asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the proposal to abolish the motor vehicle licence.

I have already made clear that various proposals concerning the future of vehicle excise duty are under examination. The Government will announce their decision in due course.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a switch in tax direct to petrol would gain the Revenue about £60 million a year from those at present evading the tax? Will he remind the House of the administrative savings that would result? Does he accept the argument in support of energy conservation that would come from the fresh incentive not only to the motor manufacturers to produce more economical cars but to the consumers who might buy them?

Administrative savings and energy conservation have been very much in mind in the review. However, the energy considerations have decreased slightly in importance because of the increase in petrol prices since the previous Labour Government's proposals were published.

Is the Minister prepared to give any weight to the consequent loss of 800 job opportunities in an area of high unemployment? The employment structure of that area already has been threatened seriously by the Government's policy on steel and the withdrawal of regional development grants.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have had talks with members of the department in Swansea. I am sure that it is the wish of both sides of the House that administrative savings should be made in that area.

asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the serious backlog of road repairs in the West Yorkshire county council area and the consequent cost to the industrial economy, he will take special measures to enable the highway authorities to reduce these arrears of work.

I accept that there may be a backlog of road repairs in the county, but that should be considered within the normal transport supplementary grant arrangements.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will be most disappointing to the Conservative dominated authorities of West Yorkshire? They are hoping to recoup the backlog of road repairs by virtue of the fact that they have been seeking strenuously to attract industry from both home and abroad. They are inhibited from doing so by the state of the roads in West Yorkshire. Will the hon. Gentleman please reconsider his answer?

I have said already that that problem will be considered as part of the transport supplementary grant arrangements. In finalising this year's transport supplementary grant settlement, we realise that many counties face difficulties with highway maintenance. If they make that a priority in their bids, we shall reflect that to some extent in the grants.

asked the Minister of Transport what is his policy towards provincial rail services.

I am considering currently how best to safeguard and develop rural public transport, and I am considering the views recently put to me by the Central Transport Consultative Committee about how best to maintain the existing rural rail network. But I have always made it clear that I can see no case for a further round of Beeching cuts.

How is "Beeching" defined in this context? Is the Minister saying seriously that the article in TheGuardian today is a complete figment of some civil servant's imagination, or that he was unaware of what was being done behind his back by civil servants in his Department? Is the Minister aware that if any cuts on the scale suggested in The Guardian go ahead, they will be fought all the way by the Opposition? We hope to be joined in that by many Conservative Members whose rural constituents would become more isolated if the cuts were to go ahead than they have been for a century.

Let me make it absolutely clear that the report in The Guardian is untrue. I read it with astonishment. As I have hold the House, I see no case for another round of massive cuts in the railways. I have no list of passenger services for closure such as is printed in The Guardian. There have been no secret talks between my officials and the Railways Board to discuss any such list of closures. I deplore the groundless anxiety caused by such inaccurate reports.

Can my right hon. Friend assure me, if there are not to be massive cuts, that at least he will not cut the Watford to St. Albans line, which is a very convenient alternative to those who find the electrification of the St. Pancras to Bedford line, with its bad timekeeping at the moment, rather inconvenient?

There are no proposals of that kind. The statutory position is that British Rail cannot withdraw a passenger service or close a passenger station without my consent. The House may be reassured to know that the only cases currently in the statutory procedure are the Board's proposal to withdraw the rail service connecting to the Humber ferry when the new bridge opens, and its proposal to divert a service from Kentish Town to Gospel Oak on the North London line.

Without commenting further on the accuracy or otherwise of the article in The Guardian, will the Minister give an assurance that if 900 or so miles of railway line were ever to be cut, he would consider it to be a resigning matter?

I would certainly consider it to be a disaster, and that is why I have made it clear that it is not the Government's intention to do so.

In order that the House may take a slightly less emotional view of this topic, will the Minister supply details of the subsidy paid per passenger mile to rail as opposed to that paid to bus services? Would it not be a good idea to examine this matter in detail in relation to these rural lines?

Currently, the Government provide British Rail with more than £700 million a year, which is more than £2 million a day. Last week provision for the support of the passenger railway was reduced by £22 million, of which £9 million was decided by this Government and £13 million by the previous Government.

May we take it from what the Minister said that he has an understanding with British Rail that it will accept the £22 million cut in Government provision without any withdrawal of passenger services? The House is not satisfied that what are called rural passenger services in this context are a minority interest. They cover a vast number of towns and cities. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the report just completed by the Policy Studies Institute into the effects of withdrawal of rural rail services will be available for study by Members of Parliament before any announcements are made about changes in the network?

I shall look into the second matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman. On the first one, obviously it is a matter for British Rail to decide how it should live within the cash limits. Sir Peter Parker sent me the Board's 1979 corporate review on 25 October. It contains financial evaluations of a number of options drawn up by the Board at the end of last year. They include an option on closing some services. However, as I believe has been made clear before, they were options. Certainly no decisions have been taken, and I have not even discussed the position yet with the chairman of the Board, since it arose only at the end of October.

rose—

Order. I shall call one more hon. Member from each side. We shall then have had a good run on this question.

Whatever may be the policy about rural services, and I accept what my right hon. Friend said, will he take this opportunity to reaffirm that it is no part of this Government's policy to preside over a still further deterioration of London commuter services, especially when we are faced with a 20 per cent. increase in season tickets?

It is no part of my intention to preside over the deterioration of British Rail services, and that is central to our policy.

Is the Minister aware that the cuts already made in Scotland under the Beeching plan left us with services far below an acceptable minimum? Is he aware, further, that the bus services in lieu mostly never materialised, and that where they did they have since disappeared? In many areas, the railway provides the only means of contact, particularly during inclement weather. Will the right hon. Gentleman repel any suggestions from British Rail that these should be cut further?

I have already made my position clear on proposals for a Beeching type cut, and it is for British Rail, if it wants to put forward suggestions for bus substitution on one or two services, to do so if it wishes.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a further statement on the Armitage inquiry into heavy lorries.

asked the Minister of Transport what progress the Armitage inquiry into heavy lorries has made to date.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will extend the closing date for submissions to the Armitage inquiry on lorries and their impact on the environment.

Sir Arthur Armitage has been receiving written evidence from organisations and from individual members of the public since August. He has asked that it reach him by 9 November if possible, but I understand that he will be happy to consider any evidence submitted after that date, provided that it is received by the end of the year. He is asking for other evidence on specific matters as he sees fit.

Will my hon. Friend take account of the considerable concern of a large number of people in the large conurbations and other areas about the disturbance caused by very large lorries and the effect that these vehicles have on property in terms of subsidence?

I am in no doubt whatever about the strength of feeling on the subject in many urban areas and market towns. The problem of dealing with that is one of the matters that are before Sir Arthur Armitage.

Is the Minister aware that the House will appreciate the extension beyond this month of the time limit for acceptance of representations? Does he recognise that it would have been unreasonably swift to have imposed a November time limit on representations to an inquiry which was announced only after Parliament rose for the Summer Recess? Will the Minister give a guarantee that the finding of his Transport and Road Research Laboratory that the damage to the towns referred to is caused by the noise of heavy lorries which creates vibration will be available to the inquiry?

Everyone is anxious that no evidence should be excluded on grounds of procedure or time. Sir Arthur Armitage has decided to extend the time for that reason. The evidence and information produced by the TRRL and its reports will be made available to the inquiry.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the best contribution that he can make to reducing the nuisance caused by heavy lorries in South-East London is to get on with the construction of the M25 there?

Motorways have made a great contribution to taking a lot of heavy traffic out of towns and villages. Our number one priority in the national road building programme is the M25. That will have a significant effect in relieving large areas of outer London of traffic which is too heavy for existing roads.

Will Sir Arthur Armitage be considering in any way the impact of the Channel tunnel project in so far as it affects the inquiry?

My right hon. Friend has already announced that the Cairncross inquiry will be looking at all aspects of the Channel tunnel project.

In view of the amount of very proper public concern about the safety of heavy lorries, is the Minister aware that great dismay will be caused by a proposal now being considered in his Department that the routine inspection of heavy lorries and public service vehicles should be hived off to the private sector? Is he aware that this will cause much alarm and ought to be dropped?

Nothing is being considered in the Department that will reduce the safety requirements imposed on vehicles. Any proposals that are made will bear in mind the need to ensure that the present high standards are maintained.

asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has to introduce unmanned automatic level crossings.

I announced on 25 October my acceptance of the main conclusions of the joint Department of Transport and British Rail working party on level crossing protection. In doing so, I approved new standards for level crossings. That will enable British Rail to bring forward proposals to install new unmanned automatic crossings which are safer, cheaper and more effective than the old gated sort.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement on that date received a wide welcome from all parts of the community? I pay tribute to the many hundreds of level crossing keepers who do a good job, but does my right hon. Friend agree that all the statistical evidence shows that unmanned crossings are safer?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right. All the evidence shows that the number of accidents occurring at level crossings should be reduced rather than increased by the measure.

asked the Minister of Transport what proposals have been put to him for major capital investment in the railway line from Sheffield to Manchester via Woodhead.

asked the Minister of Transport if he has been notified by the Railways Board of any decision regarding the future of the Sheffield-Woodhead-Manchester railway line.

I have received no investment proposals in respect of this line, nor have I been notified of any decision regarding its future.

Is the Minister aware that this is the most modern of the four trans-Pennine tunnels? It is the only one that is capable of taking modern container traffic, and its electric cable could be renewed for £3 million over a period of five years. In those circumstances, would it not be mad to contemplate closing the line?

Those are operating considerations which British Rail judges, in deciding how best to deal with trans-Pennine freight traffic. The line is electrified, but not to the same system as the remainder of the network. In terms of the investment that may be required to modernise it, the hon. Gentleman should remember that British Rail has to decide on its priorities. Those may not always be freight lines that are duplicated by other routes.

Will the Minster accept that editorials in the local press in Sheffield and in other cities have complained that the decision has been taken to close one of the first electrified lines and the first great railway tunnel in the world? Will he also accept that, to the people of the great conurbation of South Yorkshire, that seems to demonstrate a lack of faith in the people in the area—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I am asking a question. Will the Minister accept from me that people believe that, because of the wretched disgrace of the line from London to Sheffield through Nottingham and Derby, they are being badly treated?

The press reports on the decision probably emanated from TheGuardian, which announced that the decision was taken a fortnight ago. The Board assures me that it is embarking upon a wider process of consultation and that no decision has been reached. I am aware of the discontent that is felt in Sheffield about rail services generally, and I have been in correspondence with hon. Members representing Sheffield constituencies about the Board's proposals for bringing high-speed trains and other improvements to the area.

I understand the emotional attachment that might be felt to the Woodhead tunnel, but is not it strange to hear from Opposition Members, who profess to believe in integrated transport, that they are upset about a decision which is an attempt to integrate the various transport systems between the two cities?

I hope that we all agree that a decision has to be taken by the Railways Board, whose members are the experts on management problems. It must decide how to provide the best and most economic freight service for the development of the freight railway business as a whole.

When the Minister talked about opposing line closures, was he including the Woodhead line from Manchester to Sheffield?

My right hon. Friend confirmed that we had received no proposals for closure of passenger services. We are in no discussions with the Board about such closures. The future of freight-only lines is a matter for the Board alone. Ministers play no part in it, and we would not normally be notified of such decisions.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that existing regulations governing the safety requirements of coaches available for public hire are adequate.

Generally, yes, but my right hon. Friend is preparing certain improvements in relation to future production of new vehicles on braking standards, emergency exits and strength of superstructures.

I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful reply. Will he confirm that in relaxing bus and coach licensing laws, which I support warmly, he will do nothing to imperil the safety of passengers?

I am happy to give that assurance. Our proposals will not weaken the quality control that is exercised through the licensing system. It is the quantity side of the system which is too restrictive and out of date for modern requirements.

Is the Minister aware that a large number of coaches for public hire that are used in the evenings, and sometimes return in the early hours of the morning, are driven by people who have done a full day's work in another capacity? Is he satisfied that the safety regulations are adequate in that respect?

I accept that the hon. Gentleman points out a weakness in the drivers' hours regulations. At the moment, they take no account of that factor. It is difficult to devise a workable system to cover the problem, but we are anxious to have a look at any worthwhile suggestions to improve the matter.

Will my hon. Friend go further than he did in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) and say that, when he encourages further competition in excursion, express and tour services, he will bear in mind that more rigorous safety standards than apply at the moment are needed? Will he give consideration to improving general safety standards for the protection of the public against sub-standard and badly maintained vehicles?

The details will have to await the publication of the Bill. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we do not propose to weaken the requirements on operators. They should be capable of maintaining their fleets in a proper condition. The inspection of vehicles to ensure that they are fit for public service will not be weakened.

asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has re- ceived about his proposals for bus de-licensing.

asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received about his proposals for bus de-licensing.

Since my proposals for relaxing the bus licensing system were published in August, I have received representations from the trade unions, the local authority associations, the bus and coach operators and many other organisations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his proposals constitute a massive threat to the future of bus services in rural areas? Is it not the case that the inevitable result of the proposals will be the entry of cowboy operators who will cream off the profits on the most popular routes, leaving no cash for the National Bus Company to provide bus services out of its resources?

The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. The aim of the proposals is to encourage new services to develop. The Guardian leader this morning stated that the best hope

"for rural areas lies in the liberating provisions of the Government's proposed Transport Bill".

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his proposals for bus de-licensing will mean that in rural areas small operations will be improved? In my constituency, one area's service is only two buses a month, which come under the traffic commissioners. They force the buses to stop only three times on seven miles of road in the village of Badinghani—they may not pick up more than that number of times altogether. Will he confirm that that sort of service will cease and that we shall be able to provide the community with the service it wants?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's remarks. In many rural areas, the bus services are inadequate and, in some cases, non-existent. We hope that we shall be able to encourage new operators to come forward.

Will the Minister indicate when the Bill will be published with the bus licensing proposals? Does he agree that it would be unrealistic to expect British Rail to be able to make arrangements with the National Bus Company for it to take over feeder services on loss-making routes while a major doubt hangs over any protection which exists for National Bus Company licensing, in order that British Rail can cross-subsidise such routes?

We have held full consultations with the bus industry and the National Bus Company. The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the Bill will be published during the course of the next two weeks.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why there must be change is the restrictive attitude of the National Bus Company, with its near monopoly, in objecting to literally every reasonable and inventive proposal to improve rail transport?

My hon. Friend puts forward an additional argument why reform is necessary. The bus licensing laws were set down in 1930. It is not revolutionary to suggest that they now need reform.

Does the Minister expect any private operator to undertake an unremunerative bus service? That being so, the unremunerative services will still rest in the responsibility of the National Bus Company. Are we not therefore making it more difficult than ever for the National Bus Company to make a profit and striking a mortal blow at the nationalised service?

We are certainly not striking a mortal blow at the service. We are allowing county councils to be free to give revenue support to operators to run unprofitable services. The change will be that under this system those councils will have a much greater choice than at present.

asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has to reform the system and administration of motoring offences; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Transport if he has any pro- posals to make on the subject of road traffic offences.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on any progress which he has made for plans to reform the system of motoring offences.

A review of road traffic law is long overdue. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have decided to examine those areas of the law which are of the most practical importance and on which we can expect to make quick progress. We have therefore selected the fixed penalty system and the totting-up procedure for a joint review with representatives of the bodies which administer the laws. Others such as the motoring organisations also have a contribution to make and will be consulted. I am placing a copy of the terms of reference in the Library.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but I wonder whether he could give some indication of the categories of offence that would qualify for the totting-up procedure and how he feels that this would assist in the administration of justice?

This is how it will assist. Under the important review that I announced, we shall examine proposals, such as the points system for traffic offences which operates in West Germany and Australia, and see whether they are suitable for inclusion in this country.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the review is welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House? Is he aware further that such a review—I believe it is evident from what he said—will include a "spot" penalty system? Does he agree that such a system, to be considered in the review, would be much more easily enforceable if everyone was obliged to carry a secure driving licence when driving, which would cut out the present widespread evasion?

Let me make it clear to my hon. Friend, to whose knowledge in this area I pay tribute, that we do not intend to consider the case for on-the-spot fines. We are examining how the ticket system may be extended. We intend to examine that area.

Would my right hon. Friend be surprised to learn that, because of the existing archaic system where one offence is similar to another for the purposes of totting up, in my constituency a young man of 21, who has been a member of St. John Ambulance since the age of 9, was denied even an interview for a job as an ambulance driver as he had one minor driving offence on his licence? That is unjust, unfair and unnecessary. Is my right hon. Friend aware of that?

The review, which is long overdue, will be welcomed by the public, by the type of motorist to whom my hon. Friend refers, and by the police and the magistrates in particular, who are weighed down by the traffic offences with which they deal.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement about the review, as far as it goes, but will the Minister explain why he is not proposing to review the chaotic state of the law on drink and driving, especially in view of the continued tragic part that drink plays in a substantial number of deaths and injuries on the road?

If the hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the Order Paper he will see that there is a later question on that subject.

Has the Minister estimates of how many offences are committed by drivers of untaxed vehicles and how many untaxed vehicles there are?

I do not have that information with me. However, I shall provide it for the hon. Gentleman.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Can he confirm that the review will cover the possibility of introducing fixed penalty fines for minor motoring offences such as speeding?

That is in the fixed penalty area. Where the fixed penalty area should extend to is at the centre of this review.

Does the Minister accept that in adjusting our laws to the present European requirements, our lorry drivers will be required to work up to 16 hours—five more than under the present regulations? In his review, will he consider the anomalies that exist as a result of imposing a European uniformity in our laws, and the differences in the penalties lorry-drivers face in this country and Europe for the same offence?

I am prepared to look at the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, but not, I fear, in this review. We have kept the scope of the review deliberately narrow so that we may make the quickest possible progress. I am sure that many lorry drivers in this country welcome the review.

asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has to improve commuter rail services.

This is, in the first place, the responsibility of the British Railways Board, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will have welcomed the recent announcement of the Government's intention to refer London commuter services to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Will my right hon. Friend at least take up with the chairman of British Rail the future of commuter fares to ensure that, when the next increase takes place, the commuters do not suffer disproportionately as they did the previous time the fare increases were made?

As my hon. Friend will know, I made it clear—I again make it clear on this occasion—that I did not favour the weighting against commuters. The Board must decide the weighting of any fares increase for itself.

Reverting to the question of commuter rail service cessations or closures, the House was pleased to hear that the article in The Guardian was incorrect. However, it will not be quite so pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrowin-Furnace (Mr. Booth), which seemed to throw some doubt on it. The difference between options and proposals is not altogether clear. If the options are to close some services, which were mentioned in the article in The Guardian, given what the Minister said about their disastrous consequences, will he say now whether he will turn down such proposals?

I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that no list of services due for closure has been put to my Department. I must rest on that. The right hon. Gentleman will find that British Rail is making a similar statement today.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the commuters in my constituency are fed up to the back teeth with the ever deteriorating service? They are reaching the point that, if there is a 20 per cent. increase next year, that will be the last straw. Will he say why the commuters in my constituency must subsidise London commuters?

Because they voted Tory.

I understand the concern of my hon. Friend, who has consistently put the point of view of the commuters in the House. I hope that he will regard it as a constructive step by this Government to put the commuter services under the first stringent examination of efficiency by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

And shut it down?

Will the Minister accept that it is difficult to organise commuter services so that they pay because of the millions of pounds worth of capital assets, which do nothing for 19 hours out of 24, needed to run the hon. Gentleman's constituents to their offices by 9 a.m.? Bearing in mind that the Government believe that people and industry should pay their way, will the Minister tell his hon. Friends to stop squealing? Does he agree that commuter services do not even remotely pay their way?

I advise my hon. Friends to keep up the pressure on this subject. The efficiency of British Rail is a matter of importance to hon. Members on both sides of the House of Commons.

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the fact that a large number of trains are not running because of a shortage of guards? Will he ask British Rail to concentrate on this matter?

I know that the chairman of British Rail is very much aware of that position and is trying to improve it.

If the right hon. Gentleman insists on a cut in the passenger services obligation which, as he fairly said, was on top of a cut by the previous Government, and if he is to discourage British Rail from increasing fares to certain sections of passengers, how does he expect British Rail to meet that deficit without going for the kind of closures over which the right hon. Gentleman has said he does not wish to preside?

I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly. In the words of the chairman of British Rail when he took over the job, an improvement in the efficiency and productivity of British Rail is the rock upon which the future of British Rail is based. I hope that both sides of the House agree.

asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received concerning the unilateral decision of the Wiltshire county council to end the highways agency arrangement with the Thamesdown borough council.

Apart from those by the hon. Member, only one letter, forwarded to Ministers by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham).

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that members of Thamesdown borough council, both Labour and Tory, are incensed over the cavalier treatment that they have received at the hands of Wiltshire county council? The removal of the agency arrangement will not assist the administration of roads in Thamesdown. Does he not agree that removal of the arrangement is a blatant attempt by the county council to circumvent the hon. Gentleman's own code of practice which he expects to be instituted?

I cannot get involved in the details of a dispute between one county council and a district council. We are not happy with the present agency arrangements and the disputes that occur. As the hon. Gentleman says, we have set up a working party involving the local authority associations to produce a code of practice in order to avoid these disputes and to make the agency arrangements work more smoothly. I hope that this will soon come to a satisfactory conclusion and that this kind of dispute will be avoided.

When thought is being given to whether an agency arrangement should be entered into, or continued, does my hon. Friend not agree that the overriding consideration should be value for the ratepayer's money?

That should be almost the one and only consideration in these matters. But there is a wide range of practice all over the country. A number of disputes have arisen between major counties and some of their districts. We hope to set up a method of resolving disputes that will not give rise to so much trouble and that will enable councils to concentrate on giving value for money.

asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has for the National Freight Corporation.

asked the Minister of Transport what is his policy on the sale of shares in the National Freight Corporation.

asked the Minister of Transport what is his policy on the sale of shares in the National Freight Corporation.

I intend to bring forward legislation very shortly enabling me to change the corporation into a limited company with a view to selling the controlling interest to private investors.

Have these proposals been approved by the National Freight Corporation board? Will some shares be available for employees?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am glad to be able to tell him that the board has welcomed my proposal to introduce equity capital to the National Freight Corporation. We will want to make shares available to staff of the NFC.

Will the Minister explain why, in May, he was talking about a minority private share in NFC, why, in August, he was talking about a majority private share and why, three weeks later in September, he was talking of the whole NFC being sold off to private industry? What guarantee can he give that he will not hive off other subsidiary companies of British Rail, such as Sealink, British Transport Hotels and British Rail Engineering Limited?

I have always tried to make clear that my concern is to get the National Freight Corporation into the private sector. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's comments on my previous position are accurate. I have been absolutely frank about what I intended. That remains the aim and intention of the Government.

asked the Minister of Transport if he intends to bring forward proposals to shorten the preparation times for road schemes.

I have no proposals at present for major changes in procedures, but I am taking some steps to speed up our administrative processes and eliminate some unnecessary work. The main delay is caused by the procedures of consultation and public inquiry, but these are beginning to work better and win greater public acceptance, and I would not wish to reduce the open debate on schemes which they now produce.

Will my hon. Friend try to concentrate his priorities on gaps in our motorway system between motorways and also on stretches of road that have exceptionally bad accident records? Is he beginning to note a swing back in the pendulum from overt insistence on listening to absolutely anyone who has an axe to grind, whatever his motives?

Those are all factors that have to be borne in mind in assessing priorities. Our main priorities remain the M25 and then the major routes between industrial centres and the ports. Most representations that I receive are from those who want roads to relieve environmental and other problems. We must not conduct the system in such a way that we disregard the wishes of those who want to make representations about the adverse effects that some road schemes can cause.

Does the Minister not agree that delays that have taken place in the West Midlands, where 36 miles of motorway have been built in 10 years, are disgraceful? In view of the fact that each year there is a massive under-spend on road building, will he have discussions with the Treasury to see whether more starts can be made, so that the amount allocated can be spent?

Delays are often caused by deep divisions in public opinion. In the West Midlands, in particular, great passions are aroused for and against the motorway schemes that are proposed. We are anxious to spend the right amount of money on improving the road system, but various factors intrude, not least the British weather, which make difficult the task of calculating precisely each year the amount that will be spent by the end of the financial year on road schemes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that residents of Harrow and North-West London are waiting impatiently for the completion of the outer orbital road, particularly because of its beneficial effect in diverting heavy lorries? Will he see whether completion of that project can be accelerated?

Very good progress is being made with the M25. In a year or two, subject to statutory procedures being completed, long stretches should be under construction all round London.

asked the Minister of Transport what progress is being made with implementing the proposals of the Blennerhasset committee on drinking and driving.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a further statement about the proposals of the Blennerhasset report on drinking and driving.

I shall shortly be publishing a consultation paper with a view to legislation setting out the Government's provisional views on the recommendations in the report.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer as a step in the right direction. But the Blennerhasset report was published four years ago. In the interval, thousands of people have been killed or injured on the roads in circumstances where alcohol was a major factor. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent warning of the Royal College of Psychiatrists that we are facing a crisis of endemic proportions in respect of alcohol abuse? Will he speed up the consultation process which began under the previous Government and ensure quick and speedy action?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the seriousness of this question. I believe that this attitude is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The consultation document that we are publishing was not started by the previous Government. It is intended to set out our views with a view to legislation. There are a number of issues, such as the proposal for unrestricted powers to test, on which we want to hear the public's view. It is important that any legislation that arises should be absolutely right. That is our intention.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this committee produced irrefutable evidence that the breathalyser legislation had had no effect whatever upon the incidence of alcohol as a causative factor in road accidents?

The right hon. Gentleman should also understand that alcohol and drunken driving are a major cause of road accidents. It is incumbent on this Government to take the action that I am proposing.

Will the Minister confirm that the last year for which statistics are available shows that 40 per cent. of drivers killed in motor accidents were at the time over the limit with alcohol? In that light, how can he possibly welcome the sale of alcohol at motorway service stations?

I confirm the figure that the hon. Gentleman gave. On his second point, given my statement that there is no such proposal—a statement which is in Hansard and which has been made clear—I am surprised that he should be so behind the times as not to understand the position.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress he has made with his review of the computation of the value of the index-linked pension for purposes of Civil Service pay determination.

The Government believe that the valuation of pensions in determining Civil Service pay should be subject to outside scrutiny and that this can best be done by the independent Pay Research Unit Board which reports on the work of the Pay Research Unit. We are in touch with the board's chairman, Lord Shepherd, and the national staff side with the aim of arranging for the board to receive and report both on the Government Actuary's assumptions and on his assessments of the appropriate adjustment for the 1980 pay settlement. Both reports will be published.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, so far as it goes, but does he accept that the basic problem is that, at present, on the basis of the last public expenditure White Paper, the taxpayer is subsidising a benefit for the public employee which is totally unobtainable from private insurance and that the purpose must be to ensure that the system is fully self-financing and that the £400 million a year from the taxpayer is eliminated?

As my hon. Friend knows, I am responsible only for the pay and pensions of the Civil Service. Index-linked pensions relate to much wider groups in the public sector—including nurses, policemen, doctors, members of the Armed Forces and even Members of Parliament.

By how much is the pay of civil servants reduced on account of the pension scheme of which they are members? How much will the new scheme cost? Does it show any lack of confidence in the work of the Government Actuary?

It certainly shows no lack of confidence in the work of the Government Actuary, who is now asked to have his work reviewed by the Pay Research Unit Board. Civil servants pay approximately 7 per cent., in a variety of ways, for their pensions—

No, 2·6 per cent.

The figure of 2·6 per cent. is but one of the deductions made. The total is about 7 per cent. I do not think that the new system will cost any more—or, if it does, it will be very little.

But is there not a real danger that, if there are to be years of recession and high inflation at the same time, a large gap will develop between those retired people who enjoy inflation-proofed pensions and those in work who have to pay for them? In those circumstances, will the Minister consider discussing with the leaders of the Civil Service unions the possibility of limiting inflation proofing to 10 per cent. a year—which would be comparable to many private sector pension schemes—and of civil servants paying a realistic deduction from their wages for that limited inflation proofing?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that that should be done in isolation. If it were done, it would have to be done to nurses, policemen, Members of Parliament, teachers, and local government officers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] If that is the view of the House, I shall certainly discuss it with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Is the Minister aware that the 1974 agreement requires the Government to give six months' notice to the unions of changes of this kind? Can he explain why, instead of six months, he has given only two days' notice? Is this not a cavalier way to run industrial relations with the Civil Service?

I am surprised by what the hon. Gentleman says. We are hoping to discuss this matter in consultation with the national staff side. I cannot believe that any reasonable man could object to an independent assessment of a problem which causes public concern. That is in the interests of the general public and of the Civil Service itself.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received regarding the limitations placed on retiring civil servants joining the boards of companies with which they have been dealing.

None, Sir.

Does the Minister accept that there is considerable concern, of which there are many examples, about the way in which senior civil servants—permanent secretaries, deputy secretaries and so forth—have under Governments of both parties been able to move sweetly from the Civil Service into lush jobs in private enterprise? Does he not agree that senior civil servants retire on lush pensions, that the least they can do is stay retired, and that, especially when handling contracts worth millions of pounds or handling huge quantities of money, they should not, as is possible, pave their way when in the Civil Service, either in the Ministry of Defence or the Department of Industry, into the board rooms?

The last Government reviewed the rules relating to business appointments and provided that whenever a civil servant within two years of leaving the service proposed to go to a firm with which he had special relationships or extensive contractual dealings, certain procedures had to be followed. Those rules were laid down by the previous Government. I have received no evidence which would lead me to believe that they should not be tried further before any change is made.

Why is it that business men who continually complain about the incompetence of civil servants are so anxious to recruit them when they leave the Civil Service, unless it is to buy information which they could not otherwise get?

I think that that suggestion is reprehensible. If the hon. Member is suggesting that there is any evidence of impropriety in the present practice, I might point out that the rules were laid down by his own Government, when I believe he was still in office, and that we have had no reason to change our minds about them.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service when next he will be meeting representatives of the Civil Service staff side of the Whitley Council.

I am meeting them constantly, Sir.

When the Minister next meets the representatives from the staff side, will he let them know what decisions the Government have reached in their consideration of 10, 15 or 20 per cent. cuts in the work of the Civil Service? Will he accept that the Government's failure to make decisions in this area is damaging morale even more within the Civil Service?

I certainly accept that decisions have to be made in the near future. The Government have always said that we would be making a statement in the autumn. We still intend to do so.

When the Minister nexts meets the Whitley Council, will he point out the difference between pension schemes within the Civil Service and pension schemes in the private sector? Is he aware that to obtain Inland Revenue approval a private pension scheme can contain an inflationary element of only 5, 6 or 7 per cent.? Are we not creating two types of employee in the case of pensions if the rest are inflation proofed?

As my hon. Friend knows, this matter goes far wider than the Civil Service. I have already taken note of the views of the House.

As the implications of the cuts of up to 20 per cent. are so great for the Civil Service and for all of us, will the Minister give an undertaking that he will not issue a statement as a written reply but that he will come to the House and tell us exactly what cuts in jobs and services there will be?

When the Government have reached their decisions, they will be announced in the most appropriate way. I will take note of the hon. Gentleman's views.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what steps have been taken to resolve the pay dispute with the professional and technical civil servants.

An initial hearing of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal took place on 25 and 26 September. After receiving the tribunal's opinion, I met representatives of the institution on 18 October. Detailed negotiations are now in progress at official level and a fully considered response to the IPCS's latest representations has just been made.

I congratulate my hon. Friend and the IPCS negotiators on making some progress in a dispute which has had more than its fair share of disagreement on the fundamental principles on which a settlement should be made. My hon. Friend referred to the advisory opinion of the tribunal. Can he now give an assurance that, if it is agreed that the dispute will be referred back to the tribunal for final adjudication, the tribunal will be able to take into consideration evidence from earlier settlements which gave awards well above the median?

The tribunal will be able to consider any evidence that the IPCS or the official side cares to put before it.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what proposals he has to enable civil servants, other than those who are in the position of giving direct policy advice to Ministers, to take part in party politics.

The existing rules for civil servants already allow this to a certain extent. Changes recommended by the Armitage committee which reported under the last Administration are now under discussion with the staff side.

Is it not deeply wrong that hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens should be debarred from political activity when they are far from giving policy advice to Ministers?

I note the views of the hon. Member. This matter is being dis- cussed with the staff side and I will bear his views in mind when we come to consider its recommendations.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will take whatever steps may be necessary to ensure that Ministers, including junior Ministers, are provided with working space for their private secretaries within their ministerial offices.

I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind secretaries who assist with constituency or party political work. Successive Governments have taken the view that it is not appropriate for facilities provided at public expense to be used for such work.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the work of constituency and private secretaries is seldom in any real sense political, and that by taking the view that they should not be allowed to work in the same offices as their Ministers the work of those Ministers is greatly obstructed? Will he instruct the Civil Service accordingly?

I understand the views of my hon. Friend. However, it is a point of principle that facilities which we provide at public expense should not be available to hon. Members, or their secretaries, for work that is not public but is either constituency or party political.