asked the Minister of Transport if he plans to introduce legislation amending the Road Traffic Acts and requiring insurance against material damage to be effected.

I have no such plans at present.

Is it not unfortunate that a motorist can cause material damage either to another vehicle or to propperty and, by failing to involve his insurer, make certain that there can be no redress for the victim other than through the courts—and that often against a man of straw? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a case for extending the requirement of the Road Traffic Acts to include not only personal injury but damage to property? Are we not bound to do that under a 1972 EEC directive?

It is true that most Common Market countries have that requirement. That is not necessarily conclusive, but I shall certainly examine the situation.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to meet the chairman of the British Railways Board.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to meet the chairman of the British Railways Board.

asked the Minister of Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of the British Railways Board.

Soon.

When the Minister meets the chairman, will he assure him that he does not want to see any more Beeching-type cuts? Will he also assure him that there will be necessary investment in rolling stock for rural transport and cross-country routes such as the Newcastle—Sunderland—Middlesbrough route? Does he agree that unless there is such an assurance there will be Beeching-type cuts as a result of the complete breakdown of available stock?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Investment levels are under review. I repeat what I have said before: I have no intention whatsoever of presiding over a fresh round of Beeching-type cuts on the railways.

Will the Minister discuss with the chairman of British Rail the bad recent punctuality record on the East Coast main line which has affected passengers and the delivery of national newspapers in the North of England? Is he aware that British Rail attributes this not to the problems of the Penmanshiel tunnel but to there not being enough locomotives? Will he consider the investment implications of that?

There have been problems involving that tunnel. I shall discuss the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman with the chairman of British Rail.

Will the Minister also discuss with Sir Peter Parker the appalling state of the diesel units used on the Preston-Blackburn and Colne-Blackburn-Manchester lines, many of which are more than 20 years old? When will those units be replaced?

The board is aware of the unsatisfactory condition of some of its fleet of DMUs and is considering making replacements. Some replacements should be complete by the end of the year. I am ready to give urgent consideration to any proposals by the board for a programme of construction.

Does the Minister agree that the chairman of British Rail's vanity is not matched by his competence?

That is not saying a lot.

Will the Minister suggest to the chairman, as a publicity gimmick of the type on which he is keen, that he might personally wash one compartment?

I am not sure who my hon. Friend was getting at in the last part of his question. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the chairman's attention. It is common ground that the current chairman, Sir Peter Parker, has made and is making an outstanding contribution.

Has the Minister noted in the recent package from President Carter in response to the energy crisis a new emphasis on public transport in the United States? When the Minister discusses this matter with the chairman of British Rail, will he be prepared to say that he will devote the resources necessary to electrification and to the increasing use of rural lines and pricing policy to ensure that Britain also comes to terms with the energy crisis?

I noted what President Carter said. It is clear that the United Kingdom will have to take on board some of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. However, our public transport provision is infinitely better than that in the United States.

I appreciate that lighting is essential at the junctions of bypasses and on slip roads to motorways, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the further installation of light standards along the full length of the M62 and M66 is unnecessary expenditure? Does he agree that public money would be better spent on repairing secondary roads throughout the country on which every hon. Member—

Order. I do not know whether that comes under British Rail.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern and I am aware that he has a question on the subject on the Order Paper. I shall leave my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to answer it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is no provision within British Rail's present capital programme for the replacement of the many diesel multiple units, which is now urgent? Will he be discussing with the chairman of British Rail the increase in the capital programme for British Rail that is necessary to meet that urgent problem?

Yes, I shall discuss that important matter with the chairman. As I said to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), it is one of the issues that I shall want to take up with him.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will seek to remove the anomalies which exist in the schemes for concessionary travel operated by different local authorities.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) on 20 June.

Is the Minister aware of the confusion and bewilderment caused to the beneficiaries of these schemes, especially when the schemes in adjoining areas vary a great deal? Would it not be better if there were a national scheme so that recipients would feel that they were all receiving equal benefit?

We believe that these matters are best sorted out by local authorities, which can judge varying local needs. We hope that local authorities will do what they can to resolve conflicts. I know that the county of Durham has evolved a county-wide scheme by agreement with the local authorities concerned.

I ask my hon. Friend to give the matter further consideration. Is he aware that wide and costly variations exist in one local authority area compared with another authority's adjacent area, which hits the disabled and old people extremely hard?

I appeciate that anomalies are unpopular. However, there are differences in the needs and transport structures of different counties. We believe that local authorities must balance the needs of their areas with the desire to avoid unnecessary anomalies.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his political colleagues in the West Midlands in both political parties consider themselves to be pioneers of concessionary fares, especially for the elderly? Is he aware that there is enormous demand that there should be some equalisation throughout the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) has indicated, so that schemes may be seen to be fair and just?

I am aware that differences throughout the country do not reflect party political divisions. The example to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention shows that Conservative councils are equally ready to respond to their local needs when the case exists for a discretionary fares system.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement about the future of the Manchester to Sheffield via Woodhead railway line.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any proposals for closure of the railway line from Sheffield to Manchester via Woodhead.

I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer I gave to the Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay) on 24 May.

The Minister will be well aware that for the past 12 months there have been rumours about the future of this railway line. Is it not high time that the rumours were scotched? Does he agree that with the energy crisis it would be crazy for anyone to contemplate abandoning an electrified line?

I am aware of the rumours and the proposals. However, it is a freight-only line, for which the Minister's consent is not required. I am aware that the British Railways Board is discussing its proposals with the local authorities and the trade unions concerned. No doubt the board will make no decision until the consultations are complete.

May I tell the Minister that only this morning I received a letter from the Sheffield district council enclosing a cutting from the local newspaper, the Sheffield Star, in which a leak has been reported that a decision has already been taken to close the line? Will he accept that we in the Sheffield area as well as our friends in Manchester feel that to keep the line would be as good as a public statement to the effect that the whole area is not to be run down? Is he aware that the trade unions and councils that are concerned at both ends of the line are deeply involved and extremely worried?

If a decision has been taken, it has not been taken by Ministers. It is my understanding that the board appreciates the concern that has been expressed. It is involved in discussions with those to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Will the Minister use his influence to ensure that the line is kept open? Surely it would be ludicrous to close it when British Rail is urging the electrification of the whole of its system. Would it not be better if the Minister helped to develop a better inter-city route and better inter-city services between Sheffield and Lancashire?

That is for the board to decide, using its judgment of the traffic needs of the area. The board operates freight-only lines according to a commercial remit. It would not be right for Ministers to try to take powers that they do not have at present to interfere with decisions taken by the board concerning freight-only lines.

There are two routes, one going west from the Hallam constituency and the other over Wood-head. Is it not right to consider the alternatives? Is it not important to electrify the railway line running from London to Sheffield first?

I have no doubt that the board will weigh the competing considerations and traffic needs before finally making its decision.

asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has to encourage more economical fuel consumption by motor vehicles of all classes using the public roads of the United Kingdom.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to encourage fuel economy in the transport industry.

The Government are considering a number of measures to reinforce the effect on fuel consumption which will inevitably result from the rise in fuel prices. I am considering measures to reduce the present restrictions on car sharing.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, whatever may be the short-term improvement in petrol supplies, we have a long-term problem? Will he therefore use his offices to encourage new methods of propulsion in motor vehicles? I have especially in mind the electric car, the chemical fuel cell and a number of other methods that have been around for some time that can now make an important contribution to energy saving on our roads.

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I accept what he says about the long term. A great deal of research has been carried out on electric vehicles by both Government and industry. That is something that we shall continue to support.

May I impress upon my right hon. Friend the apparent dearth of information about the most economic speed for a particular size of engine in terms of fuel economy? Is he aware that the 56 mph figure that is so often quoted in motoring magazines is misleading the motoring public into believing that that is the most economic speed, whereas, I gather, economic speeds vary according to the size of car?

My hon. Friend has raised this matter with me before. I shall give it further consideration to ascertain whether further improvement may be made.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, whatever improvements are made to the motor car, public transport will always remain more economical in the use of fuel? Will he consider the imaginative lead given by the Swedish Government, who have responded to the energy crisis by slashing rail fares? Does he agree that that is the type of measure that we need to get traffic off the roads and on to the right track?

I note the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. Clearly, a decision on fare levels is for the British Railways Board. It has considered these matters and has come to the conclusion that a general reduction would not lead to the increased revenue that it wants. Its approach has been to have selective reductions, such as the recently introduced family rail card scheme, which I think have much greater potential.

Will my right hon. Friend resist suggestions that the speed limit should be reduced? Is he aware that that would cause the maximum of inconvenience and the minimum of overall saving?

My hon. Friend is right. The last time that this took place, the police found extreme difficulty in enforcing the laws, which caused a great deal of confusion to the public.

The Minister referred to the research being undertaken into battery-operated vehicles. Is he satisfied that this research is being given the emphasis and resources that are required? It has been going on for very many years. Is it not about time that there was a breakthrough in this matter with much more effort being put by the Government and other sources into getting a successful vehicle on to the road?

I shall look again at that point. The information that I have indicates that there is a considerable amount of research going on. I shall review that in the light of the energy crisis and see whether further impetus can be given.

asked the Minister of Transport what discussions he has had with the British Railways Board in regard to its proposals for a single rail Channel tunnel link; and when he will be in a position to announce the Government's policy on this proposal.

I am giving the British Railways Board's proposals careful consideration and hope to make an announcement in due course.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that for one decade all our traffic plans were in limbo because the Channel tunnel was—and then was not—going to be built? Does he appreciate that as soon as it was decided to go on with it the road pattern was cancelled? My right hon. Friend's predecessor forgot that it had been cancelled and kept it as it was. Will my right hon. Friend acquaint himself with the matter so that there may not be another 10 decades of indecision?

I entirely appreciate the consistent position taken by my hon. Friend on this matter and the need for the end of uncertainty, especially in his constituency. We shall seek to reach a conclusion as soon as possible. I give the assurance that either my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary or I will pay a visit to his constituency to look at the position on the ground.

When reaching his decision, will the Minister bear in mind the grave concern felt in the North-East Coast ports about the possibility of the development of a Channel tunnel, the important amount of public investment that has already taken place there, and the jobs that would be at risk if such a step were taken?

Obviously, those are all issues that we must consider in our evaluation of the British Rail scheme. British Rail is pressing this scheme forward very hard.

May I impress on my right hon. Friend the value of a Channel rail link in switching British Rail into Euro-rail? May I draw his attention to the value it might have in the argument about a third London airport, as we could collect passengers from European airports and not take up more valuable land in this country for an airport that most people do not want?

I take on board the last point made by my hon. Friend. Clearly, such a tunnel would be of enormous importance for British Rail. However, it will take some time to evaluate this matter. I shall seek to come to a conclusion as soon as possible.

In reaching his conclusion, will the Minister say whether, as with previous Governments, he considers that this project must be commercially profitable or that it should simply be an important communications investment?

May I first welcome the hon. Gentleman as an Opposition Front Bench speaker on transport? I welcome his intervention. The Government will take firmly on board the need for the commercial viability of the Channel tunnel.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that the transport of nuclear waste by rail across South London is safe.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied with the safety of containers carrying nuclear waste from Hull to Windscale by railways; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. I am fully satisfied that the very high international standards applied in this country to all movements of irradiated nuclear fuel provide adequate protection for the public.

Is the Minister aware that the transport of nuclear waste is causing great concern to people living in populated areas? Will he make available to those people the full reasons why he is so satisfied that everything is all right?

I realise that it causes great concern. Therefore, I have taken a personal interest and looked into the testing and research that is done. I shall happily make available to any Member of Parliament the details of such research as we have and the films made. These vehicles have been tested to the highest international standards to withstand very high-speed crashes of the kind that do not occur even once in a lifetime.

The House will be relieved to a certain extent by what the hon. Gentleman said. Is he happy with the cargo-handling methods being used for the transhipment of these cargoes brought into our ports? Is he satisfied that the people involved are sufficiently aware of the risks and are properly trained in the tasks that they undertake?

I shall look into the cargo-handling facilities at the ports to see whether there is cause for concern. Recent press reports dealt with the flasks inside the main vehicles that were used only when the materials were being handled inside Windscale. Otherwise the materials are encased in large 50-ton containers, which can be handled as ordinary rail traffic with perfect safety.

Is my hon. Friend aware that nuclear waste is not the only hazardous substance conveyed by rail and road and that there are anxieties about the transportation of hazardous chemicals and liquefied gases, especially from constituencies such as mine? Will he say what progress is being made in introducing stricter control measures, especially in the routing of such substances by road or rail?

Nuclear waste has a higher standard applied than any other dangerous substance. I entirely accept what my hon. Friend said about the need to look at the precautions in respect of other dangerous substances. We take a continuing interest in that. I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the routing of these substances, but that must remain a matter for British Rail as long as the vehicles used are fully safe.

The Minister and I have had considerable correspondence on this subject, especially about the carriage of these substances in the East End of London in peak hours. Is it true that at no time has anyone discussed the matter with the trade unions in the railways, fire brigades and safety services? Surely the matter should first be discussed with those who are doing the handling as they must handle the material in an emergency.

I always look forward with pleasure to my correspondence with the hon. Gentleman. I am assured that consultations have taken place, where appropriate. The fire and emergency services are aware of the procedures that exist if an emergency ever occurs. But there has not been one in 17 years.

Of course there has not. There is always a first time.

There is no danger whatever to the public travelling in London at peak hours.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied with the present standard of service on British Railways commuter lines.

No. There is undoubtedly room for improvement.

I am grateful for that reply. In view of the difficulties and hardships suffered by commuters in the past five years, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be no autumn rise in fares this year?

The board announced that it plans to freeze rail fares for the remainder of this year provided that fuel prices remain reasonably stable. The chairman of British Rail has paid tribute to the Budget measures in helping him to come to that conclusion.

Does the Minister agree that what is required is greater investment in British Rail to enable it to build new rolling stock and carry out a programme of modernisation? That is the way to improve the lot of the commuter.

Yes. Obviously, investment is one part of it, but service is another part. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of the railway industry, welcomes the initiative of Sir Peter Parker in working to develop a commuters' charter in which a standard of service is laid down for railway passengers.

Will my right hon. Friend take a closer interest in the problems of commuters, the failure of trains to run properly to time, the dirty condition of trains and sometimes the cancellations that cause great anxiety and difficulty to commuters? Will he try to do something about the matter together with the chairman of British Rail?

Yes. I certainly shall do all that I can to encourage better commuter services because I recognise the importance of what my hon. Friend has said. A common and useful way forward is the commuters' charter, which was put forward by the chairman of British Rail.

Is the Minister aware that arrears of repairs on the railways are considered to be the main cause of many delays to commuter passengers? Will he take into consideration what my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Johnson) said about investment? If we are to run trains on time, we must get investment right.

Clearly, investment is part of the key. We are now spending £45 million on new signalling equipment on the lines into Victoria, new rolling stock for commuter services is being built and the St. Pancras-Bedford line is being electrified. I agree that investment is a part, but it is only one part, of improving the service for the railway passengers, which is the common aim of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while many of my commuting constituents will be delighted with his robust and critical attitude concerning British Rail services, he would please them even more if he would make it clear that it is the Government's view that there should not be a bias in British Rail's finance against the captive inner London commuter as compared with the longer-distance traveller?

Pricing is a matter for British Rail, but I am sure that the chairman of British Rail has my hon. Friend's point particularly in mind.

Is the Minister aware that last May I had the good fortune to travel from an entirely new station in my constituency on a new service, from North Woolwich in Docklands to Camden Road in North London? Is he aware that since the oil crisis British Rail has withdrawn some of those services? Will he assure the House that there have been no withdrawals from British Rail's commuter or other services due to shortage of fuel?

In the main, commuter services have not been affected in any way by the fuel shortage, but I will look into the hon. Gentleman's point.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will bring forward the date of the construction of the A39 trunk road bypass of Wadebridge.

An outline feasibility study into possible routes has just been completed. When this has been examined, I shall consider whether the scheme can be included in the trunk road preparation pool. At this stage, it is too early to predict a possible start date.

May I impress on the Minister the fact that there were 3·4 million tourists corning into Cornwall last year, using only three major trunk routes, and that the Wadebridge bypass will bring urgent help to an area that is heavily congested with holiday traffic, and to the tourist industry generally?

I know of the concern felt in the area, and in particular I know of my hon. Friend's concern that the road should be expedited. The moment the Cornwall county council as agent has completed an outline feasibility study into the possibility of the bypass, I shall make sure that further work is continued as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Transport what action he has taken to ensure the maintenance of fuel supplies for the public transport undertakings for which he has responsibility.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has made clear to the House, all consumers of energy must play their part in meeting the target of a 5 per cent. reduction in demand. It should be possible for public transport operators to contribute to this saving without essential services being affected.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that the nation's need to cut back on oil consumption demands an increase in the use of public transport? Is it not the case that both British Rail and the National Bus Company have had to withdraw services as a result? Will he recognise that it is the job of the Government and not of the oil companies to ensure that there is essential fuel in the public sector? Will he take immediate action about it?

If by "immediate action" the hon. Gentleman means that I should introduce some form of direction or rationing, I must tell him that that is not the Government's position; nor do I think that it should be. I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in public transport systems. The present energy shortage, in its wider context, provides an opportunity for public transport to win new passengers. I know that both the chairman of British Rail and the chairman of the National Bus Company are conscious of the opportunity that the energy shortage produces for them.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in winning new passengers it is important that British Rail should not cut off old services? On the East Suffolk line, the opportunity afforded by these cuts has been taken to cut necessary services. Would it not be much more sensible to pressure British Rail to save fuel by properly organising the uses to which it is put rather than adopting a simple system of slashing services on lines that British Rail would rather like to close?

I think that my hon. Friend is unfair when he says that British Rail is slashing services, because that is clearly not the case. A number of off-peak and non-scheduled services have been withdrawn. I will look at his case, but the House should recognise that British Rail has not had to do the amount of cutting that at one stage it thought necessary.

Would the Minister like to explain how those local authorities which have the responsibility for clearing snow during the winter can effectively apply a 5 per cent. cut in fuel consumption? How on earth can public transport function if the roads are not cleared?

I do not think that that is one of the major problems at the moment.

asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the effect of increasing petrol and diesel oil costs on operating costs of public transport executive bus services, he will now seek to change at the earliest opportunity the licensing powers of the traffic commissioners so as to allow private enterprise operators to offer services in rural areas.

I am urgently examining ways of reforming the bus licensing system with the aim of allowing new ser- vices to develop. I believe that this will be to the benefit of rural areas.

Will the Minister further consider, once this is possible, issuing guidelines to local authorities to suggest further ways of encouraging private enterprise mini-coach services, particularly for rural areas?

I will consider that proposal. I believe that there is a great potential for the provision of new services in rural areas. As many of my hon. Friends who represent rural areas know, transport in those areas is often very unsatisfactory.

Is the Minister aware that he cannot have it both ways? He cannot undercut existing bus services by giving routes to cheap-rate private enterprise people and expect those existing bus services to remain viable. Will he please make sure that safety is the first matter that he bears in mind before he hands out any licences to cheapjack operators?

I have never sought in any way to depart from the safety standards of the bus licensing system, and I agree with the hon. Lady's remarks on that aspect. But she must recognise that there are inadequate services in many parts of the country and that it is sensible to encourage new operators to come forward to provide the necessary services.

In rural areas, will my right hon. Friend consider some alternative form of transport, such as horse transport, which is extremely economical?

I think that that comes under what my Department would call unconventional forms of transport. I will look at it.

Does the Minister agree that it is essential that public road transport should be encouraged as an intelligent response to the energy crisis? In view of that, will he tell the House whether he regards the policies and priorities of the South Yorkshire county council in that regard as desirable?

The South Yorkshire county council had its battles with the last Administration on that point. I regard public transport—and new public transport—as being extremely important at the present time.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to receive the report of the advisory committee on motor cycle training; and if he will make a statement.

I understand that the committee has now held its final meeting, and its report can be expected to be with my right hon. Friend very shortly.

In view of the accident record of motor cycles and the serious injuries sustained by their riders, will my hon. Friend, when he receives the report, give the highest priority, within the resources at his disposal, to increasing the availability of training facilities?

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says about the seriousness of the present motor cycle accident statistics. Once we have the report we shall be considering urgently what can be done to increase the number of people receiving professional training before they receive their full licence.

Would it not be an excellent contribution to road safety if people were forbidden to drive a motor cycle above 50 cc capacity until after they had passed the test?

We shall be looking at the present limit on the size of motor cycle avilable to those who have not passed a test. At the moment, the limit is 250 cc, but I am aware that some of the more modern vehicles can travel at up to 100 mph. I await the advice of the advisory committee on that topic.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects next to meet the French Minister of Transport.

I look forward to seeing him at the meeting of the Council of European Transport Ministers later this year.

When the Minister meets his French counterpart, will he—despite what was said in the House earlier this afternoon—congratulate him on authorising the final planning stage of the Channel tunnel? Does the Minister agree that there should be British Government support for this project, which, particularly at a time of energy crisis, has a major contribution to make in terms of international communication and will stop the ceaseless proliferation of European juggernauts on our roads?

I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter and I think that he has made an important point. I can only repeat that we shall come to a conclusion, as indeed the last Administration were also pledged to do, as soon as we possibly can but preferably before the end of the year, the target date set by the former Secretary of State.

Will my right hon. Friend take action in collaboration with the French Minister of Transport to achieve a reduction in the cost of air and sea transportation across the Channel, which is becoming an inhibition to trade between the two countries? In those consultations, will he take prompt action to reduce the growing bureaucracy of the Customs and Excise affecting passengers and trade transportation between Britain and France?

I shall look at both those points. The first certainly comes within my jurisdiction. I will talk about these matters with the French Minister.

If it is the Minister's intention to judge the Channel tunnel by reference to commercial profitability, will he inform the House what other major communication links he judges by that criterion?

All roads have exactly the same inbuilt economic return. However, as I was pressed by the hon. Gentleman's Front Bench spokesman to judge by that criterion, I assumed that he was in agreement.

Will my right hon. Friend, in considering once again the possibility of a Channel tunnel, bear in mind the fact that it would be necessary to reorganise our own rail system so that we could run vehicles right through Europe and into the heart of Britain, not ending in London as originally proposed? In order to obtain the benefit that many of us seek from a Channel tunnel, it will be necessary to spend a lot of money on British Rail.

The low-cost option, which is what the British Railways Board is putting forward, meets many objections that people have to the former scheme.

asked the Minister of Transport when the next White Paper on roads will be published.

We shall do so as soon as possible after the conclusion of current discussions on our public expenditure programme for the next few years. In the meantime, however, I will place in the Library copies of a statement of my policy on trunk roads. This will provide general guidance against which current decisions can be taken, and will be used as the formal statement of policy at inquiries into the route of proposed new or improved trunk roads.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however justified public expenditure cuts are in some areas, there is no case for further cuts in the road programme in view of the savage cuts made in recent years? Can he confirm that roads in Britain are more crowded than those of our international competitors, which argues for a bigger rather than a smaller road building programme?

I do not agree with either of the points made by my hon. Friend.

Did the Minister see the report in The Guardian this morning referring to the GLC's desire to circumvent the existing road building safeguards? Will he tell Sir Horace Cutler and his cronies at County Hall that we spent a long time having those safeguards built into the existing procedure and we do not want to see our democratic procedures undermined for the benefit of the road-building lobby?

Obviously, Sir Horace Cutler will hear what the hon. Gentleman has said on this matter. The procedure by which the GLC introduces a Private Bill is not a matter for the Government.

What priority will my right hon. Friend give to the completion of the M25 circular motorway around London?

The M25 will continue to be the first priority of the road building programme.

Will the Minister's statement include a section about those people who operate vital services, such as district nurses? Is the Minister aware that district nurses receive an allowance of only 8·4p per mile? Although it is not a matter for him, will the right hon. Gentleman ask his colleague to raise this allowance—and sharp? There are some nurses listening.

I am sure that the nurses whom the hon. Gentleman says are listening will not misunderstand me if I say that this matter in no way arises out of my White Paper on roads.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make estimates of the potential costs and benefits from policies designed to reduce variations in peak and off-peak travel on commuter roads and railways.

The costs and benefits vary so widely according to local circumstances that the available data preclude the preparation of meaningful national estimates.

I accept the difficulty of doing this on a national basis, but does my hon. Friend agree that the amount of congestion and waste of resources in London caused by rush hour traffic is quite appalling? As a first step, will he consider whether Government Departments might stagger working hours?

I entirely accept what my right hon. Friend says about the considerable waste of transport resources and other problems caused by peak hour travel in London. Certainly I agree that flexible and staggered hours make a valuable contribution, and most Government Departments are in the process of introducing flexible working hours wherever possible.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that President Carter is encouraging the use of public transport? Do we not need to look at the cost benefit of having an integrated transport service so that goods transported by juggernaut lorries are transferred to the railways and people are encouraged to travel by public transport?

I can only repeat what has been said already—that we appreciate the role of public transport. The public transport system of the Americans is deficient compared with our own. Our problems are not camparable with those of America. We already give priority to public transport where it is desirable and within the resources available.

Is it not rather unadventurous of British Rail to say "No" to the idea of reducing fares so as to attract more customers on all routes? Will my hon. Friend look at this again, because it seems very negative for British Rail to say that it is unconvinced of the merits of such a course of action?

British Rail has to make its own judgment about whether the proposed cuts in fares will generate enough additional traffic for it to maintain its financial targets. British Rail has a very wide range of fare bargains designed to appeal to travellers. The new family railcard is the latest example.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a further statement about his decision to institute an independent inquiry into lorries and their impact on the environment, with particular reference to the recent EEC draft directive.

I hope to make a further statement soon, when I will announce the form of the inquiry and its membership.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the country were to accept and implement the EEC draft directive on heavy lorries the lorries using our roads would need to be no wider, no higher and only 20 in. longer and that there would be no greater axle weight on the roads? If that is so, does my right hon. Friend agree that there are environmental arguments for having these heavier lorries since they would be able to take greater loads and thereby make fewer journeys?

I am aware that my hon. Friend has consistently expressed that view, but it is not a view that goes unchallenged in this House. I believed that the proper way to proceed was to have an independent inquiry into the use of heavy lorries. That is why we proceeded as we did, with the agreement of the Opposition.

Will the Minister stop prevaricating on this issue and give a very firm undertaking that he will not yield to the road haulage lobby and introduce heavier and larger lorries on to our already overcrowded roads?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we shall not make a decision before the independent inquiry has reported; otherwise, there would be no point in having an inquiry in the first place.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that if a larger vehicle is introduced there will probably be an additional axle? That would mean that the weight displacement and the damage caused to roads would actually be less.

My hon. Friend has put a fair point. It is obviously a view that is held by the industry. All the converse points that have been put show the wisdom of having an independent inquiry into this whole question.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the average time between applications for and the holding of driving tests in the metropolitan traffic area.

The average time is 33 weeks. This is far too long, and waiting times everywhere must be reduced. New examiners are being recruited and trained, despite the present moratorium on recruitment in the Civil Service. A thorough review of possible measures to improve the situation further is well under way.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in these summer months some of my constituents have been told that tests cannot be held after 4.15 p.m.? Is it also the case that tests are not being held on Saturdays, despite the accummulation of tests which should be held?

We are looking at what can be done to make the best use of the manpower that we have. My understanding is that full use is being made of our examiners within present limitations. I will inquire into the local matters referred to by my hon. Friend, but, of course, tests are not held at times and in places where traffic conditions are so severe that they might adversely affect the candidates.

Do I understand from the Minister's original reply that, notwithstanding the Government's cuts in public expenditure, if there is a need for extra expenditure it will be forthcoming?

We have a policy of recruiting civil servants where there is a need for them and not indiscriminately recruiting across the board. More important, the hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on the fact that these examiners are paid entirely from the fees charged to examinees. It is an entirely self-financing service, and no increase in public expenditure is involved.

Since there is a pressing need to reduce driving test delay times, and since there is also a requirement to reduce Government expenditure and not to recruit new civil servants, will my hon. Friend give serious consideration to transferring the responsibility for these tests to the AA and the RAC, which would carry them out perfectly well under Government supervision?

We are prepared to look at—indeed, we are looking at—every reasonable suggestion, but we must guard against anything that either reduces the standards of the testing applied or was even believed to reduce the standard of the tests required for the new driving licence applicants.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is satisfied with the progress made in reducing the size of the Civil Service; and if he will make a statement on the likely reduction in the next 12 months.

Yes. Adjusted cash limits for 1979–80 were published on 26 June, which provide for a 3 per cent. cut in Civil Service staff costs subject to certain limited exemptions. As regards further reductions, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) on 11 June.

Can the hon. Gentleman give specific figures on specific Departments, namely, the DHSS and the Department of Employment? Is he aware that there are increasing complaints from beneficiaries of supplementary benefit, child benefits and the like of a deteriorating service as a direct consequence of the policy of suspending recruitment to these Departments but increasing recruitment of driving examiners? Is not this a disgraceful policy? Will the hon. Gentleman have another look at the two Departments to which I have referred, since reductions in personnel result in delays in benefit payments?

Limited exemptions are for my right hon. Friends who are in charge of the Departments concerned. I am surprised to hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

Is the Minister aware that the reorganisation of resources is causing great concern? How will this affect the dispersal systems that are now operative under the Hardman report?

If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, there is a later question on that very point.

Will my hon. Friend consider the case for extending for a full year the moratorium on recruitment into the administrative Civil Service?

I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

Is the Minister aware that the freeze on Civil Service recruitment has disbarred public servants from participation in the job release scheme? Is he aware that one in six of the initial applicants for the job release scheme came from the Civil Service, and that about 35,000 civil servants are at present eligible but are, in effect, being prevented from participating in this scheme? Will the hon. Gentleman continue with the simplistic approach towards allowing people to leave the Civil Service?

I have already said that the Government are examining the recruitment ban for future action. The job release scheme has had to be put in abeyance for civil servants, because it has not been possible to meet the conditions of filling vacancies from the unemployment register.

Will the Minister confirm that he is at present reviewing cuts of 10 per cent., 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. in the level of expenditure in the Civil Service? Does this not mean, and will he make it clear when the announcement finally comes, that there will be substantial cuts in services and jobs? Does he accept that there will be stiff opposition from Labour Members to any such draconian cuts at a time of rising unemployment, and the utmost opposition to the cutting of central services for those who need protecting at a time of Government deflationary policies?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. It is true that Departments have been asked to identify options for savings amounting to 10 per cent., 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. in their relevant expenditure, but no decisions have been taken and the Government will make a further statement in the autumn.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what value is attributed to the entitlement to tax-free retirement bonuses linked to the value of the index-linked pension in the assessment of comparability for the purposes of Civil Service pay awards.

The pay research process is concerned with the differences between the total superannuation benefits of civil servants and of those in comparable employments. No specific value is, therefore, attributed to the lump sum retirement benefit, which is, in any case, a common feature of occupational pension schemes.

That is a surprising reply. Can my hon. Friend recall off- hand any private company that would be allowed by the Inland Revenue to pay £35,000 free of tax to a retiring employee who, no doubt, would go off to take supernumerary employment as chairman of the Midland Bank or some such emporium? Are there any examples in the private sector that compare with this?

I am advised that this scheme follows the rules which many occupational pension schemes in both the public and private sectors follow. Indeed, under this scheme, employees are permitted to obtain a lump sum not exceeding in value three-eightieths of final remuneration for each year in service. That is not dissimilar from many schemes in both the public and private sectors. Taxation is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and is laid down under the Inland Revenue rules.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what discussions he has had with leaders of the trade unions covering the Civil Service with a view to securing a no-strike agreement within the Civil Service.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave him yesterday.

It was a surprise to me when I got an answer twice. There is a feeling among the general public that the limited agreement that my hon. Friend is seeking to reach does not go far enough. There is a feeling among the public that the public service is no longer—

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must ask a question and not give information.

Is the Minister aware that the public feel that the public service generally, including the Civil Service, now goes on strike too easily at the drop of a file? If the Civil Service wants the privileges and all the advantages that it possesses, it should show loyalty to the public and to the Crown.

I have a great deal of sympathy with that view. As I said to my hon. Friend yesterday, I hope that it may be possible to conclude no-strike agreements in a few essential services. We shall certainly examine the position of the Civil Service in the light of this decision.

Does the Minister accept that a fundamental part of democracy is the right to strike? Is he also aware that within the engineering profession of the Civil Service there is a great deal of ill feeling at the way that the Government are handling its pay claim? If the Government wish to create a society based on good engineers and scientists, why do they not settle this claim?

There is a later question on that very point. I note the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman in the first part of his question. There is also some obligation on those in the public sector to try to serve the public and not to inconvenience it if it can genuinely be avoided.

Whatever the idea of a no-strike agreement may be, what sort of sanction does my hon. Friend think he can write into such an agreement, and how enforceable would such a sanction be?

Those are some of the problems that I have in mind, and I shall seek my hon. and learned Friend's advice before proceeding further.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement about the review of dispersal policy.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is satisfied with the job dispersal scheme; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is satisfied with the job dispersal scheme; and if he will make a statement.

I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friends to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) on 11 June.

Is the Minister aware that the review which he is carry- ing out has caused deep disappointment in the recipient areas in the regions of this country? Will he, therefore, remember that any cuts in programmes of dispersal to the regions will be regarded as reneging on promises that have been made to the regions in the past, and that any short-term public expenditure gains that might be achieved as a result of cuts in the dispersal programme would be at the cost of massive public expenditure gains in the long term, which would go on accruing into the foreseeable future?

I shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says and consider it during the course of the review.

Does my hon. Friend accept that 30 years of dispersal of jobs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—around the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—I am not reading—have left the capital without jobs and homes? Will he make a statement aimed at reversing that policy?

That view has been expressed to me very forcefully by London Members from all quarters of the House, and it is also a factor to be borne in mind.

Does my hon. Friend realise that those areas of the country to which population has been dispersed would he only too happy if that population were allowed to remain within London and the jobs and houses were provided within London?

That is a view that I have had to consider, and we are bearing all these considerations in mind.

Is the Minister aware that the overcrowding that will take place in London and the South-East as the Conservative Government's policies start to bite will denude areas such as Yorkshire and Humberside? It is putting back the clock to squeeze people into a part of the country that at present has a sufficiently large population and enough wealth.

Again, I note the hon. Gentleman's view. It is violently different from views expressed by other hon. Members, including those on the Labour Benches.