asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review existing powers to ban large and heavy vehicles from using inadequate roads.

My right hon. Friend has recently issued a circular providing detailed advice and urging local authorities to make more extensive use of their very wide powers to control lorries.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that considered reply. Will he confirm that there is a need to encourage quieter, cleaner and safer heavy vehicles on our roads? As well as encouraging local authorites to exercise their powers, would my hon. Friend's Department be prepared to monitor lorry control schemes and to encourage, for example, the proposed scheme of 50 square miles in North London?

I agree with the opening words of my hon. Friend's question. I assure him that we shall watch very closely the efforts made by the authorities to keep lorries out of environmentally sensitive areas. My right hon. Friend has promised to take lorry control policies into account in his 1983–84 TSG settlements.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when next he intends to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss investment in the railways.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail the level of investment required by British Railways to enable them to continue the productivity improvements achieved in 1981.

I meet the chairman regularly to discuss investment and other matters of mutual interest.

When will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that British Rail is an important national asset which requires increasing investment, and that some parts of it are now being run down as a result of the Government's parsimony and their deliberate attempt to use investment as a means of attacking the trade unions? The trade unions have co-operated with the British Rail management for many years in getting increased productivity on the railways, and that should be recognised by giving increased investment to a vital national asset.

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is other people who should recognise that British Rail, in the service that it gives to the public, is an important national asset. Of course we want to see a high level of investment in the railway system, but the problem with investment is not Government constraints but the fact that investment resources have been drained away in day-to-day losses and industrial disputes. If the hon. Gentleman feels as he does, rightly, about the future of the British Railways system, he should use his influence to see that those disputes do not do any more damage to the future investment programme of the railways.

I acknowledge that productivity issues remain to be resolved, but will the right hon. Gentleman concede that the rail unions have delivered massively on manning reductions and on productivity? Will he give some encouragement to the rail community, especially in these critical and tense times, by authorising major investment programmes, such as the East Coast main line programme, instead of making ludicrous, Luddite charges against the rail unions, as he did last Friday, which only inflame the situation?

I recognise fully that there has been some demanning in line with reduced demand. That took place last year and the year before. But at this moment productivity agreements have been signed and pay is being drawn for them, and these should surely be honoured. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will share the view that that is the proper way to proceed. Productivity and progress on productivity are the key to the future. The more that is realised, the better.

Is it not rather pathetic that we should have the kind of supplementary questions that we have just heard from the Opposition Benches? Is it not a plain, simple fact that investment in British Rail, which is very important, can be justified only if at the same time there are increases in productivity and, in particular, an abandonment of the restrictive trade practices of the nineteenth century, which are exemplified by ASLEF on flexible rostering?

My right hon. Friend is wholly correct. Productivity and investment go hand in hand. It is no encouragement when substantial investments are made in new electric equipment and in new electric rolling stock if they are not manned properly. The problems of 1982 cannot be solved with the attitudes and practices of 1919.

Has the Secretary of State read the statement by Sir Peter Parker about the massive increase in productivity in the carriage of rail freight in recent years, and particularly last year, when there was an increase of more than 20 per cent. in tonne-mileage freight productivity? Will he accept that, in the light of that, his right hon. Friend's question shows a lamentable ignorance of what is happening on the railways?

I have also read the view that the entire new system of air brake freight wagons is still run on old manning practices and that, regrettably, overall, despite demanning, improvements in the productivity of British Rail have been marginal. That is the real starting point that one has to face.

While many of us would like to see further investment in British Rail, is it not discouraging that there are examples of investment in new, modern equipment which is lying unused because of the practices that are continuing among British Rail employees?

It is indeed a discouragement and an obvious disincentive to the taxpayer and the British public to invest new large sums in British Rail. Productivity and investment must go hand in hand. If the investment is made and then not worked properly, or worked only on traditional practices, that is not a great incentive to invest further in British Rail.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he gives to the consequences of resulting service reductions when deciding on investment in British railways.

It is for the British Railways Board to formulate investment proposals to meet its business needs, and within the resources available to it.

Is the Minister not aware that the rail service between London and Birmingham has already been reduced because of the state of the track? Is it the Government's intention, whether inadvertently or not, to force all freight and passengers, including the Minister and myself, off the railway system and on to the M1 and M6 motorways?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that the board receives over £2 million a day from the Government in grants to support its passenger services. I expect the board to meet the costs of maintaining the network out of those substantial resources.

With regard to reduced services, what redress have the general public, the local authorities or, indeed, Members of Parliament if British Rail continues to reduce services to a state where they are inconvenient to the travelling public and will not accept the views of those in the area that the service is inconvenient?

I emphasise that it is for the British Railways Board to manage the railways and to arrange timetables. Although, naturally, we expect the board to make wise use of its resources, we also expect it to conduct its affairs on a sensible business basis to take account of passengers' needs. If there is a conflict of view such as my hon. Friend has mentioned, his constituents are entitled to complain to the transport users' consultative committee, which will investigate the matter.

In the sense that the loss of the APT is not conducive to an amelioration of the service, can the Minister say what is the position on the APT? Why is it not being used? What is the delay? How long will it be before it is used?

The hon. Gentleman will know that British Rail has decided to make a considerable investment in the APT. There has been some disappointment with the immediate results, but I understand that British Rail hopes to make further progress on it.

Will my hon. Friend tell British Rail and those who work in it that unless its efficiency and productivity approach those of the rest of British industry he will be unable to ask the rest of British industry and those who work in it to pay the taxes to maintain existing services, leading to a massive reduction in the services currently available.

There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. Progress has been made in these matters, but British Rail needs to generate resources itself by continuing to cut costs and by improving productivity to meet the changing needs for its services.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further representations he has received about the removal of all lead from petrol.

Further to the reply given to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on 12 May, the Department received 18 letters during May.

Given the increasing evidence that the only safe level of lead in petrol is zero, when will the Government stop pandering to vested interests and make the health and well-being of our children the top priority by removing all the poison from the petrol used in this country?

We are reducing the lead level by over 60 per cent. in the four years ending 1985. The additional reduction that the hon. Gentleman seeks from 0·15g per litre to zero would make little actual difference to the lead level in people's blood. The sensible approach would be to implement and monitor the present policy and to take action on lead from other sources, such as that which may be in drinking water. To go further would have serious implications, which I have already outlined to the House.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that, despite the welcome given unreservedly by Conservative Members to the Government's announcement of the reduction to 0·15g, any decisions on the complete elimination of lead in petrol must have a long lead-in time and that it is important for the Government to begin taking and pressing for those decisions now if we are to have lead-free petrol within a reasonable time?

I am well aware of the concern on this issue, but it is not simply a matter of cost. If we go further than 0·15g per litre, we would require 2½ per cent. more crude for petrol—that is over 600,000 tonnes every year. We should need adaptations to valve seats and changes in compression ratios, and the effect on the motor industry must be considered right across the board, not just in this but in every other country.

We welcome the reduction that is to take place, but will the Minister recognise that lead in petrol is a serious pollution problem? What studies are being undertaken by the Government with regard to filtering out the lead once it reaches the exhaust sytem?

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that I share his concern. The Department is giving evidence to the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, which is making an independent assessment of the problem. A number of other studies are going on, not all of which fall within the competence of the Department of Transport. They fall also to the DHSS and other Departments. We are convinced that our action, which is in line with that of all our partners in this area, is right, and we shall study the progress that is being made.

I appreciate the balanced view explained by my hon. Friend, but will she confirm that there is a conflict of evidence between those who advised the CLEAR campaign and the experts who served on the Lawther committee? In the light of that conflict, based upon more recent evidence from the United States, cannot a quick, short inquiry be set up now to examine that evidence as there may be misunderstanding about it and people's fears could be allayed?

We are already examining the evidence available, but we have rested our decision on advice from the British Medical Association. The independent assessment to which I referred in answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution is one to which we shall give every possible help, because we believe it to be important.

Is not the Minister in danger of getting it wrong on all counts? Do not the vested interests—the oil companies and the motor manufacturers—say that the worst of all possible worlds is to move to a lower level, at great expense, and later to zero? They would much prefer—the oil companies have published this view—to go straight from the present level to zero than through two stages.

I note what the hon. Gentleman said, but I am not convinced, on the evidence before us, that to make a further reduction to a zero lead level would make the difference claimed for it. That is why I want to monitor what is happening now and also to study the evidence from other countries, to which I referred in a previous answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about making the use of dipped headlights compulsory in built-up areas at night.

A total of 27 representations have been received during the past 12 months from road safety committees and organisations and individual members of the public.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is a great deal of evidence to show that dipped headlights are safer than sidelights in built-up areas, specially for pedestrians? Will she consider introducing legislation to make dipped headlights compulsory in such areas?

We know that the use of dipped headlights in lit streets at night is already over 80 per cent. where the area is poorly lit. It is right that we take into account the fact that headlights, particularly halogen headlights, can dazzle, particularly on wet roads. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that the dim-dip device which has been under research, and which I saw in action yesterday, is now being consulted upon by my Department with the industry, the police and motoring and road safety organisations.

Does the Minister recall that several years ago the suggestion of the compulsory use of dipped headlights was introduced in the House by means of regulations? Those regulations were rejected. At that time the Transport and Road Research Laboratory advised that dipped headlights, did not necessarily improve safety, and that glare and dazzle, and increased shadows, provided enormous problems which outweighed any safety considerations. Will she therefore reject any suggestion that motorists should be compelled to use dipped headlights at night?

The hon. Member has explained clearly why the House was right years ago to reject the compulsory use of dipped headlights. However, I hope that he will welcome the move to dim-dip headlights, which give an added opportunity for the vehicle to be seen, and that he will encourage all motorists to use dipped headlights where they are uncertain about the conditions.

Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on her investigations into dim-dip devices, and will she make sure that she includes the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents among the consultees in those discussions?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the nature of the repair work on the VI4 motorway near the Severn bridge; what is the approximate cost of the work; when it will be completed; and if he will make a statement.

The repair work recently carried out near the Severn bridge was the resurfacing of the eastbound carriageway of the M4 between junctions 20, Almondsbury, and 21, Aust. This cost approximately £400,000 and the work was completed on 28 May.

I thank the Minister for that information. Has she now received the report of the consulting engineers on the state of the bridge? If so, what action is being taken on their recommendations? Does she appreciate that the bridge is the main artery for trade in and out of Wales and that these persistent repairs and hold-ups are damaging the economy of the Principality, as well as its prospects? It there not an urgent need now to consider building a second Severn bridge?

No one underestimates the importance of the Severn bridge, not only for Wales, but for the West Country. The consulting engineers' report has just arrived. My right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as he has been able to consider the report. Unfortunately, it will be a few days before we are ready. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's remarks about traffic. The monitoring of traffic flows and future projections of traffic are part of the regular projections at which we shall be looking.

As founder and first chairman of the Brunel Society, may I ask my hon. Friend to agree with me that there is much evidence that Brunel was once better at building bridges than the latter-day practitioners? Can she say whether the Department rewards the incompetence which appears to be in evidence on some of our recent bridges by the granting of future contracts?

I cannot now go into the liability that arises if there is something wrong that is the fault of the constructor. There is no question of that at the moment. We have sought to discover from consulting engineers what is wrong and to take immediate steps to correct it. My hon. Friend ought to await the announcement by my right hon. Friend before any further discussion of the matter takes place.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether any investment proposals have been put to him by British Rail in connection with the development of its engineering workshop capacity.

Since 1975 the board has been investing about £15 million per year, at 1982 prices, in new equipment for its workshops; the value of the individual items is usually below the level which requires them to be reported to me.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the railways board was proposing the closure of railway workshops there were thousands of miles of railway track on which trains were running at reduced speeds because the tracks were unsafe for normal speeds? The inter-city trains between the north and the south are running at half their normal strength because coaches have to be left in the sidings awaiting repairs, and this at a time when the board is proposing to close railway workshops.

I think that the hon. Gentleman does not fully appreciate that the problem of overcapacity in British Rail's engineering workshops, particularly the overcapacity in railway freight wagons, arises from the fact that British Rail now has a new fleet of freight wagons which last longer, do better work and do not require the renewal and replacement at the rates for which the original BREL workshops were designed. That is the overcapacity problem. It is not to do with whether new equipment can be afforded, but whether it is actually needed, and in the case of freight wagons it is not.

The right hon. Gentleman speaks as if the British railway system were the only one to provide work for the railway workshops. When will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that railway systems all over the world, and not least in the Third world, are expanding at a tremendous rate? From what can be seen, British manufactured railway wagons are outside the race. Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage those workshops and endeavour to get them into the race to get that business?

Yes, and I wholly endorse the sentiment behind the hon. Gentleman's question. He is absolutely right to say that there are opportunities in export markets. The Government will give all the help that they can on exports. I know that the hon. Gentleman is the first to recognise that those markets are highly competitive and that it requires a great deal of effort and cost cutting to get into the markets to win the orders. I endorse the hon. Gentleman's point. Those are the markets of the future for British Rail Engineering Ltd. and other manufacturers in this country.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that my constituents and their families in Horwich and the constituents of my hon. Friends in Shildon and in Swindon are immensely relieved at British Rail's decision to withdraw the workshop closures for the rest of this year? Will he also accept that the long-term future of those workshops depends entirely on the investment and growth in the railway industry, and that his decisions about investment in rolling stock, renewals and electrification are eagerly awaited throughout the whole of the rail industry, but particularly in the workshops, as they will preserve the jobs of a hard-working, dedicated and productive work force? We look forward to the day when the Secretary of State can come to the House and give us some idea of how much money he is prepared to spend on British Rail.

I understand that British Rail has deferred the closure proposals for the time being. Decisions about capacity and what is needed are matters for British Rail. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman heard what I said. I repeat that the problem, in particular with the wagon works, is that there is simply not the demand for wagons on the scale for which the engineering workshops were built, and it is unlikely to be there in the future. That is the result of the advance in technology and of new investment. It is not the result of lack of investment. The need to rationalise engineering workshop capacity presents a real problem. That is, of course, a matter for British Rail, and I believe that it is handling the problem in the right way.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to commence on the M20 link between Ashford and Maidstone.

Further preparation of this scheme will be resumed as soon as resources permit.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that this section of the road is part of a motorway connecting London with Istanbul and that the only section that is not of motorway standard is the section from Folkestone to Dover?

I am well aware of the importance of this part of the road network in Kent. The M20 will be completed, but our difficulty is that other schemes give better value for money and the current cost of completing the M20 link is somewhere between £45 million and £50 million. We have already done a great deal in the Kent area, and while the A20 can take a great deal of traffic, there are other schemes within my hon. Friend's area and other parts of the country that must take priority over this section of the M20.

In my campaign against the unnecessary coning-off of lanes on motorways, may I ask my hon. Friend to explain why long stretches of the M20 approaching the area referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir Albert Costain) were coned off last weekend? How much work was done on that road last weekend and why is it necessary to do it so soon after the motorway was built?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his continuing campaign against unnecessary coning-off, but I have to tell him that I do not have the detail here on every road in the country. I shall look into the matter and write to him. This is the period of the year when we must complete the repairs, maintenance and reconstruction of our roads that cannot be done in the winter or in inclement weather. That is why in the middle of the summer a higher proportion of our roads will always be under repair than at any other time of the year.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the meeting that I recently had with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on this subject, together with members and officials from the Maidstone borough council? Is she further aware of the disappointment over the fact that, despite the friendship and willingness of our right hon. Friend to meet these people, we have not been offered any side road orders, which would expedite the work at no cost, or virtually no cost. If we got on with the side road orders, it would cost nothing and would speed up matters.

I shall look yet again into what my hon. Friend has said, but I have to tell him that before we make orders we must have some prospect of succeeding with a road, otherwise we run the danger for many people of blighting areas that might not necessarily be blighted by the eventual scheme. I shall look into what he says and write to him. I am well aware of how much the completion of the M20 is wanted in Kent, but we have already invested a great deal in Kent's roads and other parts of the country are also crying out for investment.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to change the present law relating to the closure of rail passenger services.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware of the speech made last week by Mr. Cobbett, the director of strategic studies at the British Railways Board, in favour of the wish of the BRB to abandon certain rural branch lines, but, worse, referring to what he called the cumbersome procedures adopted or put over by various Governments for the closing of passenger services? Can the Government give an undertaking that the so-called cumbersome procedures, which give opportunities to cranks, as Mr. Cobbett says, will remain as safeguards to the public?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is entirely fair when he describes the procedures as cumbersome.

He did not say that.

I do not altogether agree with the view expressed by the gentleman to whom the hon. Gentleman refers. I shall certainly look at the procedures, but I know that the hon. Gentleman will understand that they are intended to give protection to passengers on the railways. If a closure is proposed because of the decline in demand, which means that the service cannot be continued without undue cost to the railways board, and if the closure is opposed, it can go forward only with the consent of the Secretary of State.

Order. Answers are getting impossibly long. They are now almost as long as the questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations for a Channel tunnel.

The report of the Franco-British study group is published today. It concludes that existing services could be developed to cope with foreseeable traffic growth, but that a fixed link could be economically advantageous. The group confirms the technical feasibility of rail tunnels, which could provide both through rail services and a vehicle shuttle. Forms of link permitting vehicles to be driven across the Channel require further technical study.

In view of that statement, will the Minister comment on what appeared on the tape this afternoon and was presumably from his Department? It was to the effect that work on Channel tunnel studies will now be indefinitely delayed. Will the Minister also comment on the widespread stories that the Prime Minister vetoed the agreement on the Channel tunnel at her recent summit meeting with President Mitterrand? Is he aware that in this matter Government strictures on productivity, and on the railways in particular, look very dim in view of their own productivity record?

I cannot comment on press speculation. I advise the hon. Gentleman to stick to the points that I just made and possibly to study the Franco-British study group joint report. The present position is that we have to see whether it can be demonstrated that any of the schemes can be financed on the terms laid down. The interests of the two Governments are concerned and that is the line along which we must proceed.

In view of the large number of investment projects requiring public sector capital, will my right hon. Friend repeat his previous assurances to the House that no public sector capital will be used to build the Channel tunnel? Will he also assure us that British Rail will not be required to give a traffic guarantee to whatever consortium may choose to build the Channel tunnel?

Yes. It has been made clear from the outset of this phase that any proposals for constructing the fixed link would, on the British side, be without financial guarantees. That would also exclude a non-commercial throughput guarantee by British Rail, an arrangement which, of course, would fall to be met by the British Government.

The Minister will know that the target dates have been pushed back further and further. We are now told that it will be autumn before the remaining two studies are completed. Are further studies proposed after the autumn, or can we be assured that after completion of the two further studies the ball will firmly lie with the two Governments for a decision?

I would very much wish, with the hon. Gentleman, that we could reach an early decision, having examined the financial, organisational and legal aspects that were not included in the original report. As hon. Members have pointed out, I realise that uncertainty provokes great difficulty for those who want to invest, whether in ferries or in anything else. Therefore, I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point and assure him that we aim to reach a decision.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that any progress on the Channel tunnel involving private enterprise would depend on a reasonable economic return to the investors? Will he comment on that aspect?

Yes, that is certainly correct, but it also depends on being able to organise the finances needed to promote a particular scheme. This is a major project, bearing in mind that the first returns from the finance invested will come only many years hence.

If it is the case that the Government's intention is that there must be private investment for the British element of the cost of tunnel building and that no commercial guarantees will be given to the investors, does it not logically follow that those who invest in the tunnel will have complete control of the levels of traffic and the charges that may be made for use of the tunnel?

Those arrangements would have to be worked out in consultation with the French, when we could determine which scheme was most desirable. However, I emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman that Governments on both sides of the Channel have ruled out the provision of public finance and that the proposals for relying on the market are now very similar on both sides of the Channel.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has decided on the maximum permissible lorry weights.

I hope to make an announcement as soon as possible on a wide range of issues affecting heavy lorries, not just weights.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. When he makes his announcement about the maximum permissible weight, will he say whether that will be the ultimate maximum weight that he is prepared ever to permit on our roads?

It is certainly the Government's view that any increase in the dimensions of trailers and containers on our roads above the present levels cannot be tolerated. Indeed, one of the proposals is that there should be a maximum height limit, which does not exist at present. It is certainly the Government's intention that there should be no increase in trailer sizes or containers on British roads. On the other hand, it is the Government's view that it makes no sense whatever for these containers to be running around one-third full of air. That cannot help, environmentally or industrially.

Will the right hon. Gentleman comment of the observations of the Transport and General Workers Union, which has at heart the interests of many of the lorry drivers involved, about the difficulties that would be created by increasing the maximum weight of lorries?

I think that the worry that the hon. Gentleman has raised is that there would be fewer vehicles for a given amount of freight, and therefore fewer jobs. That is an understandable worry about the loss of jobs. It is confirmed when firms such as Sainsbury's tell me that they can supply a typical supermarket in the centre of a town, given the present maximum weights, with about 1040-ft containers a day. If the maximum weight limit were raised, it could use as few as six containers a day. That would obviously reduce the number of journeys, and, I am afraid, the number of jobs.

Will my right hon. Friend think again before announcing a course of action that will, in my judgment, be gravely damaging politically to our party and damaging to many whose interests we represent in the House? Also, does he agree that the number of heavy lorries on the roads is much more a function of the level of economic activity than the weights of the lorries, and that there is simply no way in which he can guarantee that heavier lorries will mean fewer lorries?

My hon. Friend refers to the course of action that we propose as gravely damaging. The Government's concern is to see that the lorry problem is tackled vigorously in a way that it has not been in the past, in the interests of the environment, of controlling the vehicles themselves and where they go, and getting them away from the towns and villages where people live. This, surely, is a desirable course to go on, and I would expect to have my hon. Friend's full support for a comprehensive package of measures to carry forward that objective.

Since the roads are already heavily congested and the railways under-used, why do the Government not come forward with an integrated transport policy and try to get some of the heavy traffic on to the railways instead of into our cities?

In view of earlier exchanges, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be the first to accept that the key to getting more traffic on the railways, in addition to the encouragement that the Government give through section 8 grants, is to make the railway freight business competitive and provide a good standard of service. That means higher productivity. At the moment attempts to get that are being denied and frustrated.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he expects to meet representatives from local authorities to discuss controls on heavy lorry movements and parking.

My right hon. Friend has recently issued a circular to local authorities telling them that we will pay particular regard to the use that they are making of their lorry control powers when we decide how much expenditure to accept for transport supplementary grant. We are now awaiting their responses in this year's transport policies and programmes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that very many local authority representatives feel that, notwithstanding the increase in lorry weights, the controls on where lorries move and park must be substantially increased? Is he further aware that if there is an attempt by the Government to increase lorry weights there will be the most enormous row with people other than those associated with what is called the emotional environmental lobby?

My hon. Friend appreciates that local authorities have wide powers to control the routing of lorries. We shall soon be asking them for details of the amenity controls that they have introduced.

Does the Minister agree that for most people in this country the heavy lorry is a dirty and dangerous menace that should be controlled far more rigorously by both local and national Government than it is at present? Will his Department publish a list of authorities, including—regretfully—the West Midlands county council, which have not yet implemented the valuable provisions of the 1972 legislation, known as the Dykes Act?

I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and we shall be looking at the response of local authorities in this respect.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding the high regard that I have for him personally and for the Secretary of State, I should find it impossible to support any proposition to increase the weight of juggernauts? I do not have the same high regard for the Department itself. In my experience over many years in this House, the Department has let down Ministers, the House and Members by not keeping to its promises on road development. Until our roads are ready, there can be no heavier juggernauts allowed on them.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's frankness, but I ask him to await the final package of proposals that my right hon. Friend will bring forward, as I believe that it represents a substantial advancement in environmental conditions, which I know concerns my hon. Friend so much.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about future arrangements for the testing and plating of goods vehicles.

As my right hon. Friend told the House on 24 May, during consideration of the Transport Bill as reported from Committee, we have reached agreement in principle with Lloyd's Register of Shipping on the establishment of a new association, under its control, to undertake the testing of both goods vehicles and public service vehicles in the private sector.

What benefits does my hon. Friend see as a result of Lloyd's Register taking on responsibility for the testing and plating of heavy goods vehicles?

I am sure that the Lloyd's Register vehicle testing association will ensure a system of impartiality and high standards, backed by the well-known traditions of Lloyd's Register. I am sure also that it will command the confidence of the industry and lead to the improvements that we have always wanted to see in the service. I am glad that the organisational structure of Lloyd's Register will fully involve the industry in the decisions that it will take about the future of testing. I think that it will benefit all concerned.

Will the Minister say what difference in impartiality will result from handing over this responsibility to Lloyd's Register? Since, during the Committee stage of the Bill, it was apparent to most of us in Committee that Lloyd's Register was not interested in this, what carrots have been held out to cause it now to favour taking over?

Following the Committee debate there has been a rethink, and Lloyd's Register has come forward with sensible suggestions for taking over the testing of heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles. The industry is already being consulted through the Vehicle Operators' Advisory Panel, and Lloyd's Register has made this offer, which I am sure will bring improvements in flexibility and benefit for vehicle operators in the hours of testing. We hope to see a pilot project before long to make sure that the provisions which the Lloyd's Register vehicle testing association expects to employ will work thoroughly and well.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on Transport relating to main line railway electrification.

Soon, Sir.

Will there be a positive response to the case for more railway electrification? Will the Minister recognise—perhaps more than did the Select Committee did—that the East Coast main line is a single unit? The experience of the Penmanshiel tunnel closure showed that a great deal of traffic does not want to transfer from the East Coast main line, which ought to be by one method of traction right through from Edinburgh to London.

We are considering the board's proposals for electrification of the East Coast main line to Leeds arid Newcastle, and we shall reach a decision as soon as possible.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that any additional electrification is crucially dependent upon reduced manning levels and the abandonment of nineteenth century work practices?

My hon. Friend is correct to emphasise the vital importance of productivity. The broad struggle for more modern and efficient working practises is central to the future of the railways and must be fully supported by all those who have the best interests of a good and efficient railway industry at heart.

Does the Minister accept that, initially, investments are urgently needed to catch up on the backlog of renewals and repairs to British Rail's main line network, because there would be no sense in electrifying a worn-out railway system? Furthermore, does he recognise that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that part of this year's PSO would be earmarked for such renewals? Will the Minister indicate the amount of that sum? What basis has been calculated to be adequate to bring about those renewals which are now desperately needed in the main line network?

I know that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that direct support from central and local government to British Rail is at its highest level ever. He will also appreciate the importance of our earmarking proposal, which we are pursuing. The actual amount has not yet been decided, but I very much recognise its importance to the renewal of track—the item that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many Civil Service posts have been transferred to the Northern region since May 1979.

As I told the hon. Member on 25 November 1981, transfer of posts to the Northern region was not included in the dispersal programme announced on 26 July 1979. Details of posts that have been transferred by Departments for management reasons are not held centrally.

What has that got to do with my question? Is it not disgraceful that not one post has been transferred to the Northern region during the Government's three-year term of office? I remind the Minister that the Northern region still has—increasingly so—the highest unemployment rate in the country. The encouragement of such transfers is one way in which the Government could act directly to increase employment, albeit by a small percentage, but is the kind of employment that the Northern region requires. Can the Minister explain the rationale behind the obstinate refusal to transfer Civil Service jobs to the North?

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the level of employment in the part of the country that he represents. The need to contain public expenditure prohibits any further dispersal initiative in the near and foreseeable future. However, in considering the location of new Government work, or the relocation of work for operational reasons, the pressing needs of particular areas will be taken into account. As I said, statistics on transfers are not held centrally, for management reasons.

Will my hon. Friend confirm to many civil servants, who may or may not be transferred to the Northern region, that should they take part in illegal picketing next Wednesday they will be instantly dismissed?

No. They will be dealt with by their employer in accordance with the rules, terms and conditions of their employment. With respect to the law of the land, that will be the concern of other authorities.

Will the Minister confirm that the type of advertising campaign that we have seen on television by the London Docklands Development Corporation, which says "Why be in the middle of nowhere when you can be in the middle of London?", is hardly conducive to persuading civil servants to move, even if the Government wanted to move them? What is the Department planning to do about that type of campaign?

Fortunately, I am not responsible for that, but as I said, the Government announced their dispersal programme in July 1979 and work to implement that is proceeding.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what steps the Civil Service is taking to create further opportunities for young people under the job release scheme.

The aim of the job release scheme is to help all those on the: unemployed register, and not only the young unemployed. Individual Government Departments are encouraged to release eligible staff who wish to take advantage of this scheme, provided that they can comply with the scheme's requirements.

Is it not the case that regulations were changed early this year, making it more difficult for young people to take up jabs that are vacant as a result of people retiring early, mainly by insisting that the actual job left vacant by the retiring person must be the job taken up by a newcomer? Will the Minister look at the possibility that the Inland Revenue is not currently operating the scheme, and will he see whether he can introduce some flexibility, so as to get young people off the unemployment register?

I can confirm that from 1 April this year employers in the public sector must meet the same requirements as other employers, namely, that a replacement should come from the unemployment register or certain other groups, such as school leavers. I shall certainly look into the detailed comments made by the hon. Gentleman.