asked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement on the future of toll bridges.

It remains my right hon. Friend's policy that major new estuarial crossings which will provide exceptional savings in cost and time to the users should be tolled. On the other hand, he has no proposals to change the present powers.

On a point of order. I am not sure whether something is wrong with the amplification or with my ears, but we do not seem to be hearing very well on this side of the House.

I cannot decide that dilemma. We must continue.

I take note of the comment.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are over 20 ancient toll bridges, the dues on which started some centuries ago? Is it not time that the Government looked at this again.

We are aware of the number of toll bridges and of the anomalies, but this is a matter for the highway authorities concerned.

Would the Minister consider making a compulsory purchase order for the toll bridge at Dunham-on-Trent on the A57 in Nottinghamshire? Is he aware that he would have the support of people throughout the country if he were to take such a course because this piece of the main A57 road should belong to the people and not to a private individual?

Without going into the specific details of any individual project, I simply reiterate that once we get a proposition from a highway authority we look at it on its merits.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement on the financing of the Channel Tunnel.

Discussions with the prospective financing groups are proceeding, but details must remain confidential at the present stage.

Is it not becoming clear that the groups are not willing to spend some of their own money and it is time that we had a fresh look at the 1963 White Paper which, being seven years old, is hopelessly out of date? Cannot we have a crossing that is in keeping with this century?

Negotiations are at present going on and when the Government are ready to make a statement on the whole matter they will do so.

Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that negotiations have been going on for a very long time and that the effect of this delay that large areas of South-East England are suffering from planning blight? Is he aware of the great deal of uncertainty that surrounds this whole project? Will he give direct answers in future and not just evade the issue?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks up the word "negotiations" in the dictionary. He will find that it means talks. These talks are going on. We are not prepared, while negotiations are continuing, to make a statement.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the financing of this project will damage the trade, industry and commerce of Britain in general and of Scotland in particular because it will encourage workers away from this island?

No, Sir.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the proposed tolls to be charged for goods transported by rail through the Channel Tunnel.

It is too early to say what the structure and level of tunnel tariffs might be. While the main responsibility for deciding these would rest with the future Anglo-French Tunnel Operating Authority, they would of course work within a framework of Governmental control.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not know what the Channel Tunnel tolls are likely to be? The whole purpose, if any, of building the tunnel is that transport should be cheaper. If that is the most important factor, why does not the hon. Gentleman make an announcement on the subject?

Since the Channel Tunnel would not be opened for several years at least, it would be rather foolish to announce the tolls at this stage.

Would it not be more accurate to describe these as transportation charges rather than as tolls, since presumably the traffic will be carried by rail? Is not this Question another attempt by the anti-Channel Tunnel lobby to denigrate a project for reasons which vary from vested interest to ignorance?

I do not think that I would like to comment on that point.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to British Railways to relay early morning and tea-time radio programmes, including news bulletins and other items of interest, to commuter passengers travelling in and out of London and other major cities.

No, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if public transport is to flourish it must get away from the cattle truck era as quickly as possible? Is he further aware that broadcasts of this type would not need to be universal in that one could have broadcast and non-broadcast carriages?

This is a matter for the day-to-day management of British Rail. I should have thought, however, that the main concern of commuters was getting to and from their destinations as quickly as possible in the maximum comfort without necessarily having to listen to broadcasts which, after all, might be telling them about faster forms of travel.

I thank my hon. Friend for his comprehensive answer to the original Question. Is he aware, as I am sure he is, that some people like at times to be quiet?

asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in planning the Cheriton bypass; and when work will commence.

The scheme is at a very early stage of preparation. Detailed proposals and the timing of construction will depend on a decision whether to build a Channel Tunnel.

Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that this is yet another example of essential development being held up because of a Minister not being able to make up his mind regarding the channel tunnel? Is he aware that it is seven years since I first wrote to the Ministry on this issue?

I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, a decision to construct a tunnel could well bring forward the date when this work would start.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now introduce amending legislation to clarify the law in regard to breathalysers.

asked the Minister of Transport if, following the increase in the number of road deaths during the Christmas holiday period, he will now introduce legislation to provide for random breath tests.

The drink and driving legislation is continuing to be highly effective. In the light of court decisions last month, I have decided not to propose any change in the law at present. Together with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I shall continue, however, to keep a close watch on the working of the Act.

Whereas the overwhelming majority of motorists support the right hon. Gentleman in his drive to make drinking and driving legislation even more effective, may I ask if he is aware that there are certain areas of this legislation which arouse grave dubiety in the minds of motorists, the police and the courts, as is evident from the conflicting judgments which have been given in recent months? Will he reconsider this matter with a view to introducing amending legislation this Session?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman's point about confusion might have been relevant a couple of months ago, when a number of cases were pending in the courts. However, the clear decisions in the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal in December have removed that dubiety and, as far as I am aware, the motorist knows what he can and cannot do and the police are equally in no doubt on this issue.

May we now take it that the Minister has abandoned proposals to introduce random testing?

The hon. Gentleman must not put it that way because I never adopted any such proposals. I will not have words put into my mouth. I have made it very clear, both inside and outside the House, that I regard the Act as being a real life saver. I will not allow its gains to be eroded. If the Act is not working we will examine it again, but I am satisfied, in the light of recent judicial decisions, that it is working, and I am content to leave it like that at present.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will use his existing powers to require, by statutory order, the use of a red triangle, phosphorescently illuminated for employment after dark, to be placed on the road compulsorily, by vehicles broken down or otherwise stopped, to warn oncoming traffic and reduce dangers of collisons, notably in inclement, misty and foggy weather.

Motorists are permitted to place an advance warning triangle on the road if they break down or have an accident. My right hon. Friend has no powers under existing legislation to require motorists to use these signs.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that practically every West European country requires these red triangles to be placed on the road—that is, in an obligatory fashion by statute? Will he reconsider this matter with a view to introducing legislation? Alternatively, will he support private legislation for what is a very necessary reform?

I am sure that the whole House is concerned about road accidents. We are at present studying, in connection with the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman, the relative merits of the hazard warning devices which are at present permitted. We will be making a statement and, if necessary, we will seek powers.

Why, pending those decisions being taken, cannot my hon. Friend recommend motorists to obtain these implements and use them when necessary? They are relatively cheap and serve a useful purpose. Will he make a positive statement while the investigation is proceeding?

I said that we are examining warning devices. There is absolutely nothing to stop a motorist from obtaining these devices if he desires so to do.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the beneficial effect that a bridge from Garston to East lam across the Mersey would have on Merseyside in general and the economic viability of Speke Airport in particular, he will give greater priority to such a construction.

The report of the Merseyside Land Use Transportation Study proposed a bridge across the Mersey but not as a priority and not between Garston and Eastham. It will be for the local authorities on Merseyside to initiate proposals for such a bridge.

Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that the bridge as now suggested, from Aigburth to Bebington, has blighted a large area of property on both sides of the Mersey? As traffic now flows more freely around the periphery of towns, is he aware that a bridge further out would bring in the rich catchment area of the Wirral more cheaply to Speke Airport?

I am certain that the local authorities of Merseyside are appraised of the situation in relation to blight. It is clearly for them to initiate proposals regarding a bridge. Such a bridge would, in any event, probably be, as I indicated last July to the hon. Gentleman, between Bromborough and Aigburth.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many thousands of people who live immediately adjacent to Manchester Airport, Ringway, are anxious for the airport at Speke, Liverpool, to be expanded?

asked the Minister of Transport what progress is being made in the reduction of accidents in fog on motorways.

asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has for improving road safety on motorways during bad weather.

asked the Minister of Transport what further measures he is planning to increase safety on motorways.

The improved signal system now being introduced over the motorway network should help a great deal. But the real answer must be careful and responsible driving and this includes making proper allowance for weather conditions.

Is the Minister aware that it is not only a question of motorway madness but sometimes a feeling of being lost in the middle of a desert and the urge to cling to the rear light of the car in front? Will he look at the question of having more reflectors not only on the outside of each carriageway but between the lanes as well?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that suggestion. We are considering a great number of suggestions which we have received as a result of the unfortunate accidents in December. I endorse what the hon. Member has said. There are some people who drive like lunatics on motorways, but the average motorist is very responsible and considerable responsibility has been shown in recent weeks when weather conditions have been bad.

Does the Minister agree that one of the most relevant steps which could be taken would be to make warning signs relevant to the occasion as only too often new warning signs are off when they should be on and on when they should be off?

The new system will permit indicating a wide range of recommended speeds, which lanes are closed and that kind of thing. I agree that on motorways where there is only a 30 m.p.h. warning sign that is not possible, but we are advocating the remote control computer system as far as we can. There is always bound to be an element of human frailty in the fact that one depends on people exercising judgment and they cannot be infallible, but the new system with computers will be used as reasonably as can be devised.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that those motorists who cannot recognise fog for what it is and do not drive reasonably are unlikely to understand an abstract system of signs which is now being introduced and which is not self-explanatory? As some motorists understand signals and some do not, might there not be an additional hazard created by the new system?

If my hon. Friend looks at the system introduced on the M4 between London and the airport he will see that it indicates very clearly recommended speeds per hour and very clearly if lanes have been closed and if there is a diversion. We are doing as much as we can to make these matters clear. I should not have thought that this was a serious problem.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the worst parts of motorways is on the M6 Thelwall Viaduct in my constituency? A decision was taken as long ago as September. 1968, that new computer-controlled warning lights were needed, yet no contract was awarded until September, 1969. When will lights be in existence on that part of the road?

I cannot without notice give a precise date, but I will write to the hon. Member and tell him. We appreciate the urgency of the system on the M6, but these are very complicated and expensive systems and it is not possible to create them overnight.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that enforcement is the method rather than education in these days? Will he be good enough to consider whether a tine-camera fronted fore and aft on a moving police vehicle may be more effective in identifying offenders, and then the courts could deal with such things rather than having too much education which is being lost?

I would not agree that there is no value in education. I have had a very great response to my letters to each editor and to television and radio producers. Over Christmas we had more publicity than ever before. I do not think education is wasted. Enforcement is a matter for the police authorities and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and not strictly for me. In the context of fog everyone will realise that the last thing we want is a line of cars chasing offenders up motorways in conditions which are already hazardous.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will set up a feasibility study to consider in detail the social and economic advantages and disadvantages of underground as compared with surface motorway systems in London and other urban areas; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir, but the Urban Motorways Committee is examining how best to fit major new roads into urban areas and will consider the possibilities for construction below ground.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the delay, or suggested delay, in some of the London motor box systems gives him an opportunity to look in detail at this matter again? Has he looked at some of the very impressive private cost-benefit analyses of underground as compared with surface roadways, many of which suggest that not only are there overwhelming amenity advantages for underground motorways but in many cases actual cost advantages?

I think the proper way to look at this is to look at each scheme or proposal on its merits and see whether on a cost-benefit or amenity basis it would be more appropriate to go underground than on the surface. My hon. Friend must not expect me to comment on present proposals which are subject to inquiry about the London Ringway motorway.

asked the Minister of Transport what further proposals he has for erecting temporary flyovers at congested road junctions following the completion of some flyovers in 1969; and if he will give completion dates.

Two temporary flyovers are under construction and two more have been authorised. Those under construction are at Gallows Corner in Havering and at Lodge Avenue in Barking and should be completed in April this year and late 1973 respectively. Flyovers at Newbank Interchange in Halifax and Ballards Road-Kent Avenue in Dagenham are programmed and should be completed in mid-1972 and 1974.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Would he agree that there are many junctions on roads such as the North and South Circular roads in London which are suitable for this treatment where no permanent solution has yet been found?

It is fairly evident that the need for temporary flyovers will always occur in heavily congested urban areas. Without specifying any particular road, temporary flyovers have disadvantages as well as advantages, particularly when it comes to doing the permanent job.

Will the hon. Gentleman say why most flyovers in this country are built to last 200 years? It would be quite impossible to modify them. Will he note that some form of prefabricated flyover, such as the turnpike in New Jersey, could suit many cases, speed up the rate of road reconstruction and help solve traffic problems?

I think it fair to say that flyovers of the type the hon. Member has in mind are not basically temporary. A permanent flyover, whether built to last for 100 or 200 years, clearly has to be a very strong structure. I doubt very much whether we could ever have a permanent flyover built in a prefabricated style.

asked the Minister of Transport what assessment he has made of road casualty figures over Christmas and the New Year.

Final figures will not be available until about the end of next month. I shall look at these closely, with particular regard to the number of accidents in which alcohol may have been a factor, but there are dangers in attaching too much importance to figures for such a limited period.

Is it not generally true that as many accidents were attributable to basically unroadworthy vehicles as to drink over this period and that unroadworthiness was often connected with salt and consequent corrosion on the road?

I cannot say, until the final figures and details are available, what was the main factor in these accidents. I should have thought it going rather far to suggest that salting of the roads was responsible for unroadworthy conditions. It is true that it has a detrimental effect on vehicles, but it is the only effective way of dealing with frost and ice conditions and it is used only when weather conditions make it necessary.

In view of this Question and a very large number of Questions on road safety, will the Minister consider the advantages of establishing a central road safety board to co-ordinate the overlapping responsibilities of his Ministry, local authorities and RoSPA?

I am quite prepared to examine any suggestion which might lead to greater road safety, but I do not see that overlapping at the moment causes any problems. There are very close consultations on all these matters; indeed sometimes I am criticised because there is a lapse of time due to the consultative process. I would not agree to setting up further bodies unless I were satisfied there was a case for that.

asked the Minister of Transport whether a decision on the date for the start of work on the Malton bypass on the A64 has yet been taken.

The scheme is still being considered for a place in the firm programme. We shall announce our decision as soon as possible.

Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that for over 30 years I have been pressing for this improvement and that successive Ministers have agreed that it is important? As after the coming General Election I shall not be in the House, and the hon. Gentleman will not be on that Front Bench, will he, by authorising this scheme, consider assuring himself of a permanent memorial in the town of Malton?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on one issue: we know that he will not be with us after the next General Election. The House will sustain a great loss when the right hon. Gentleman departs. I cannot agree with him, however, that I will not necessarily be on this Front Bench after the election.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now publish the results of the survey on road accidents on the Al between Boroughbridge and Scotch Corner.

No, Sir. The survey to which the right hon. Member refers is a report prepared for further consideration within the Department of the problems involved. It is not the practice for such internal papers to be published.

Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is great public concern about the number of accidents on this stretch of trunk road? Is it not unsatisfactory that the Minister should be receiving secret reports from his experts on these accidents that are being withheld from the local road safety committee?

I cannot accept that any secret reports have been received by my right hon. Friend. There has been a report from the Road Safety Unit which has included several recommendations for improving the position on this road. The right hon. Gentleman knows well enough that he has had a communication from my right hon. Friend indicating the measures set out in the report and the steps we intend to take to implement the recommendations. We could not have been fairer than that.

asked the Minister of Transport what problems have prevented the Midland link section of the M6 from being completed in 1971 as previously planned.

None, Sir. Completion of all contracts is expected towards the end of 1971.

Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary realise that in response to numerous questions we have been told categorically that this road will be finished by the end of 1971? How, then, does he reconcile the statement made by the other Parliamentary Secretary on 1st December that it would be completed in 1972?

As we have said on many occasions, Labour government works. Not only do we keep our promises; we improve on them.

Are we to take it that the Parliamentary Secretary assumes that he will be freed of his present responsibility to work on building the road itself?

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's reply, I give notice that I will try to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a further statement on the progress of the construction programme of motorways from the M1-A1 to Hull together with the approaches to the Humber Bridge.

It is hoped that the contract for construction of the Hatfield-Thorne section of the M18 will be let this summer, and the Lofthouse-Ferrybridge section of the M62 in 1971. Preparatory work on the route of the M62 from Ferrybridge to Balkholme, and the remaining sections of the M18 between the A1 and the M62, have not yet reached the stage at which starting dates can be given.

Has not the programme of the M62 and M18 already slipped by one year? In what year does the hon. Gentleman expect the extension of these two motorways to reach the City of Kingston upon Hull?

Slippage is another question, on which I cannot comment. Taking the hon. Gentleman's point to indicate that there should be motorway all the way to Hull, present forecasts of traffic on the A63 east of Balkholme do not justify the construction of a motorway.

Is my hon. Friend aware that recent investigations of the canal bridges along this peculiar stretch of country, which is flat and studded with canals and which also has a number of rarther dangerous railway level crossings, make it imperative that there should be a speed-up in the plans for this motorway all the way from the M1 and A1 through to Goole and on to Hull?

Everyone thinks that the building of roads in his area should be speeded up. We are doing well in this area. There is already dual carriageway for 5½ miles westwards of Hull. Elloughton bypass is under construction. This will extend the dualling for 2½ miles. The South Cave-Balkholme improvement, which is now in preparation, entails duelling to the present terminal of M62. I do not think that we can do any better.

asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for constructing underpasses to the approaches of the Thames bridges in the Central London area.

None, Sir. Such routes are the responsibility of the Greater London Council or the Corporation of the City of London as highway authority.

Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind the lessons that have been learned from other capital cities such as Paris and Brussels as to the advantage of these underpasses and do all he can to ensure that they be constructed in London?

We have just given the Greater London Council the most comprehensive powers in road traffic that any authority in the world has. It would not be proper for either my right hon. Friend Dr me to attempt to dictate plans to the Council.

Is my hon. Friend aware that as a result of giving the Tory-controlled G.L.C. greater powers than any municipal authority has ever had in transport London's transport is worse now than it has ever been? London's bus services have been cut to ribbons, to the vast inconvenience of London's travelling public?

These are points that my hon. Friend should take up with the responsible authority, namely, the G.L.C.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the average time taken for the construction of a motorway, from the start of the feasibility study on the project until the motorway is opened for traffic.

The period varies widely according to the complexity of individual schemes, but under current procedures major motorway schemes are expected to take, on the average, about seven years from the start of feasibility study or initial preparation to completion.

Although conceding the right of any individual or organisation to object to or appeal against a decision, is not a period of 6–7 years far too long? We can never cure the great and growing problems that face the country unless we considerably shorten the present procedures.

It would be difficult to shorten the procedures, because major motorway schemes are very complex. Any Government must ensure that all the procedures are followed so that individuals' rights are safeguarded.

If it takes seven years to go through the procedures, will it not be impossible, in view of the small number of roads now being planned, to continue the road building programme after 1972?

No, Sir.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will have discussions with the road haulage interests affected with a view to getting agreement that heavy road vehicles should operate whenever possible during the night hours.

Heavy lorries already move by night where this suits the needs of industry and is economic. I do not think the road haulage industry needs any additional encouragement from my right hon. Friend in this respect.

Is it not wrong to close the door in the way my hon. Friend has by that reply? Is he aware that there is almost a complete absence of private vehicles and public service passenger vehicles during the night hours? The movement of goods to the ports and industry could be achieved much more quickly and cheaply and a great number of accidents avoided if it was done at night.

I am not sure whether the criterion of cheapness would apply. But on accidents, in 1968 37 per cent. of serious casualties and 43 per cent. of fatalities occurred after dark, even though little more than 25 per cent. of all travel took place at night.

Will the hon. Gentleman reject the absurd attitude of some hon. Members opposite that road haulage is an unnecessary irritation which is really dispensable? Will he stop heaping further burdens and restrictions on road haulage and start giving some encouragement to this vital sector of our transport?

I am certain that the Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) give all the encouragement to transport that is possible. The trouble with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is that he continually thinks that this House is a Celtic-Rangers game.

asked the Minister of Transport when he now intends to introduce legislation to make insurance for causing death or injury to passengers compulsory.

asked the Minister of Transport when he now plans to make it compulsory for all motor insurance companies to make passenger liability an inherent part of their motor insurance policies.

asked the Minister of Transport when he now proposes to introduce legislation to make it compulsory to insure passenger liability in connection with all motor vehicles.

I am not yet in a position to say when a suitable opportunity will arise.

Will the right hon. Gentleman at any rate say that he has a positive intention to seek an opportunity and that he knows what he is going to do when the opportunity does arise?

My predecessor some time ago stated our desire to see this legislation enacted, and I reaffirmed that more recently. But, of course, the Queen's Speech contained a very full programme of parliamentary business and against that background I cannot give a date for this legislation.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will institute an inquiry into the speeds achieved by lorries and other heavy vehicles on motorways and other main roads, in view of the increasing number of accidents involving such vehicles.

The accident involvement rate for heavy vehicles on motorways and main roads combined shows a downward tendency in recent years.

Nevertheless, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, increasingly, one can see really heavy vehicles charging along at 60 miles an hour or more whereas a few years ago they were restricted to 20 miles an hour? Is he further aware that many motorists regard this as a real hazard and look to the Ministry to take further action?

The question of enforcement is, I repeat, a matter for the police. In the last five years the number of prosecutions for the offence of speeding in heavy goods vehicles has nearly doubled. If I were to endorse the hon. Gentleman's view about a 20 m.p.h. limit for heavy goods vehicles now—the limit is 40 m.p.h. on all-purpose roads—I should be attacked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) for being down on the road haulage industry. I hope that hon. Members opposite will see the difficulties.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that these criticisms are not only directed against the speed of these heavy vehicles but against their ever-increasing size as well? Is it not time that the Government or those responsible for determining policy put a limit on the constant extension of size of these great juggernauts, particularly those which are articulated and jackknife on innocent motorists like myself and others?

I am sure that the House is pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) so well recovered from his unfortunate road accident, just before Christmas. I think, however, that he is perhaps not fully informed of the very strict limitations on size and weight, and I have not made any increases. There are other Questions on the Order Paper about proposals for increases in size and weight and I had better wait until we reach them before making further comment.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a further statement about a motorway link between Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to publish the findings of the study on trans-Pennine road traffic.

I understand that the final report on the Sheffield—Manchester project feasibility study will be completed within the next few weeks. When I have examined the recommendation I will announce the preferred route and details of the scheme on which advanced preparation work will continue.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea when he will be able to make this statement? Is he aware that we have waited a long time and there have been a lot of delays?

I cannot give a date when I can confirm the final judgment on a scheme that has not yet been submitted to me. I shall naturally want time to have it thoroughly examined. I can assure the hon. Member that this does not add any period of delay to the subsequent building of a road, if it is approved, because the preparatory scheme will in any event take a considerable time.

In considering the findings of this study would my right hon. Friend pay special attention to the dangers which may accrue to the Peak National Park through the siting on the nature of construction of trans-Pennine roads?

I shall as always try to pay the fullest attention to the amenity aspect. It is because of these difficulties that the study is taking rather longer than was envisaged and why we asked for a feasibility study to be conducted.

As Liverpool is still the largest export port in this country would not the Minister agree that this motorway should be given priority above others in the schemes of his Department?

I do not think that I can allocate priorities on road schemes to hon. Members at Question Time. This would probably lead, in one afternoon, to the earmarking of road building funds for a considerable period ahead. We have to try to weigh up the economic and social factors and work out priorities on that basis.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the urgency of this problem for Liverpool lies in the fact that a new tunnel is nearing completion? Does he realise that there is a whole length of motorway leading to nowhere? Does he intend to get this motorway going within our lifetime? It does not appear that it will get on to the book.

A considerable number of new roads have been built in the NorthWest—I opened a 13-mile stretch of motorway quite recently. At this time I could not hope to give a large list of such schemes, but I will see that my hon. Friend gets one.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the various Ministers who have responsibilities for the economy of the country, in view of the most recent trade figures.

I have been asked to reply.

How can the Chancellor be satisfied with a situation where unemployment is at the highest level practically since the end of the war, excluding the two bad winters? What is he going to do about it?

The Question the hon. Gentleman asked was related to the trade figures and the division of responsibility between economics Ministers. The level of unemployment is almost exactly 200,000 below what it was in January, 1963.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent study carried out on the subject of poverty? Now that the economic situation is considerably improved—and we are all grateful to him for his work towards that end—will he consider the suggestion put forward in the document for the setting up of a Royal Commission to consider poverty? Would this not perhaps be the best way of dealing with what is still a serious problem?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I will study the document and consider the matter, but I am not sure that my hon. Friend's supplementary question arose directly from the Question on the Order Paper.

The right hon. Gentleman replied to this Question in the affirmative. Is he aware that the Prime Minister should not be satisfied with the co-ordination between the Board of Trade and the Treasury, for example? It is the right rate of interest that is affecting unemployment figures and our general potential for doing trade. The Prime Minister should not be satisfied, whether the Chancellor is or not.

Both the Prime Minister and I are satisfied with the co-ordination. We are certainly satisfied with the trade figures. There are problems relating to interest rates but this is an international and not exclusively a British problem.

Is not my right hon. Friend playing this matter too softly? Is it not a fact that we have magnificent trade figures and that we are recovering from the mess which the party opposite put the country in? Is there not good reason for saying that we should be abundantly satisfied with the way Ministers are co-ordinating these matters?

Should I be in danger of playing it too softly, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) would no doubt help me.

Can the right hon. Gentleman really be satisfied with a situation in which there has been certainly an improvement in the balance of payments but no greater in scale than that achieved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) and which has been accompanied by enormous and continuous overseas debt, a vast increase in taxation, record interest rates, very high unemployment and catastrophic housing figures?

There is certainly not an enormous and continuing overseas debt. There is a reducing overseas debt. In so far as it was wise of the right hon. Gentleman to refer back to the period of office of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) and not to his own as Chancellor, I can tell him that 1969 will be the best year on current account since 1958 and probably the best year on the balance of payments, both on current and capital account, since records were kept.

Since the right hon. Gentleman is replying on behalf of the Prime Minister, can he say whether the Prime Minister is satisfied that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is sufficiently in touch with views of the Minister of Agriculture about the economic plight of the agricultural industry?

Yes, Sir. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is so satisfied. I myself am so satisfied, having had the pleasure of receiving, with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, a deputation from the N.F.U. only last Friday.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the point about the recent encouraging balance of payments figures is that the situation is under control for the first time in 15 years? That is what is important. This is the first time we have seen this large and continuing balance and have been able to predict it. Will he, in considering the distribution of some small part of the reward, for which so much credit is due to him, consider turning his attention to the prescription charges?

It is certainly true that the balance of payments result is the best for a considerable time and I notice that, as it has been achieved, right hon. and hon. Members opposite have become increasingly unanxious to talk about it but increasingly anxious to talk about every other possible subject. I note what my hon. Friend has said about the prescript ion charges.

asked the Prime Minister what discussions he had with President Nixon on diversifying the research programmes of United States companies based in the United Kingdom throughout their international divisions.

I have been asked to reply.

Whereas the practice of most American companies is of an enlightened order, is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are unhappy about companies in Central Scotland that seem to be run by telex either from California or Texas? Is it not at least worth talking to the Americans about the moral obligations of international companies to diversify their research and development?

In general it is desirable that international companies should spread their research and development as they spread their production. It is also possible to argue what is even more important—that adequate research and development should be done and the results made available to all subsidiary companies, wherever they are. An adequate balance must be kept between the two considerations.

Does not the Chancellor agree that this would be a much more confortable subject for the Prime Minister to discuss with President Nixon than almost any other available to him and that otherwise the Prime Minister is really an embarrassment slung around the neck of the President, who has some regard for common sense on Rhodesia and other subjects?

That supplementary question is as wild as most questions asked by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton).

asked the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has performed the opening ceremony, in his official capacity, at the offices of foreign trade missions in London, and in respect of which foreign countries.

I have been asked to reply.

The Chancellor and the Prime Minister seem to have short memories. Did not the Prime Minister visit a Russian trade mission in December? Was this visit part of the softening-up process, like the Gerald Brooke exchange, designed to extract for the Prime Minister an invitation to an electioneering trip to Moscow?

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend attended a reception in connection with the opening on 17th December. But if the hon. Gentleman wants answers to his Questions, he must learn to put them down accurately. My right hon. Friend performed no opening ceremony. I think it desirable that the Prime Minister should attend such gatherings in connection with the promotion of Anglo-Soviet relations.

Does the Chancellor really think that all the high-level junketting that went on on that occasion is appropriate so soon after events in Czechoslovakia?

I do not know whether that hon. Gentleman takes the view that one should not be anxious to encourage on a moderate scale, as I think is only likely to happen, developments in East-West trade. I think that this is a reasonable thing to encourage and I think that this was a reasonable occasion.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange to have the salaries of all of his staff raised by 10 per cent. and to ensure that all staff have increases sufficient to bring their salaries at least 35 per cent. above those paid in November, 1967.

I have been asked to reply.

In paying tribute to the overworked and underpaid staff of the Prime Minister's office, may I ask whether it is not the case that they work very hard—indeed, just as hard as the Chairman of the Horse Race Betting Levy Board? As the Government seem loath to give increases to nurses, teachers and their own civil servants, why give increases to people like the Chairman of the Board and not to ordinary people?

The staff at No. 10 Downing Street seem to have worked sufficiently hard to have anticipated the nature of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I think that the difference between the Chairman of the Horse Race Betting Levy Board and the staff at No. 10 Downing Street is that he, during the period of the review, has gone from a four-day week to a five-day week, whereas the staff at No. 10 work at least five days a week.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is time to hold an examination into the national Whitley Council arrangements? Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Education has said that he wants more pay for teachers and that the Secretary of State for Social Services, naturally, wants increased salaries for nurses, and I hope for physiotherapists, while at the same time instructions to the national representatives on the Whitley Council are militating against the management side of the Council being able to give increased salaries? Would he agree that the whole thing is a perfect farce?

I do not think that the hon. Lady is right in her assumption.

In the context of this matter, would the right hon. Gentleman have in mind the additional burden of work falling on the Prime Minister's staff at present in seeking to reconcile the glaring differences between the answers given by the Prime Minister and those by Foreign Office Ministers on the question of the disclosure to Parliament of statements made by Ministers at the Western European Union and other overseas gatherings?

I am not aware of any such difference. I understand the position to be that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House last week that any public statements made abroad would gladly be communicated to this House but that where the statements were made under a normal basis of confidentiality it was of course desirable that this country, as others, should respect that confidentiality.

I am not sure whether this supplementary question is in Order—

Order. If the original supplementary question was out of order, then the supplementary arising out of it will be doubly out of order.

Could the Chancellor recommend to his right hon. Friend that when he is answering Questions he should not refer to the transcripts of television broadcasts placed in the Library, which are nothing to do with what he should be saying in Parliament?

Order. This is a question of salaries. Mr. Osborn—

Would it be in order to congratulate the Chancellor on having answered the Prime Minister's Questions so succinctly and got through them for the first time on record?

Order. This has happened for a variety of reasons. It is in order, if unusual, for one hon. Member to congratulate another.