asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received proposals that he should approve reductions in the pensions payable to the staff of British Railways in order to accommodate the Government's proposals in respect of National Insurance.

No, Sir.

Will the hon. Gentleman then give an assurance that he will in no circumstances authorise any reduction in railwaymen's pensions, already low, to accommodate national superannuation?

My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security has given certain undertakings on the new scheme, and I have no doubt that the trade unions will be consulting the British Railways Board about the whole matter of pensions.

The Parliamentary Secretary has not answered my right hon. Friend's question. Will he give a clear answer to the specific point which was put to him?

I am certainly not willing at the Box to give the undertaking sought. This is a matter for the British Railways Board, which has statutory obligations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this question is just another red herring?

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make it a condition of his approval of the capital expenditure involved that the British Railways Board shall improve the services which the Board proposes to introduce from May 1970 to stations on the coast line from Preston to Blackpool South.

The Board tells me that no capital expenditure is involved.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this new service will be inferior to the service which exists both for commuters and for passengers using these stations? Will he look at the matter again, particularly since British Rail cannot give me an estimate of the alleged savings involved?

That has nothing to do with the original Question about capital expenditure, which I have answered. We are satisfied that the new concentration on Blackpool North is a sensible solution to many problems in that area.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents use this route, particularly in the summer? They regard this service as deplorable and the cuts as even more deplorable. Will he have another look at this?

I am certainly prepared to look at anything that hon. Members may put to me on this. I shall be glad to answer any specific points if my hon Friend will write to me.

asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of installing double white lines, and an island refuge. respectively, at Cambridge Road junction on the A38

Extending the double white lines and including "hatched markings", which are the possibilities being considered at present, would cost about £200. An island refuge is not possible in the present road width, and widening would mean buying expensive property.

Does the hon. Gentleman propose to give us the white lines or does he not? Is he aware of the mulish obstinacy of his Department to do anything about this extremely dangerous junction, which has cost a number of lives in the last months?

I have already told the hon. Gentleman that we are considering this solution. The solution which I believe he is pressing for is the provision of a central refuge. This would be an extremely costly scheme, which could not be justified in view of the proposal for the M5 to by-pass the A38 in 1971.

This is one of the most dangerous roads in the country. It passes the comprehension of those who use it why the Ministry has not agreed to double white lines on the road, if only to indicate to motorists the opportunities for overtaking. Far greater consideration should be given to this dangerous road than has so far been given to it by the Ministry.

The Question is not about the A38 in general but about the A38 where it passes through Cambridge. If my hon. Friend has any specific points on the A38 and will write to me, I will certainly look at them.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received the proposals of the interests concerned and whether he will now publish the up-to-date financial calculations with regard to the building of the Channel Tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

Discussions with the prospective financing groups are still continuing. When their proposals have been received and a scheme for the finance and construction of the Tunnel has been agreed with the British and French Governments, I will consider with my French colleague the need for a joint release of information about it.

Does not the Minister understand that this is a madly expensive project, years out of date, and that putting vehicles on flat railway cars is very clumsy? Would not it be better to concentrate our resources on roll-on/roll-off and on hovercraft and other modern inventions with export possibilities?

The purpose of the discussions with the financial groups is to go into the financial aspect of the proposal and, as I have said before, there will be final studies before any final decision is taken. While I know that a certain view is held about other alternative means, our considered view is that the tunnel is still worth while, despite these other suggested improvements.

Is the Minister aware that in France people are not talking about whether the Channel Tunnel is built but the date of the opening? Will the Minister make it clear that the Government are not prepared to go on with it until these financial surveys have been produced, and will he hurry with them?

Speed depends largely on the groups making the financial proposals. I have already made clear in this House, and the French Government have made clear in France, that no final decision has been or can be taken until these further studies are completed.

Does the Minister understand that the detailed updating of the financial and factual trade evidence cannot take place until he has given the go ahead and that, even then, there will be a further delay of two years before the final decision is taken? This is all being held up because the Minister will not give the initial financial decision.

If the hon. Gentleman did his homework more thoroughly, he would know that until the financial groups come forward with their proposals there is no further step that I can take.

asked the Minister of Transport if he has now received the project feasibility study about the line of the proposed road link between the M6 and the Fylde Coast; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. We have just received the final report on the project feasibility study. My right hon. Friend will announce a decision when the recommendations have been carefully considered.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the number of casualties over the next three years which could be saved if this link had been built by now is reliably estimated at 2,500, of which 78 will be fatal? Will he therefore give an undertaking to announce the decision very speedily?

I should not attempt to confirm the hon. Gentleman's figures. I hope that we can give this decision in the spring, although I must also take into account the final decision on the boundaries of the Leyland Chorley new town.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a further statement on his policy regarding the introduction of random testing with breathalysers.

I have not completed my review of the law on drink and driving and cannot, therefore, say whether new legislation is needed or, if it should be, what form it should take.

Will the Minister accept that anybody caught who is drunk while driving should be punished very severely? Many people are deeply disturbed at the working of this law, even after what has happened in the House of Lords. Does the Minister also agree that random tests would be most unwise and that what is needed is more clarification of this law?

The recent decisions of the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal last week went a long way to clarifying the situation. Because of these decisions, I need more time to study the whole matter.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the impact of the breathalyser test has worn off to a great degree? He may be surprised to know that many motorists who drink would appreciate a random test to save them from some of the madmen who go on the roads.

I understand the prospect of random tests, by which I understand that any motorist could be stopped at any time and asked to take a test, is, to say the least, a highly controversial proposal.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will state his future intentions in regard to the introduction of half-barrier level crossings and give details of proposals made to him for the replacement of level crossings by bridges or tunnels.

We will consider on their merits any applications made to us by the British Railways Board for the conversion of public level crossings to automatic half-barriers. Proposals for replacing public level crossings by bridges or tunnels are usually embodied in larger road schemes and details of all cases are not readily available.

Is the Minister aware that the motoring public are deeply worried about the near-misses on many of these half-barrier level crossings? As the minimum cost of a new half-barrier level crossing is about £13,000, can he say what would be the approximate cost of a bridge or tunnel, which is 100 per cent. safe, when the new and faster trains come out next year?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the British Railways Board is working hard on conversions as a result of the Hixon Inquiry. The minimum cost of a bridge in rural areas is over £100,000. Two that are to be built in rural areas will each cost over £250,000. so they are expensive propositions.

Will my hon. Friend consider making approaches to the British Railways Board with the idea that on the busier public level crossings keepers should be employed, because this is a 100 per cent. guarantee against accidents.

Certainly, we will be prepared to put that point to the British Railways Board.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will change the wording of warning notices at automatic level crossings to make clear to drivers the categories of vehicles to which the obligation to telephone the signal box applies.

Mandatory signs are now being erected at all automatic half-barrier level crossings which make it quite clear which drivers must telephone the signal box for permission to cross.

I thank the Minister for that reply, which clarifies the point that I had in mind.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will state the average times between the decisions to build new urban and rural roads and the commencement of their construction.

On average, firm decisions to proceed with a scheme cannot be taken until it has been under preparation for some two to three years. Once a scheme has been accepted into the firm programme, commencement of construction can be expected in about 24 months for both urban and rural roads, subject to the availability of funds at the time.

Will the Minister try to speed up the decision-making and the compulsory purchasing starting next year, and also implement some of the recommendations in the Lofthouse Report?

We are anxious to proceed as fast as possible. We have schemes in hand, which means that there will be no delay subject to the total resources available. On the other hand, I must make it clear that I am obliged to go through some long and complicated statutory procedures.

asked the Minister of Transport how many people were killed in road accidents involving articulated lorries during the first 10 months of 1969, compared with the comparable period of 1968; and what further action he will take to reduce these accidents.

211 people were killed in such accidents in the first eight months of 1969; figures for September and October are not yet available. Statistics for articulated vehicles were not collected in 1968. We are studying the new accident returns to see whether further action is required.

Whatever the statistics may be this year, is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there has been an alarming increase in these accidents in the Cambridge area this year and that there is considerable public concern? Even if the Ministry is not prepared to legislate, could it not take more vigorous steps than it has so far to encourage the fitting of anti-jack-knifing devices to reassure the public?

Naturally, the Ministry is concerned about any road accidents. But it should be pointed out that not all the 211 deaths were the result of jackknifing, but just with articulated vehicles. The Government are conducting operational trials, in conjunction with British Road Services, on literally dozens of anti-jack-knifing devices.

In view of the over-congested nature of our streets and roads, what inducements are given to these huge articulated lorries to travel overnight?

I do not know that we give any inducements.

Then I think that the Ministry should.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that most accidents concerning these types of lorries take place on the M roads and that the speed at which they travel on the M roads is in excess of their braking power?

Obviously this has to be taken into consideration, but the fact that we are holding operational trials with many of these devices shows our concern in the matter. We must certainly consider all the devices being put into our hands for testing.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will have signs erected on the M1 at Aldenham and at its junction with the M10 warning drivers that the width of each carriageway decreases from three lanes to two for seven miles, as this is not immediately obvious in the dark.

Conspicuous direction signs, which are mounted on gantries and illuminated at night, already give warning of the reduced lanes available to through traffic on the approach to both junctions.

Is the Minister aware that those signs are not as obvious as he perhaps thinks? Will he have some sign as obvious as that on the M4, where the east-bound traffic comes to a four-lane overhead section, posted at both ends of the M1?

The M1 signs were erected ten years ago. Many motorway signs have since been modified to comply with the Worboys recommendations. We intend to review all the signs on the M1, and there might possibly be a need for replacement. If there is any need for additional "Get in lane" signs, we will consider that in the review.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I travel up and down this road almost daily? I find that there is even greater danger at the other end of this two-lane section where, quite frequently, I find myself nearly involved in accidents with drivers who have got into the wrong position and have had to come back to the two lane stage at the end of the three-lane section?

I am grateful for the comments of a regular commuter on this stretch of road. I take note of the point made by my hon. Friend and shall look into this when we have the review.

asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the progress that will have been made towards the completion of London's primary road network by the end of the 1970s on the basis of the money which his department is planning to commit during this period.

Schemes in preparation could provide about 50 miles of new primary roads during the 1970s. Improvements to the North Circular Road and some other existing primaries are also planned. I cannot at present say what other primary schemes might be completed during the period.

Does my right hon. Friend think that the money is ever going to be available to complete the network in anything like the time-scale envisaged by the G.L.C? Would not it be better to complete those parts of the network which are under construction, and then carry out a much more thorough reappraisal of the whole situation?

I think my hon. Friend knows that the Greater London Development Plan, which is the prime responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, has been submitted, and that inquiries will be made into its proposals. As at the end the Government will decide, it would be wrong for me to comment on the merits of the plan at present.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if we had an adequate public transport system in Greater London many more people would use it instead of bringing their cars into the metropolis? Will he consider sympathetically the proposals which have been put to him by the Southern Region for greatly improving the services which it provides for the general public?

That is a rather different question, but I have been informed by British Railways of their proposals, and my officials are studying them in conjunction with the Railways Board. I am not at the moment able to make a statement about the Southern Region's proposals.

As my right hon. Friend said in a recent answer to me that he does not yet know what these motorway projects will cost, will he undertake that his Department will at least find out and tell the House before he gives any approval to these extravagant projects?

As a leading objector to these proposals, my right hon. Friend would not want me to say anything which could be deemed as prejudicing the outcome of the inquiry for which he is agitating.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) how many prosecutions have taken place, and how many are pending, for traffic offences at the junction of the A38 with the A370 at East Brent between 6th November, 1968, and 6th November, 1969;

In the period concerned there were 14 accidents at this junction which resulted in death or personal injury. 115 prosecutions for traffic offences have taken place and 139 were outstanding on 6th November, 1969.

Surely these disastrous figures speak for themselves? Can the hon. Gentleman say what action he proposes to take, why he has not taken it earlier, and whether he will in future listen to the views of the local people who have long said that this junction is a lethal one?

It is not true that I have taken no action. A "stop" sign was erected in July. Since the installation of street lighting in March there have been no after-dark accidents. The existence of the "stop" sign accounts for the large number of prosecutions that are pending. It is intended to provide a roundabout in time for next year's summer holiday traffic. We are therefore far from doing nothing.

Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to a report by a police officer that many of these accidents are caused by people unknowingly taking drugs which they think have no effect on their driving, such as aspros, aspirins, and so on? Will my hon. Friend look into this aspect of danger on the roads due to people unknowingly taking drugs?

With due respect to my hon. Friend, I think that the nearest that I could get to Weston-super-Mare on aspirins and aspros would be Slough. I ask him to put down a Question on the subject he has raised.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) how many prosecutions received from local interests in the Milford Haven Area regarding the Government's impending legislation on the reorganisation of the ports; and what replies he has sent.

The Milford Haven Conservancy Board, the oil companies, Swansea Chamber of Commerce and a number of local authorities, represented that Milford Haven should be excluded from the reorganisation; some have asked that if it is to be included it should be put under a separate port board. One expressed the fear that oil dues would be used to cross-subsidise other ports. I have replied that while Milford Haven is clearly within the takeover class, nevertheless I would give careful consideration to the views expressed. In particular, I can repeat the assurances previously given on cross-subsidisation.

I am grateful to the Minister for his statement that he will reconsider this. Does he agree that this is one of the great harbours of the world because of its deep water? As it is carrying out this task of importing oil which is vital to our economy, it should be left undisturbed by threats of nationalisation, even when disguised as reorganisation.

It is because I regard it as a major port that it is included in the reorganisation. If the hon. Gentleman studies the Bill, he will note that we are not proposing to take over the oil installations, because they have a through transport facility; but the harbour must be classed as a major one.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the success of the South Wales ports stems from the fact that they are organised as a group, and that Milford Haven could gain from the point of view of profitability and efficiency if it was integrated with the other ports in South Wales?

Nonsense.

I think that that question will fall to be considered later, because it will be the responsibility of the National Ports Authority to make arrangements for the respective ports.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the consistency of the White Paper depends on leaving Milford as a user port out of the National Ports Authority? Would he further agree that there is only one justification for including Milford, and that is that it would turn the Bill into a Hybrid Bill if it were left out, with the complication of getting the Bill through which would ensue from that?

I do not think that it is for the Minister to deal with the highly technical question what is or is not a hybrid Bill. Certainly I should not feel competent to do so.

asked the Minister of Transport, having regard to hazards arising from single track road traffic on the over bridge, A440 Pershore to Upton-upon-Severn, and trains beneath travelling at speeds up to 100 miles per hour on the Birmingham-Bristol main line, whether he will now reconsider his earlier decision that there is insufficient priority for rebuilding this railway bridge to accommodate three streams of road traffic, with appropriate steel safety fencing; and whether he will now make a further statement.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 14th July last.—[Vol. 787, c. 1–3.]

Why is the Ministry prospecting at this bridge if the hon. Gentleman has nothing to add? Is he not aware that this is the most dangerous railway road bridge in the Midlands? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I said in the Midlands. Does the Minister want a calamity to occur before he stirs his shanks and does something about it?

From the noises around me, it seems fairly clear that other hon. Members do not accept the contention of the lion. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) that this is the most dangerous road bridge in the Midlands. Clearly the county council does not think it is, otherwise it would have pressed for the scheme to have higher priority.

Having used the bridge thousands of times during the last two years, I support what was said by my hon. Friend. This is one of the most dangerous bridges in the whole of the Midlands, and I urge the Minister—

Order. The hon. Member must ask a question.

I ask the Minister to reconsider his very disappointing decision.

I have nothing to add to what I have said.

While reassuring my hon. Friend that this is certainly not the most dangerous bridge in the Midlands, may I also assure him that I have never come across an instance of trains travelling at anything like 100 m.p.h. on that stretch of track?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observation on train speeds, but frankly I do not think that train speeds have any bearing on this Question.

If the hon. Gentleman's argument is that there are other bridges which are more dangerous, may we be told which they are?

If the right hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question, unless the facts would be unduly expensive to produce, I shall endeavour to answer it.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement upon the proposals made to him for 56-foot-long road, train-type, goods vehicles; and what representations he has received from motoring and pedestrian organisations against these proposals.

I assume that the hon. Member means 56 tons, not 56 feet, since a lorry-trailer combination up to 18 metres—59 feet—is already permitted.

On a point of order. I cannot be responsible for typographical errors.

All aspects of these proposals are under examination. I have received objections from a number of organisations, including the Pedestrians Association for Road Safety.

Does the Minister realise that if we are to consider vehicles of this size, which may be economical and practicable in future, the user ought to be confined to roadways of the motorway type alone, and that they could not possibly be allowed to travel on normal A or B type roads in this country? Would it not require legislation before any progress could be made here?

I shall naturally have full consultations with the many interests involved before authorising any change of the present regulations. I can see an immediate difficulty in the hon. Member's proposal, because one of the points about road transport is that it enables unloading to take place at a place convenient to the user. We do not want to have factories and the like built along the side of the motorways. They must go from the motorways to some other point.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the alarming increase in the number of accidents involving heavy lorries, he will give an undertaking that he will resist any proposal for an increase in tonnage or length?

It is very easy for hon. Members to ask for this kind of assurance. When responsible organisations make proposals, the least that I can do is examine them carefully. An examination of the kind involved here entails questions such as power-weight ratio, braking and many other questions, including amenities.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that there are many different points of view on this? Whilst there are consultations going on elsewhere, will he see that before any firm decisions are made he consults Members of this House, who have various opinions on what is an important subject for our constituents? Does he realise that it is vitally necessary that we should take part in this discussion?

It would be rather difficult to have a lengthy consultation with the House as a whole, but I would welcome any observations from any hon. Member on this or any other aspect of my work.

asked the Minister of Transport whether it is the intention of his Department to approve only those local authority road schemes submitted to them which provide for 24-foot carriageways and not those which provide for 30-foot carriageways.

What we approve is a road designed to accommodate the traffic which is predicted. In a case where the predicted traffic is likely to rise later to a level requiring dual 24 ft. carriageways we would approve a single 24 ft. carriageway in the first instance and accept a measure of overload until it is possible to provide a duplicate alongside. None of the Ministry publications on road design and layout quote a 30 ft. carriageway and in schemes where financial assistance is sought we would require good reason to support the adoption of that width before approving it.

Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the policy is made absolutely clear to local authorities? Is he aware that there have been cases recently where, at an advanced stage, it has been necessary to carry out considerable redesigning work because of a misunderstanding of what was likely to receive Ministerial approval?

I am not aware of any such cases. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to write to me.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the value of subsidies for rural bus services withdrawn by the National Bus Company as a result of the discretion granted to them under Section 54 of the Transport Act, 1968.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the value of subsidies for rural bus services withdrawn by British Railways as a result of the discretion granted to them under Section 54 of the Transport Act, 1968.

I would refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) on 24th November.—[Vol. 792, c. 38.]

When is the Minister planning to withdraw this subsidy to private operators? Will he bear in mind the very serious effect it will have on the operators and, more important, upon the passengers they carry?

This matter was very fully debated in the House on 27th November. The transfer from British Rail to the National Bus Service is a sensible arrangement and was provided for under the Transport Act, 1968. It is right that the pattern of rural services should be considered together and not strictly on the basis of whether a service was connected with a previous railway closure.

Would the Minister explain when he intends to approve the withdrawal of the subsidies from the private and municipal operators?

I cannot answer that without notice.

asked the Minister of Transport what provision he has made for the payment of rural bus grants for the calendar year 1969 and for the calendar year 1970.

I would refer the hon. Lady to the answer given to the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) on 25th November.—[Vol. 792, c. 50.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that it is not so much the private operators who matter but the bus passengers, who depend on these bus services in country areas and who are getting worried about the future of their transport?

The hon. Lady asked me about rural bus grants, and the only reason why I could not give more information is because a number of discussions are going on with local authorities and I cannot predict how many of them will avail themselves of the possibility of further grants under the 1968 Act. This matter was very fully discussed in the House, and I think that when the hon. Lady looks at the debate she will realise that much more money, around £11 million, is going into the bus services generally, a substantial part of that to rural areas.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that he has told the House what is being provided for 1969, and that in his view it is an over-estimate? What the House wants to know is what the Minister thinks will actually be spent in 1969. Is he aware that that is the answer which he must give us?

The point is simple. As I said in answer to a previous Question, provision is made for the expenditure of £95,000 in the current financial year. There are still several months to the end of that financial year, and I would be happy if more applications came along. If they do not, then we will probably not reach £95,000.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will publish the approximate average cost, excluding land acquisition, of building one mile of motorway through open country for each of the years from 1960 to 1968, inclusive.

Costs vary so much depending on the particular location that average costs are liable to be misleading. Over the years in question, the costs per mile for construction of rural motorways, excluding land acquisition, were in the following ranges:

For dual 2 lane motorways £229,000 to £1,048,000 per mile.

For dual 3 lane motorways £243,000 to £1,646,000 per mile.

May I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that extremely interesting and revealing answer. Can he give any indication whether interest rates have been reflected in the increased costs of motorway construction, or whether S.E.T., which contractors have had to bear, has added to the cost?

Without going into specific details about extra costs, I can say that, taking all roads together, contract prices for road construction have increased by 60 per cent. since 1960.

Can my hon. Friend give the relative cost of land in 1960 as compared with 1968? Would it not be true to say that the soaring price of land has added considerably to these costs?

I cannot give the specific facts that my hon. Friend has asked for, but I can say that something in excess of 5 per cent. of the cost is reflected in land costs. It is fair to say on the figures that I have quoted to the hon. Lady that the cost of land for a dual two-lane is in excess of £11,000, rising to £52,000 per mile.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will publish the approximate average cost, excluding land acquisition, of building one mile of motorway through an urban area for each of the years from 1960 to 1968, inclusive.

Costs vary so much depending on the particular location, that average costs are liable to be misleading Over the years in question, the costs per mile for construction of urban motorways excluding land acquisition, were in the following range: for dual three-lane motorways, £905,000 to £4,300,000 per mile. As the rest of the Answer contains a number of figures. I will, with permission, circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Now that the Minister has had some notice of the information we want about the effects of S.E.T. and the Land Commission in this context, would he please let me know—if he cannot do so today, then by letter—what effect S.E.T. and the charges of the Land

My hon. Friend asked two very specific questions about interest rate and S.E.T. The Minister has made no attempt to answer either. Will he try to do so?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises, without putting on that synthetic indignation, that this is the type of question of which I should require notice.

Since the hon. Gentleman has been courteous enough to phrase his supplementary question in that way, I will write to him on the subject. If my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) has a mind to write to me on the subject, I will write to him, too.

Considering the urban nature of the Question, would my hon. Friend outline the costs of motorway building including land? Would he agree that the overall cost would be considerably higher than the figures he gave in an earlier Answer about agricultural land?

The costs in urban areas are, of course, decidedly greater than the costs in rural areas. Perhaps my hon. Friend would write to me if he has a particular point in mind.

What is the cost per mile of the London motorway projects contained in the total given by my hon. Friend?

I would require notice of that question.

In view of the galloping cost of motorway construction resealed by the figures which the hon. Gentleman has given, was not the Answer of his right hon. Friend about the amount of money being spent on road construction totally misleading and in truth the Government's increase in spending in this sphere is not matched by the increase in road building?

I do not accept that the figures given by my right hon. Friend. particularly when he said that about £1 million a day was being spent, were misleading. If comparisons are to be made between the money that we have spent on motorway construction and that spent by the Tories when they were in office, we would see tremendous increases which they might well claim to be dishonest simply because hon. Gentlemen opposite were spending almost nothing.

asked the Minister of Transport what was the mileage and value of road schemes in the preparation pool on 31st October, 1969.

The value of road schemes so far announced for the trunk road preparation pool, including schemes likely to derive from feasibility studies, is estimated to be about £900 million, excluding those which will form part of the London primary network. The mileage involved will depend on the lines finally selected but the schemes under consideration represent about 1,200 miles of new or improved roads. About £60 million worth of these schemes have already been transferred to the firm trunk road programme planned for start of work in the next year or two.

While those sort of figures of the preparation plan sound impressive, what we really want to know is the figure to which the Minister is committed.

The figure to which I am committed, and which I fully intend to spend this year, is included in the estimate. In round figures, we are spending today and every day this year £1 million, which is approximately twice the amount that was being spent in 1964.

asked the Minister of Transport what was the total number of train derailments in the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures in each of the previous four annual periods.

The provisional figure for reportable derailments on all railways in Great Britain for the 12 months ending 31st October. 1969, is 418. Comparable figures for the 12-month periods ending in 1968. 1967, 1966 and 1965 were 345, 317, 282 and 234, respectively.

What are the main reasons for this disturbing and steady increase, despite the reduction in track mileage? When can we expect to see some improvement in the position, particularly in view of the training schemes and safety measures introduced in June?

Derailments occur for a variety of reasons. I could not give a date by which we may expect to see an improvement, because the British Railways Board has a continuing campaign involving various safety measures to bring down the number of derailments.

In view of the fine record of safety which British Rail has always enjoyed, would the hon. Gentleman agree that these figures are surprising and alarming? Would he consider instituting a special inquiry into the matter?

My right hon. Friend has powers to institute general inquiries, but we have no plans to conduct such an inquiry at present. The British Railways Board is paying particular attention to all the problems that bring about derailments, including the question of speed restrictions, the provision of hot axle box detectors and a variety of other measures.

asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning what inter-departmental machinery exists for the co-ordination of research and policy making concerning problems of environmental pollution.

There is a wide variety of methods for securing co-ordination in this field. But, as the Prime Minister has announced, my right hon. Friend is conducting an urgent review of the machinery and it is hoped that a statement will be made before the end of the year.

While we all welcome the new responsibilities of my right hon. Friend, does not the Minister of State think that the problem is now so serious that it requires investigation by Royal Commission, to recommend action and the kind of machinery necessary to carry out such action?

I would advise my hon. Friend, who I know has deep and continuing interests in this subject, that a great deal of expert advice is already available to the Government. I am sure that the question of the benefits or otherwise of the establishment of a Royal Commission have not escaped the notice of my right hon. Friend. Having said that, I would ask him to await a statement soon to be made.

Since the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning seems to be empowered to answer only two Questions, this one and another about the expected date of the Redcliffe-Maud White Paper, should he not, when either is asked, be encouraged to come to the House to answer them?