asked the Minister of Transport what proposals have now been submitted to him by London Transport for the extension of the Victoria Line beyond Brixton.

asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has now received for the extension of the Fleet Line into South-East London from London Transport Executive.

General responsibility for extending the London Transport network now rests with the Greater London Council, from which I have received no formal proposals.

Would my right hon. Friend prod the London Transport Executive into making proposals? Does he agree that an extension of this line to Herne Hill, West Norwood and up to Crystal Palace would make a great contribution to public transport in London? Is he aware of the need to go ahead with such a scheme before the design teams, which are still working on the line to Brixton, are broken up?

I do not regard it as my function to prod the London Transport Executive. The fact that it has responsibility means that it must accept that responsibility. Crystal Palace is already served by British Rail, and studies made some time ago of an extension south from Brixton did not suggest that, on cost-benefit grounds, it would be justified. The Greater London Council and the L.T.E. are considering some extensions of, for example, the Bakerloo Line to Camberwell or Peckham, but in the first instance these are essentially matters for the G.L.C.

Prod or not, will the Minister suggest to the G.L.C. that the Victoria Line should be joined up with the Central Line for the benefit of my constituents?

I am sure that the G.L.C. is only too well aware of all the views that have been expressed in the House today.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that an extension of the Fleet Line would enable the services on the Bakerloo Line to my constituency to be doubled? Will he therefore reconsider his attitude and send a prodding letter to the G.L.C., or does he feel that after 9th April we shall have a better local authority which will not need prodding?

I am not able to forecast what may happen on 9th April, although I would not be displeased if my hon. Friend were satisfied on 10th April. This is not my responsibility. Also, to change this situation would require an Act of Parliament. One was passed only last year.

asked the Minister of Transport when the underground extension from Victoria to Brixton will be open to the public; and on what date completion was originally intended.

The extension was originally intended to be completed by 1972, but I understand that the London Transport Executive now hopes to open it in 1971, although Pimlico station will not be ready until 1972.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. It has taken about 25 years to get this extension approved, and this speeding up will be more than welcome.

asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the average daily number of motor cars expected to use the Channel Tunnel.

Previous estimates by British and French officials have indicated that the average daily flow could rise by 1985 to the order of 8,000 accompanied vehicles in both directions combined, and that peak flows in the same year could be of the order of 2,500 per hour in both directions combined. These estimates will be brought up to date in the final studies for the tunnel project.

I apologise for constantly pressing this matter. Is it not a fact that the figures are now totally out of date? Since this was predicated in 1960 and incorporated in the White Paper of 1963, is it not time to have a fresh assessment made of this matter and to bring the whole scheme up to date?

I have no doubt that when we reach the point of final studies on the project, the figures will be brought up to date.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the number of letters I have now sent to him from people in my constituency pressing for a decision as they cannot sell their houses because of the Channel Tunnel project?

Not only do I remember the letters I have received from the hon. Member, but I remember those I have sent in reply to him. This is a much wider question and it will be covered by a later Answer.

asked the Minister of Transport how many trains were derailed in the first three months of 1970; and what was the comparable total in the first three months of 1969, 1965 and 1960, respectively.

I know the hon. Member has a high regard for my foresight, but even he will not expect me to give an answer today covering the month of March. However, the provisional figure for reportable derailments on all railways in Great Britain during January and February this year is 49. Comparable figures for 1969, 1965 and 1960 were 77, 45 and 47 respectively.

As the Minister indicated in his reply in June last year that he was expecting an improvement towards the end of the year, in this part of a continuing improvement? When did it begin, and does he think that it will continue?

Naturally, we hope that the improvement mentioned by the hon. Member will continue, but I think it is really too early to draw any conclusions.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the chief cause of these derailments is obsolete rolling-stock in the freight division? Can he estimate what would be the total cost of replacing them?

Not without notice. Certainly, if possible, I will let my hon. Friend have the information that he requires.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now take over the underwater crossings of the River Mersey as a national trunk road commitment.

No, Sir.

Since the four London bridges, the Blackwall Tunnel and, I believe, the new Thamesmead Tunnel are trunk roads, why do Her Majesty's Government end the trunk system on either side of the Mersey Tunnel, which penalises the ratepayers of Merseyside?

The question of trunk road status depends on the volume of trunk road traffic. The Mersey Tunnel is in the centre of a large conurbation and, therefore, is very poorly placed for through traffic. A high proportion of the tunnel traffic is generated locally. There is not a case for trunk road status.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a mater of long standing and not a new question? Does he agree that the Government should have a further look at this question in order that perhaps over a period of time there could be a phasing out of the toll system and ultimately these roads should become national trunk roads?

If traffic volumes and the generation of traffic were to alter, clearly my right hon. Friend would consider this matter, but the question of tolls is not affected by the question of trunking or not.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will seek powers to give help to local authorities towards acquiring property not needed for new roadway development but deleteriously affected by such development.

I have nothing to add to what I said in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) on 3rd March.—[Vol. 797, c. 82.]

Since as long ago as March, 1968, the late Mr. Swingler said that the Government were studying this problem, is the Minister now aware of the unfair effect of so much urban development on owners of properties just outside the land take? Will he not do something now to see that those owners are not penalised by development for the public good?

We are well aware of the situation. That is why the announcement was made on 27th February in this House. No definite proposal has been announced as yet for legislation on injurious affection. There are various possibilities, including wider powers of acquisition, insurance schemes and a better scheme to minimise environmental damage. These continue to be studied in consultation with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the average time required for the planning and land acquisition stage in road construction; what consultations he is holding with a view to shortening this period; and if he will make a statement.

On average four to five years from the date of selection of the scheme for the preparation pool or list, but there are wide variations from the average due to the size and complexity of individual schemes.

The Department has consulted the local authority associations and other bodies on proposals to amend some of the statutory procedural requirements when an opportunity for legislation occurs. Meanwhile a number of administrative improvements have been introduced within the existing law, and we are constantly exploring with local authorities the possibility of further improvements.

Does not that answer clearly indicate that all the new roads which have been built since hon. Members opposite got into office were planned and created by the Tory Government?—[Interruption.] That is not the main point that I wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman about. Does he realise that the Sixth Report of the Select Committee on Estimates suggested that it was necessary to give better information to the public in general and to those affected and not just to publish the normal statutory advertisement? Will he think about this?

Irrespective of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, no one can deny that we are building the roads as well as planning them for the future. As to the hon. Gentleman's second point, the processes are lengthy, and we are trying to shorten them all the time, but they are lengthy because the preparation, design and various statutory procedures must be properly conducted, and the right balance must be struck between the community and the individual.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects work to begin on the Barrow link road.

A draft scheme and side road proposals were published in February. A firm starting date cannot yet be set.

Is the Minister aware that, while appreciating the great value that this road would have for Barrow, there are considerable reservations by my constituents and other people who live around the proposed route? Will he see whether he can allow a public inquiry to be held on the route which has been suggested?

The question of a public inquiry is for my right hon. Friend to decide in the light of the volume of objections received.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated additional cost to the taxpayer resulting from the compulsory purchase, under the provisions of the Ports Bill, of such additional ancillary businesses falling within the ambit of the Bill on the basis that the Bristow Committee's recommendations were implemented.

The first Report of the Bristow Committee was concerned with the definition of dock work in the Port of London. I am advised that adoption of its recommendations would not affect the number of port businesses liable to vesting under Part II of the Ports Bill.

Would it not be a good idea if the Government made a statement on what they are to do about the recommendations of the Bristow Report, because, apart from the question of Part II of the Bill where that applies, might not Section 42 of the Transport Act also be involved as to what was and what was not dock work and the conditions of labour?

I do not think this would have any bearing on either Section 42 or Part II of the Ports Bill. The Bristow Report and the Ports Bill deal with different subjects, and, despite what is sometimes suggested outside, the Ports Bill does not in any way alter or amend the Dock Labour Scheme. Therefore, it would not have the kind of effect the hon. Member suggests. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity is responsible for the working of the Dock Labour Scheme and for taking a decision on the Bristow Report. She is very much concerned with this matter and is receiving representations about it.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is urgent for his right hon. Friend to publish views on the Bristow inquiry and to agree to set up a public inquiry to clarify all these issues which are causing such anxiety in the transport industry?

I shall certainly convey the hon. Member's views to my right hon. Friend, but I know that she is only too well able to look after her own affairs without assistance from me.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will publish the calculations on which his decision to permit the electrification of the Crewe-Glasgow line was based.

No, Sir. This would not be in the commercial interest of the Railways Board.

In view of the obvious scepticism of the right hon. Gentleman's immediate predecessor about his own assurance that the d.c.f. return on the investment would be 10 per cent. or more, should not the right hon. Gentleman think again and publish all the figures so that we can judge for ourselves?

The hon. Gentleman does an injustice to my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh). He asked what I thought was a very relevant and proper Question on what the rate of d.c.f. return would be. As far as I am aware, he has shown no scepticism about the answer I gave in the House on 23rd February, which was that it would be at least 10 per cent., and, indeed, might well be considerably better. I do not think that it would be proper or right to set a precedent in nationalised industry investment by making public all the figures, which would be of great interest to its competitors.

Will my right hon. Friend consider working out a very long-term electrification policy for the railway comparable to the motorway plan, because decisions taken in pieces like this have adverse effects on the electric traction industry?

I agree that it would be helpful for the electric traction industry to have a very long-term programme, but this decision is by no means a small piece. It is a very expensive project, and will be going on over several years. The decision to electrify is primarily for the Railways Board, but its total investment programme is also a matter of concern for it and ultimately for me and it is a matter of resources.

Does the Minister agree that every single example of a major electrification scheme we have had has resulted in a dramatic increase in passenger rail traffic?

To speak of a dramatic increase is an exaggeration, but working out the figures for Weaver Junction to Glasgow I did not take account of any enormous increase in passengers carried. I am certain that there will be some increase.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the electrification of the London to Liverpool and Manchester service has been a tremendous success, one of the most dramatic successes we have had since the war? These ill-natured attacks emanating from a Scottish hon. Member on the latest decision to extend electrification to Scotland make us even more sceptical about those who are knocking this system for purely party political reasons. Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are prepared to encourage British industry to have the most efficient tools to give an efficient service to the British public, and that we welcome the steps taken by the Government?

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I have noted his remarks. I hope that the people of Scotland will note the question asked by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne).

asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the aggregate miles on 15th October, 1964, and 31st December, 1969, of those motorways in the planning programme for which no line had yet been proposed, a draft scheme published and a scheme made.

As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Why is there to be such a falling off in motorway construction in the next two years? Is it not a fact that in Britain as a whole 170 miles will be started in the whole of the next two years, compared with 160 in 1968 and 169 in 1969?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures exactly. Two interesting figures that the House might like to know are that, while in 1964 there were 286 miles in use, there are now 567, and tha, even more significant, whereas in October, 1964, the number of miles under construction was 151, as at 31st December last year it was 351.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there are enough miles of motorway in the planning stages to maintain the existing rate of road building after the next General Election?

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. If he wants me to answer now a later Question that he has on the Order Paper, I can do so, but I think that we will be satisfied when I answer it.

asked the Minister of Transport how many of the 1,000 mile motorway targets are scheduled for completion before 31st December, 1972.

On current forecasts, the target of 1,000 miles of motorway in England and Wales should be reached by 31st December, 1972.

Is the Minister satisfied that the number of miles of motorway in the planning stages is sufficiently large to enable the rate of building now being achieved to he continued after 1972?

I am satisfied on that point. As the hon. Member will have seen from the public expenditure figures, we are increasing the provision of money for road building, although once the major motorways are completed some roads might more properly be built to dual standard and not necessarily to motorway standard.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the percentage increase in the cost of the operators' licence when compared with the previous carriers' licence.

As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the Minister aware that the charge for the operators' licence is exorbitant? How does he reconcile that with the assurances given that no more revenue would be required to run the new system compared with the old?

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is talking about assurances given by previous Ministers.

The same Administration.

What was said was that the cost of administering the new licence system would be no higher than the cost of the present one. Fees for carriers' licences were last revised in 1957. Costs have increased considerably since then, and the enforcement effort has more than doubled.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he has taken to ensure that applicants for a seven-year operators' licence can pay the annual fee as it arises.

None, Sir. An applicant can ask for a shorter period if he wishes.

This is very expensive; a large sum of money is involved. There is enough of a burden at present on many of these small business people, so will the Minister take steps to publicise this tar more?

It is a matter for the discretion of the licensing authority if an applicant asks for a shorter period. The fee represents only a small percentage of total vehicle operating costs.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the difficulties with the execution of the policy on operators' licences have been caused by the operators themselves, who have failed to apply for a licence by the appointed day?

That may well be the case. The Department has done as much as possible to publicise all aspects of the new operators' licences.

Would not the Minister agree that it is totally misleading to suggest that it was the operators' fault, since full details of the system were not announced until two weeks before the Order was brought before the House, and that was the Government's total responsibility?

Rubbish.

No, Sir. The operators have known for a very long time—since before the 1968 Act—what would be necessary. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's comment.

asked the Minister of Transport how many applications for special permits have been submitted to the Traffic Commissioners under Section 30 of the Transport Act, 1968.

Fifteen, Sir. Ten of these applications have been granted and four refused, and one was withdrawn.

Is not that a very small number, and is not it a great pity? Surely the Minister will agree that the use of those small vehicles, or perhaps school buses, is perhaps one way of solving the rural bus problem? Will he encourage that in the future?

There is nothing in what the hon. Gentleman said with which I disagree. We give publicity to this. The main bus operators' associations know all about the terms, the traffic area literature mentions them, and so will the proposed rural bus grant code, which will be circulated shortly to the local authority associations.

asked the Minister of Transport how many temporary staff are employed in his Department; how many of these are secured from employment agencies; and what is the increased cost to his Department over and above the cost of normal establishment rates of pay.

My Department is currently employing 73 staff on a casual short-term basis. None of these has been secured from employment agencies. There is no cost above normal establishment rates of pay.

Is the Minister aware that that is the best score so far? Did he get these employees from the Ministry of Labour employment exchanges?

We use local employment exchanges to obtain staff, and also advertise, where appropriate, in local newspapers.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a further statement on his negotiations with the Humber Bridge Board for the financing of the Humber Bridge.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) on 17th February, discussions between official of the board and my Department are continuing. The board has been asked for details about the design of the project which will assist in further consideration of costs.—[Vol. 796, c. 70–1.]

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that there has been great confusion recently as to how this is to be financed? Even though these negotiations are going on, could he set out the principles upon which the system of financing will be based?

Normally, estuarial crossings are carried out by loan arrangements, and in this case we have said that the Department is prepared to lend part of the cost.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Humberside local authorities do not have sufficient money to finance the necessary infrastructure of schools, motorways and housing? Would it not be indecent of a Labour Government to refuse to support local authorities in finding this £20 million plus?

I do not think that any question of indecency comes into this. I hope my hon. Friend will bear in mind that on principal roads Hull, along with other county boroughs, gets a 75 per cent. grant. I do not think that could be called indecent.

asked the Minister of Transport what are the results of the experimental zig-zag markings outside schools.

Indications are that the new marking is more effective than the present one.

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is desirable to have an area outside schools where parking is banned, but which could be kept purely for parents setting down and picking up children? Does he realise that this would enable the children to wait safely on the pavement instead of running about the streets, perhaps causing serious accidents?

The purpose of the markings is not to provide a facility for parents picking up and setting down children. The purpose is to keep the school entrance clear and to give drivers unrestricted visibility of the school entrance and children approaching. Much of the danger at school entrances is caused by parents who are extremely selfish in this respect.

asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in the planning of road communications required to serve a third London airport.

The Department has co-operated with the research staff of the Roskill Commission in studies of this problem. The results have been published in Volumes VII and VIII of the commission's papers, copies of which are in the Library.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is urgent that this part of the inquiry should be kept level with the rest, particularly in view of today's report by the South East Council about the possibility of Foulness as a third London Airport? Would he not agree that it is vital that road facilities should be a central part of the report and implemented at the same time as any other recommendations?

I have indicated that this will automatically follow. The details of the study are in the commission's papers in the Library.

What progress has been made in the improving of rail communications with the present London Airport?

That is another question.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now introduce legislation making it compulsory to fit an anti-jack-knifing device to articulated vehicles.

I hope that progress with the current investigations and trials will enable some conclusions to be reached later this year.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that accidents are occurring regularly and lives being lost all the time because of the lack of an anti-jack-knifing device? Would he agree that the greatest possible urgency should be adopted in dealing with this matter, to save further lives?

It is possible to exaggerate the effect of jack-knifing on accidents. A small proportion of accidents are clearly caused in this way, but the evidence suggests that the statistics are not significantly greater for articulated lorries than for rigid lorries of a similar size. Before I make a particular device compulsory I must be satisfied that it will work in all the circumstances. I need full-scale trials before I can be satisfied on this point, but I accept the urgency.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that throughout this winter accidents due to articulated vehicles jack-knifing seem to have been greater than in previous winters? How much longer are we to tolerate this dangerous vehicle?

That sounds like a suggestion that I should ban articulated vehicles altogether. This is another question. I should certainly meet a lot of displeasure from the road haulage interests, not least those among the hon. Member's hon. Friends.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now considered the report made to him for 1969 by the Central Transport Consultative Committee for Great Britain; and what action he proposes to take in the light of the committee's expression of concern at the serious and continuing unpunctuality of express trains operated by British Railways.

Yes, Sir. We have noted the concern expressed by the committee on the question of unpunctuality. The Railways Board fully recognises its management responsibility in this matter, and I am assured that it is making determined efforts to effect an improvement.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend's own committee has expressed its deep concern that, despite the advances in modernisation and the closing of a number of lines, punctuality has not improved as might have been expected? Is the Minister prepared to do something about this if the British Railways Board will not?

This is a matter of management for the board. It is, quite naturally, concerned about this, and is taking action to improve punctuality.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that timetables published by British Railways are realistic? Will he ask the British Railways Board whether it is not asking its staff to keep to an impossible timetable?

This is a matter of day-to-day management, and I feel that it is not my right hon. Friend's job to intervene.

asked the Minister of Transport how many cherished motor-car registration numbers at £5 per car were retained by motorists on transfer to new cars in 1969; and what was the total revenue from this source.

I regret that this information is not readily available since no separate records are maintained of these transactions, although it could be said that some people try to "NAB" them all.

While deprecating the hon. Gentleman's horrible punnery, may I ask him if he will recall that during the passage of the Vehicles and Driving Licences Bill, which became an Act in the Session of 1968–69, it was promised that the system would be retained intact. While computerisation is now in sight for renewal of licences and for new licences, could he repeat the assurance that computerisation will not affect this cherished system of motor-car numbers?

I can give that assurance. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should become so heated. After all, he has NAB 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

And 6.

Would my hon. Friend state whether he is considering referring flagrant cases to the Monopolies Commission?

asked the Minister of Transport having regard to recent surveys conducted at the road-over-railway bridge at Defford, Worcestershire, what further consideration he has now given to the 75 per cent. grant to the county highways authority for rebuilding the bridge, widening the road and approaches, and removing dangers to motorists and pedestrians over the bridge.

The scheme which the county council has proposed is not considered to have sufficient priority at present. We are in touch with it about a possible interim scheme.

Would the hon. Gentleman recognise that "sufficient priority" is a relative term and that I might be able to convince him during 1970–71 that this matter should be elevated and that the sum of money required, £140,000, should be allocated to the authority in the interests of the preservation of life in the future? Would he bear these words of wisdom carefully in mind?

I do not think that anything the hon. Member says will elevate the scheme. What could elevate it is if the county council would see the wisdom of the proposal that we have put to it for an improvement involving a single carriageway bridge rather than a dual carriageway.

asked the Minister of Transport what study he has made of the evidence supplied to him by the Freight Transport Association on the possibility of reducing crosswind accidents on motorways by putting up windsocks; and if he will take steps to introduce such windsocks and in addition provide warning notices at the beginning of wind-danger stretches of motorway.

We have asked representative organisations for comments on the need to provide more signs and possibly windsocks. We will look again at the Freight Transport Association's views in the light of the other comments received.

Would my hon. Friend accept that this is a matter of some urgency in view of the number of accidents in which wind is a contributory factor? Could he give the House the latest available statistics showing the number of accidents in which wind has been such a factor? Would he accept that devices of this type could at least warn lorry and car drivers of the wind danger?

The statistics available do not show the urgency that my hon. Friend has expressed. It is very scant information, but a nine-month survey in four countries in 1967 showed that 0·1 per cent. of injury accidents were due to wind. As to the signs and the windsocks, we would have to keep the numbers down if they were to work.

asked the Minister of Transport what representations have been made to him concerning the 10 per cent. increase in rail fares due to be enforced in April; and what reply he has sent.

Representations have related to the size and shape of the increases. In reply I have explained the Government's reasons for their decision.

Why do not the Government make more investment available to British Railways? Does not the lack of investment mean that fare increases must be paid for by the poor British travelling public rather than by increased productivity in the railways?

We are increasing the amount of investment by British Railways, but, of course, the cost of investment has to be covered too. The idea that no cost is incurred to the railways by investment is not economically sound.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to the Railways Board to improve facilities for passengers at railway stations.

No, Sir. This is essentially a matter of management for the Railways Board.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a disappointing reply, and that something will have to be done to jog the Railways Board into giving passengers the facilities they require at stations? It is not good enough to pass this off by saying that it is a day-to-day matter; the Ministry must do something about it.

My hon. Friend can make representations directly to British Rail or to the appropriate transport users consultative committee.

Does the Minister agree that one serious problem which causes hardship to old people in particular is the absence of seats in some of our splendid new stations? Will he at least discuss this matter with British Railways?

Again, this is a matter of day-to-day management for British Railways. No doubt the hon. Member has made his representations known elsewhere.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not altogether a matter for British Railways, in that the Government have reduced the capital investment programme of British Railways by nearly one-third and, as a result, curtailed the Railway Board's capacity to provide these and other much-wanted facilities?

As usual, that is an entirely different question.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will state his latest proposals for the construction of new east-west roads in the north-east outer metropolitan London area to relieve the pressure of road traffic on residential roads in Chingford and Waltham Abbey.

In April, 1968, my right hon. Friend's predecessor announced the acceptance of the section of the D-ring road between A.10 and M.11 into the trunk road preparation pool. Preparatory work is continuing on this major scheme. A number of principal road schemes programmed in the area will also assist the flow of east-west traffic.

Although I realise that some progress is being made, does not my hon. Friend recognise that many residential roads are being subjected to the intolerable volume of traffic using the North Circular Road? Has not the time now arrived for him to agree to the early construction of the full length of the D-ring road?

I do not disagree with the preface to my hon. Friend's question. The completion of the preparatory work depends on the study by consultants for the Ringway 3 and the North Orbital Road.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the accident rates on the five-mile single carriageway stretch of the A1 road north of South Mimms are more than three times the averages for five-mile stretches on dual carriageway sections between London and Newcastle; and if he will expedite the dualling of that section.

I am aware that the accident rate on this heavily-used single carriageway section of A1 is greater than on dual-carriageway sections of the road.

We intend to publish draft proposals later this year for a dual-carriageway road to be built to motorway standards from South Mimms to Hatfield.

That answer, as far as it goes, is welcome, but will the hon. Gentleman say what is the cause of the delay in dualling this road, as the land is already available alongside the existing roadway?

The delay was largely caused by a comprehensive traffic survey of the North-West London area which has only recently been completed. Progress on the schemes in this area has been delayed by up to 12 months pending this information.

asked the Prime Minister, when he next intends to meet the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.

asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland to a further meeting with him to evaluate the progress made in achieving civil rights in Northern Ireland.

I have no plans for a meeting with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland at present, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary remains in close touch with the Northern Ireland Government on the progress of the reform programme.

Will my right hon. Friend please try urgently to alter his plans so as to express to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland that, although many of the reforms have gone through, people are concerned at the level of personal injustice? In particular, many people feel that much of the progress which has been made will be wasted unless there is satisfaction in the case of Mr. Samuel Devenney.

I have every confidence in my right hon. Friend to represent the views of the Government and of this House to the Northern Ireland Government. There has been a remarkable progress in legislation there, including the establishment of the Commissioner for Grievances to deal with individual questions. On the point raised by my hon. Friend, I have the fullest confidence, as will the House, in Sir Arthur Young to see that every inquiry that is required is carried out ruthlessly and that justice is done.

Will not my right hon. Friend, nevertheless, see the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland to explain that the concept of decent law and order is inextricably linked with the ethic of justice being seen to be done, and that the failure of justice to be done in Northern Ireland by the Tory Unionist Government, who have indulged in prejudices against a minority of their citizens, can only make a mockery of law and order and exacerbate the state of affairs which has existed for so long in this part of the country?

The concepts of law and order and of social justice are not inseparable either in Northern Ireland or on this side of St. George's Channel, as I have urged on many occasions. What we represented to the Northern Ireland Government as essential, even though it is half a generation or perhaps 50 years behind the times, is now being carried through, and if there are individual cases, there is now machinery to look into them.

While I deplore the death of Mr. Devenney—as I do the death of another constituent, Mr. King—does the Prime Minister realise that it was not the thought of that case that was uppermost in the minds of the youths aged 12 to 20 who attacked British troops in Londonderry during the last two days? Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that there is strong suspicion in many quarters that this case is being used as a cover by those who wish to stir up more trouble in Londonderry over Easter?

I will not deal at Question Time with individual cases; there is adequate machinery for dealing with them. If we are going into the question of what happened last summer, the Scarman Tribunal is still sitting and we shall await its report, as we did the report of the Cameron Inquiry. I believe that the Devenney case can be handled because we have now, under Sir Arthur Young, a control of the police system which will ensure that whatever needs to be inquired into—whoever is involved, whoever is favoured, whoever is hurt—will be inquired into ruthlessly, and I have full confidence that it will be so in this case.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the dissatisfaction expressed by Sir Arthur Young, and of the inability of Sir Arthur Young under existing legislation to do anything about the situation with which he is dissatisfied, and that that is the crux of the problem upon which I have been trying to see him for the past 12 hours?

The hon. Lady is right in referring to statements made by Sir Arthur Young in which he expressed regret about the adequacy of the information available to the police in Northern Ireland, but I have every confidence that Sir Arthur Young will get at the facts in this case, and I think he will get them without the help either of the hon. Lady or of myself.

I am sorry that the hon. Lady had a rather cold night. It was no fault of mine, because she knows, in common with any other hon. Member of the House—in fact she did see the Home Secretary for half an hour last night on these matters—that if in the normal way she, like any other hon. Member, had wanted to see me, she would have got what she is getting, for what it is worth—an interview at four o'clock today. But in that interview I cannot go beyond what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said to her at eight o'clock last night.

Now that the Ulster Government's legislation on reform is all on the Statute book at Stormont, is it not the clear duty of the Government here and now to give the maximum support, both moral and military, to bringing about a state of peace in Northern Ireland and not to be deterred from that course by malicious people who seek to stir up trouble?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is correct that much of the reform programme for which we have been pressing for four or five years is on the Statute Book. Other parts of it are through the Northern Ireland Commons and await further parliamentary procedures. Other reform programmes are at present before the Commons in Northern Ireland. I am glad that this has happened. It has been our duty to preserve law and order. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman must search back to see how far the responsibility for these matters is due to the fact that these things have had to be pressed by a Labour Government on the Northern Ireland Government in the last five years. Our problem is to make good in a matter of months what the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his party failed to do in 50 years.

Would not an equally beneficial result flow from the party belonging to Major Chichester-Clark, both here and at Stormont, giving him backing in what he is trying to do?

Yes, Sir. If occasionally I am a little rough on hon. Gentlemen opposite in this matter, I recognise the pressures which they are under, both the Westminster Members and the Stormont Members, because of an utterly evil campaign on the part of people who are, if it is possible to conceive it, to the right even of those hon. Gentlemen, and who are trying to put them out of their seats.

asked the Prime Minister if he has considered the conclusion reached in the Second Report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration 1969–70 relating to matters excluded from the Parliamentary Commissioner's investigation; and whether he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Member to what my right hon.

Friend the Minister without Portfolio said in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) on 17th March.—[Vol. 798, c. 100–1.]

Is the Prime Minister aware of the high proportion of complaints relating to personnel cases which came in last year and which no doubt are still coming in? Will he see that this matter is treated with some urgency?

Yes, Sir; I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. In fact, about 10 per cent. of new cases received by the Parliamentary Commissioner were rejected under the exclusions which have been commented upon in the distinguished report by the hon. Gentleman's Committee. Obviously, we pay great attention to the authority of the Committee over which the hon. Gentleman presides, but we have not yet reached a decision on the matter.

Apart from broadening the scope of the matters which may be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner, would my right hon. Friend carefully consider the Swedish system, whereby the Commissioner on his own initiative can investigate matters and so keep both Ministers and civil servants permanently on their toes?

I think the right thing is what the House has decided; namely, that the Parliamentary Commissioner should operate within the Act laid down by this Parliament, with the exclusions, and there must be certain exclusions. We have the further safeguard of a Select Committee of this House which receives reports from the Ombudsman. I believe this to be the best system. But since the Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has made suggestions for widening the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner, then obviously it is for the Government to consider this matter with the respect that we feel for that Committee.

asked the Prime Minister what further steps he intends to take to limit the Honours system and to reduce the scope of Ministerial patronage.

Both the Honours system and the practice as regards appointments made by Ministers are kept under continuous review.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of producing statistics comparing the situation in 1964 with the present situation, which is causing some disturbance in all parts of the House? Will he consider the advisability of having a public register giving the names of people who are benefiting from this patronage and also giving the salaries, so that the public might judge the situation?

I take full responsibility for the recommendations made in reference to the Honours system. With regard to Government appointments, statutory legislation lays the duty on various of my right hon. Friends, although, of course, they consult me before a final decision is made. I am prepared to defend our record in this matter, not least—what I believe to have been right, though it has caused a good deal of feeling on the benches behind me—the abolition of the political Honours system. I believe that the appointments made both in respect to top appointments, whether in the diplomatic or home service or in the nationalised industries, and also recommendations made to Her Majesty in respect of Honours, will stand comparison with the record of any previous Prime Minister.

Would the Prime Minister not agree that the number of direct Ministerial appointments, both paid and unpaid, outside the Civil Service has now risen to a figure of over 50,000? Does he think that is right?

I have seen many different figures, and a very large figure was true when the hon. Gentleman was himself a Minister under the previous Government. I will certainly justify the appointments for which I have been responsible, and will justify them on nonparty or all-party grounds since a considerable number of former Conservative Ministers have been appointed to some of these posts, each on merit and nothing to do with politics, as well as a number of my right hon. Friends.

Would the Prime Minister consider, in looking into this matter, whether there is any way in which people who desert this country in order to avoid taxation or who support the rebel government in Rhodesia could have their Honours withdrawn?

I think that there has already been a statement made in another place on one particular individual, if that is the person my right hon. Friend has in mind.

asked the Prime Minister when he will next take the Chair at the National Economic Development Council.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) on 17th March.—[Vol. 798, c. 105.]

Against the background of the widespread pre-election bonanza which so many people are now enjoying, would the Prime Minister discuss with the N.E.D.C. the serious report produced by some of his erstwhile advisers who are now with the Child Poverty Action Group, that the gap between the poor and the rest is not being narrowed?

In regard to the hon. Gentleman's reference to a bonanza, I would refer him to an interesting article and chart in the Financial Times this morning, which shows the whole progress of the electoral-political cycle under the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member—[Interruption.]—I resent these interruptions. I thought that the hon. Gentleman, then and now, was one of the most distinguished adornments to his party. I could not understand why his right hon. Friend dropped him from the Front Bench since he is far better than the lot now sitting on the Front Bench opposite. With regard to the Child Poverty Action Group, this matter was dealt with fully by my right hon. Friend, I am sorry to say, after last week's Question on this matter, in a television programme. But I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the telediphone recording.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that this Government have done more to deal with genuine poverty than any Government that have ever existed? Is it not also true that certain newspaper reports, for example, the Sunday Times this weekend, have grossly exaggerated statements which were made, and that a careful analysis of those statements shows that they were quite different from the headline which appeared in that newspaper?

I thought that my hon. Friend saw off the Sunday Times as regards that article on Sunday. I am not responsible for newspaper reports, but—[An HON. MEMBER: "Get on with it."] I am trying to get on with it, but right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are tempting me. I was not even responsible for the hysterical article by the Leader of the Opposition in the Daily Mail this morning. Knowing how rattled he is becoming, my fear was that it was not written, as usual, by his scriptwriters; I fear that he wrote it himself.

With regard to the more serious question on family poverty—[Interruption.] I know how happy right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are to return to it. With our action in first of all abolishing the earnings rule for widows which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite refused for 13 years, and making the 20 per cent. increase in the real value of old-age pensions and other benefits, and then our action, which was not popular—and which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite can use on the doorsteps—about family allowances, we have successively dealt with the main aspects of poverty in the country, and we shall do more over the next five years.

While we are all delighted that the Prime Minister had time this morning to read the article in the Daily Mail and sufficient time afterwards to think out the statement that he has just made, no doubt he will also have found a little time to read the reports in The Times, the Financial Times and The Guardian of the warning which the I.M.F. has given the Government that the balance of payments surplus which may have been achieved will be endangered by the wages spiral which is going on at the moment. Without accepting the obviously circumstantial language in which those reports have been reported, will the Prime Minister repeat this warning to the country?

As for reading the article which the right hon. Gentleman seems to be glad that I have read, it was so over-written and in such small print that it was very difficult to read. But at any rate what I read of it was hysterical and rattled.

With regard to the reports, I cannot be responsible for newspaper reports about the I.M.F. I know that the I.M.F., which came here to see whether we were conducting satisfactorily our £300 million pledge on the balance of payments, is now satisfied that we are running at a surplus of more than £500 million. I recall the Leader of the Opposition saying in the debate on the last Budget Statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The right hon. Gentleman has raised the question of this very long article in the Daily Mail, and he is going to get it now. In the I.M.F. context, I remember his saying in the last Budget debate that it was impossible that we could reach our balance of payments pledge, and producing a most gloomy view.

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's latest question—

Ah!

Does the right hon. Gentleman want me to answer it?

Yes.

Always looking for some little dark cloud in the sky, hoping that it has got an electoral silver lining for him, the right hon. Gentleman is now concentrating on the wage situation. I can tell him that we remain as competitive in relation to other countries which have also got a wage situation as we here. The right hon. Gentleman, who has shifted his ground from one point to another, will get no satisfaction out of this one.

Is the Prime Minister really saying that a document of the importance of the I.M.F. report has not been made available to him? If it has been made available to him, is he saying that he has not read it? If he has read it, is he denying that the warning was given to the Government about the present wage spiral? If he is not denying it, will he give that warning to the country?

Of course I have read what the I.M.F. has said. But if the right hon. Gentleman wants a balanced statement, it will consist of 85 per cent. encomium and congratulations to the Government on what we have done, contrary to everything that the right hon. Gentleman said we would do, and a certain anxiety on the wage question—

Ah!

The right hon. Gentleman, who has opposed every prices and incomes policy in the Division Lobby and outside it, is now saying "Ah". I would like him now to say "Ah" to the 95 per cent. encomium from the I.M.F. Let us see what he really has to say.

Let the Prime Minister publish the I.M.F. report, and we shall be able to judge for ourselves the percentage of the various make-ups of it.

As for the abandonment of the prices and incomes policy, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did that in his Budget speech with the express proviso that there would be legislation to deal with the industrial relations problem, which the Prime Minister abandoned.

I must correct that. We have published far more information on this question than the right hon. Gentleman's Government ever did. The right hon. Gentleman is in the unhappy position that, when he was in charge of these affairs under the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), who, with an £800 million deficit, said that the country—[Interruption.] No doubt it was the Leader of the Opposition who drafted for his right hon. Friend the phrase

"… the economy has seldom, if ever, been more strong …"

with an £800 million deficit. Now they have to learn to live with a £500 million surplus, and, in his usual nit-picking way, the Leader of the Opposition tries to find any small grain of comfort for himself.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. I must resist the blandishments of the House.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement about the rates of unemployment in the Blackpool area in January, 1963, 1964 and 1970, respectively.

The Prime Minister, to answer Question Q5.

That will be a change.

It would be a change if I did not get a great number of irrelevant supplementary questions from the Leader of the Opposition.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) for giving me the opportunity to amend the figures I gave on 17th February. For the Blackpool travel-to-work area the figures for total registered unemployed were 6·1 per cent. in January, 1963, 5·2 per cent. in January, 1964 and 5·3 per cent. in January 1970. The figures for wholly unemployed for these months were 5·6 per cent., 5·1 per cent. and 5·1 per cent.—[Vol. 796, c. 206–9.]