a landlocked country; otherwise it would never have arisen.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now receive a deputation to discuss the situation regarding labour relations in the Tilbury Docks.

This would not be appropriate at this particular moment, Sir.

Are we not facing what amounts to a new and much more sinister version of the Mafia—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I choose my words with care—in which industrial blackmail is substituted for the gun and in which neither management nor trade unions can exercise their legitimate authority, and is it not now clear that the State alone can take action to do something about it?

If the hon. Gentleman and those with him want to see me approach industrial relations with that extravagance of language, I do not think that they have very much to contribute to what is already quite a difficult situation. He will know that the position at Tilbury is at present the subject of a ballot among the union members on the Enclosed Docks Devlin stage 2 pay and productivity offer, a ballot which closes on 19th November. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will feel that it would be right to await the result of that ballot before we try to forecast what is likely to happen at Tilbury. The hon. Member had a meeting with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to the Department of Employment and Productivity and does not seem to have taken up the suggestion which I made to him in May about a meeting.

Would the right hon. Gentleman consider setting up an inquiry to establish the cost to our balance of payments of the diverted traffic from Tilbury and would he ask such an inquiry to consider the long-term implications for the Port of London of the effects of this long and damaging strike?

The hon. Gentleman is right to stress that this is an extremely serious position as far as containerisation is concerned and its diversion to continental ports. But he will recognise the acute sensitivity on this issue in the docks, which have been suffering from a generation—in fact, a century—of casual labour. We have carried through decasualisation. This is one of the later stages of it which we hope will now come to a satisfactory conclusion.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that we are seeing a new element in political life; namely, that because of reorganisation schemes such as the one at Tilbury and massive mergers in which sometimes thousands of men are involved, people are demanding their say in these matters? If we think about them in terms of the Mafia we really will have trouble.

That is true. As I have said, the great experiment of decasualisation is another new feature. There is also the fear of redundancy and unemployment due to the measures being taken to increase productivity. Hon. Members opposite who have raised this matter today might be surprised to know that in the London docks as a whole productivity on the basis of cargo tons per man employed has increased by 17 per cent. over the last two years.

asked the Prime Minister if he will now define the duties of the Minister without Portfolio.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Gregory) on 4th November.—[Vol. 790, c. 92.]

As that reply said that the Minister without Portfolio had taken over certain duties from the Paymaster-General, can the Prime Minister say whether he has taken over from the former Paymaster-General two specific duties which the Prime Minister laid down in October last year; namely, first, the participation of the public in the decision-making policies of the Government, and, second, the question of youth? If not, who deals with these questions?

With the redistribution of Government functions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning will be intimately concerned with the participation question in relation to the follow-up of Maud. [Laughter.] There are quite serious people in this country who are interested in the futureof local government, which remained untouched by hon. Members opposite after about 70 years of dithering about the question. Responsibility for youth questions, apart from those relating to education, will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who is also responsible for sporting functions.

If the Prime Minister is satisfied with these new arrangements, will he please make a note of the fact that I am not?

In view of the hon. Lady's ability to be so easily satisfied for 13 years, I am not at all impressed.

asked the Prime Minister if he will designate overall responsibility for the British effort in developing the marine environment to one particular Department of State.

I have nothing to add to paragraph 157 of the White Paper on Marine Science and Technology (Cmnd. 3992.).

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the opinion of many of the officials of the American Marine Sciences Council and of its former chairman, Mr. Hubert Humphrey, that it would be much easier to deal with the British and promote international co-operation in this field if there was one Department of State to deal with it?

I am not aware of the views of American officials on this matter. I am aware that in most matters the American Administration has far more Ministries and agencies dealing with almost any conceivable question than we have. However, since my hon. Friend's Question refers to a matter within the ambit of the Natural Environment Research Council, may I say that it is necessary that regulatory activities like oil pullution at sea, international co-operation on the use of the seabed, exploitation of marine resources, such as fisheries, and defence aspects, should be handled by the Departments responsible for these broad duties.

While the Select Committee on Science and Technology endorsed the paragraph of the White Paper to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred, may I ask him if he will look at what the Minister of Technology is at present doing with the Committee on Marine Technology, the chairman of which he has just appointed to serve a purpose quite outside oceanography altogether?

Yes. But the hon. Gentleman, who has given a great deal of thought to these questions, willagree that that committee is doing extremely valuable work. He will also be aware that on many of the aspects on which the Select Committee has reported 1 have asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning to present an urgent report. When we have one, there will be a report made to the House.

asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to improve the co-ordination of Ministers responsible for economic affairs in Scotland.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the effects in Scotland of the new arrangements for Ministerial responsibilities for economic and industrial affairs; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friends work very closely together on these matters.

If the Prime Minister finds the present situation so satisfactory, can he explain the net loss of 67,000 jobs to Scotland over the last three years for which figures are available?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the jobs which have been created and expected from industrial development certificate approvals under this Government are 84,000 compared with fewer than 55,000 in the previous five years. He will also be aware that we have authorised double the surface area of advance factories which the Opposition authorised and £50 million for R.E.P. and S.E.T., £58 million for investment grants and £16 million for Local Employment Act payments.

Is the Prime Minister aware that he cannot conceal the fact that there has been a most serious loss of jobs in Scotland, that this more than reverses the net gain of 30,000 jobs between 1960 and 1964 and this his Government's pre-election forecast of net gains in Scotland in 1966 was wholly misleading?

No, Sir. I dealt with the oft-quoted figure of 30,000 at Question Time on, I think, 1st May—but I would want to check that. I pointed out the great skill of hon. Members opposite in selecting particular years— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, but I had figures on that occasion for 12 years which gave some very different results, if they were properly studied.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the rundown in the older industries in Scotland was affecting that area very much more than any other part of the United Kingdom and that, with hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost there, it is to the credit of the Government that unemployment is relatively low?

Yes, Sir. That is a fair comment on the question. The figure for jobs lost—I have given some of the figures for jobs created—represents, to a very considerable extent, the colliery closure programme. I am not aware that hon. Members opposite felt that that programme of closures could have been avoided. We have had to find additional work to deal with the problems of those who have lost their jobs in the coal mining industry. There has been a rundown in other industries also. But hon. Members will be aware of how much the Government have done for the shipbuilding industry, but for which the figures in all these areas would have been very much more serious.

Why is the Prime Minister so complacent about this? Will he recognise that the figure of 67,000 net loss of jobs was given to me by the Minister of State for Employment and Productivity on Monday of last week, at HANSARD, column 33, and that the figures to which he should address his attention are those in his own Government's White Paper on Scotland, at page 9, which, shows that in the last four years of Conservative Government 157,000 new jobs were brought to Scotland?

I am anything but complacent on this question. That is why we have devoted so much of Government resources, money and real resources—this has been condemned by the Leader of the Opposition—in the various Acts, which the Opposition have opposed, in order to get new jobs into Scotland. Had this been done before 1964, the rundown of our basic industries would not have caused the loss of jobs which has occurred.

Is the Prime Minister aware that some of his Departments have expressed doubt whether there is a Scottish economy? Can he, therefore, safely leave the co-ordination of Scottish economic affairs in the hands of Departments with views like that? Would he not do better and be electorally wiser to revert to the traditional Labour policy and view that the best place for co-ordinating Scottish economic affairs is a Scottish Parliament?

No, Sir. I am not aware of any statements that there is no Scottish economy. What I am aware of are statements, with which I agree, that the Scottish economy would be torn to blazes if we accepted the advice of the hon. Lady.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that it was the complacency of the Opposition in the Highlands throughout not 13 years but 100 years which led to the rundown of that part of the Scottish economy? Would he also agree that there have been a newly generated spirit of hope and new jobs in new industries in that part of Scotland?

I would not blame on individual hon. Members opposite the responsibility for the whole 100 years, but it is certainly the case, as I saw when I visited my hon. Friend's constituency in the far North of Scotland earlier this year, that a great deal of new reinvigoration and regeneration is going on in those areas because of a whole range of Government policy but most of all, I think, because of the creation of the Highlands and Islands Board. Since we were pressing that on right hon. and hon. Members opposite for a great part of their 13 years, since they steadfastly refused to carry out our suggestions and since they must now accept that it has been a great success, I agree with what my hon. Friend has said for at least part of the 100 years.

Is the Prime Minister aware that he last dealt with this matter on 18th March, when he explained everything except the point about the loss of jobs and undertook to send me a breakdown of the jobs position, which I should still be glad to receive? Will he, therefore, now confirm the figure given by the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity that, allowing for the jobs which the Government have created and the jobs loss, there is a net loss of the figure given by the right hon. Lady of 67,000?

No, I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's latter figure, and I would like to check his memory of the date against mine. He has obviously looked it up and I have not. He may be right, but I will check that one. I certainly regret that I have not sent the document to the right hon. Gentleman which I had to send. It sounds as though his office has slipped up as much as mine in that respect. [Interruption.] I have never known him fail to follow up within hours anything he has asked for in the past. Certainly, I accept full responsibility for it, and I will see that the right hon. Gentleman gets whatever it was for which he asked on 18th March, I think he said. I will see that he gets it without any further delay.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the obvious failure by the Leader of the Opposition to understand the true position, I give notice that I will endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Order. As the House knows, that automatically closes the question.