asked the Minister of Transport when next he will meet the chairman of the British Railways board.

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

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

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

asked the Minister of Transport when he will meet the chairman of British Railways.

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

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

asked the Minister of Transport, when he plans next to meet the chairman of British Railways.

Soon.

When the Minister "soon" meets the chairman of British Railways, will he emphasise to him that he means to start improving British Railways on the principle of the retention of all present routes and services, including the Woodhead cross-Pennine route? Will the Minister also encourage British Railways by authorising more investment, especially in commuter services in the Leeds-Bradford area, which has been starved in comparison with London and the South-East? Does henot agree that the Government would be derelict in their responsibility if they failed to encourage and regenerate British Railways, bearing in mind the world's finite fuel resources?

rose—

:Order: I hope that other hon. Members—this is no reflection on the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)—will ask brief questions, because it will help us all.

The Government certainly appreciate the importance of British Rail and support it. The Woodhead cross-Pennine route is a freight service, the responsibility for which lies with the chairman of British Rail and does not come to me. With passenger services the responsibility and decision come to me, and I have informed the chairman that we would be totally opposed to the massive cuts that are mentioned in the corporate review.

:Is it not sound policy that British Rail should exploit to the full the commercial potential of its existing assets? When the Minister meets the chairman, will he encourage him to develop the services—modestly, but on a better basis—at Alnmouth station in Northumberland, where there is considerable potential for improvement?

I shall certainly look into the specific matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. On the general point, I agree with him; I believe that the energy crisis underlines the importance of the railway system.

When the Minister meets the chairman, will he encourage him to end the penny-pinching restrictions that are causing British Rail to reduce the services between Glasgow and Girvan, a line that has been developing over the last few years? If there are any difficulties with oil, the Minister might encourage the chairman to introduce steam trains on that line, and others in Scotland.

:The chairman will have heard what the hon. Member said. As I understand the present position, five trains will be cancelled on that line—only on Saturdays, and only in the winter months—as a means of saving fuel.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he discuss with him the rapidly declining quality of the Aberdeen-Inverness railway, which passes through my constituency, and which is of major importance to the many thousands of Service men based there and to the students who have to pursue their studies elsewhere? In particular, will he consider establishing a proper link with the inter-city routes from the North-East of Scotland to the south?

I shall certainly talk with the chairman about the points that my hon. Friend has put to me. I give my hon. Friend that undertaking, and I understand and admire the concern that he shows for the line.

At the risk of making the Minister's next meeting with the chairman a very long one, may I ask him also to raise with the chairman the forecasts which make it plain that within the next few months British Rail will go through the ceiling on the public service obligation grant and that the figures for future years are unrealistic? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, unless he revises the ceilings, the only short-term alternative for British Rail is a sharp increase in fare, at the very time when, if the energy crisis means anything, we should be making public transport more attractive and not more expensive?

I do not accept that. The chairman has made it clear that he wants and intends to live within the cash limits. The cut in the PSO for 1980–81 was about £22 million, of which £13 million was decided by the previous Government.

Does the Minister accept that the Scottish area of British Rail is one of the least reliable and punctual of all the areas in the British Rail federation, and that that is largely because of the clapped-out locomotives that, unfortunately, the staff have to use there? Will he authorise the chairman to increase the investment on British Rail in Scotland, to make sure that the services improve, and particularly to electrify the line to take account of the shortage of diesel oil that is likely in the next 20 years?

I shall certainly talk to the chairman about the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. But I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's description of the position in Scotland.

Does by right hon. Friend agree that there can be no justification for British Rail's freight operations running at anything but a genuine profit? Have new financial targets yet been agreed with British Rail?

:Yes, Sir. The chairman accepts that it is important—I believe that this is common policy on both sides of the House—that British Rail's freight operations should run at a break-even point. That is certainly the policy of this Government. It is one that we shall pursue.

:As the Minister has met the chairman since the production of the British Rail corporate review, will he make clear what options he would regard favourably to meet British Rail's problems—increasing prices, reducing manpower or selling off assets—as he has reduced the option of closing lines?

The options that are open are under consideration at present. Clearly, one of British Rail's most important aims must be to improve the productivity of the system. I believe that this is recognised by the chairman. British Rail has made proposals to the unions, and they are under consideration at present. I believe that they are important for ensuring the future of the railway system.

When he meets the chairman, will my right hon. Friend put to him that London commuters, who have recently suffered yet another substantial increase in the cost of their season tickets, are rather more concerned with reliability and punctuality than with frequency of service, and that they would willingly accept a reduced spring timetable, a reduced number of trains, if they could rely on those trains running as advertised and on time?

I am willing to talk to the chairman about that. The Government have already made clear that we shall have a major re-examination of the efficiency of commuter services in the South-East. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission will be given that task, which will be carried out this year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the board has a contract with the Government to provide an effi- cient service, and that there is a severe backlog of repairs and maintenance work to be done, which will cost a great deal of money? What is his Department prepared to do to help the board to overcome that deficiency?

We recognise the importance of maintenance and of investment generally in the railway system. That is one of the matters about which I shall be talking to the chairman. The hon. Gentleman's point is important, and we have it well on board.

Will my right hon. Friend give the House a little more detail about what he will say to the chairman about productivity, bearing in mind that Sir Peter Parker said at the end of last year that British Rail had not even begun to get it right yet? Would not the whole question be much easier if there were one confederation of trade unions covering the railway industry, or is that just wishful thinking?

I do not know whether it is wishful thinking. It is certainly not something that the Government or I can influence. What my hon. Friend says is absolutely correct. As the chairman has said, productivity is the rock upon which British Rail's future is based. British Rail's operating costs are 70 per cent. labour. This underlines the importance of the proposals made by British Rail to the unions, and the importance of their being accepted.

Will the Minister draw to the chairman's attention complaints from two of my constituents that they were refused admission to the restaurant car when travelling north, from London to Glasgow, because it had been reserved exclusively for the Prime Minister, who was travelling to the Conservative Party conference at Blackpool—and who, incidentally, did not turn up? Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the chairman by all means giving the Prime Minister adequate security but minimising the the inconvenience caused to all rail travellers?

If the complaint concerns travel to the Conservative Party conference, the hon. Gentleman is a little late in making it. But if he gives me details, I shall have it investigated.

asked the Minister for Transport how many trunk road schemes listed in the Supply Estimates as starting in 1979–80 are unlikely to start in the current financial year.

Only the widening of the M1 in Hertfordshire, on which an action is pending in the High Court.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the deep concern felt throughout the country about the arbitrary delay in such schemes, without any formal announcement by his Department? Can he say precisely how many schemes are held up and what steps he is taking to accelerate them, particularly over the statutory processes? Does he not feel that his party and Government owe that to the country, bearing in mind their criticism of the previous Government's policies?

I do not think that there are that many arbitrary delays taking place. I have indicated that only one scheme listed to start last year has not started, and that is because of a legal challenge. It would not be right to try to abbreviate the statutory procedures and the legal checks on road construction, because many people have an interest in making sure that their views are properly represented.

Does not my hon. Friend agree, however, that there was considerable under spending under the last Government? Will he give an assurance that he will take steps to see that it does not occur in the future?

I am very aware of that under spending, but my right hon. Friend and I are not responsible for the former Administration. There are difficulties in predicting the weather and the statutory procedures that can lead to an under-spend. But it seems that this year spending is likely to be very near the cash limit.

The question of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) related not to last year but to this year—the 1979–80 Estimates. The hon. Gentleman answered in terms of last year. Will he tell the House by how much the cost of the schemes listed in the Supply Estimates for 1979–80 which will not now start in the current year exceeds the £10 million cut in the road programme announced by his right hon. Friend, whether other schemes will be started to use the balance of the money in the road programme, or whether his right hon. Friend will announce another cut in the programme?

My answer was about 1979–80. There is only one scheme listed in the Supply Estimates that will not start, and that is because we must await a High Court hearing. It is a scheme that we are anxious to begin—the widening of the M1 in Hertfordshire. There is no spare money in the programme; there will not be the under spend that has occurred in previous years.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will arrange an urgent meeting with the chairman of British Railways.

I am meeting him soon.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the chairman in no uncertain terms that the ban on bikes on commuter trains is contrary to Government policy both on energy conservation and on making the best possible use of resources? Will he remind the chairman that there are only a few trains that do not have luggage space and goods van space—namely, the new commuter trains? Is he aware that the majority of trains have plenty of space? Will he remind the chairman that although bikes have been banned in goods vans no similar ban applies to motor cycles and prams?

:I very much support cycling and the interests of cyclists, as I know my hon. Friend does. This is essentially a matter of management for British Rail. Clearly it has problems with new trains. I am writing to Sir Peter Parker to ascertain whether there is more scope for flexibility in the arrangements that he has announced.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman raise urgently with the chairman the cancellation last week of 98 of the rush hour trains on the eastern region of a possible 1,975? Will he raise with him the issue of the removal of seats from some train services so that more commuters may be squeezed into the carriages?

I am prepared to raise both those matters.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets the chairman will he raise with him the miserable inadequacies of the railway line from Sheffield to London, which cause trains to be almost permanently late, which cause food to be almost constantly missing and which cause passengers to miss meetings? Is he aware that if the line to Woodhead is closed it will be regarded by the population of South Yorkshire as one more abuse and one more public political statement that the area is being played down and no longer seems important to the Government?

I have already made the position clear on Wood head. I have nothing further to add. I am prepared to talk to the chairman about the quality of the service from Sheffield to London. Given the number of matters that I shall have to put to the chairman so far, it is likely to be an all-day meeting.

asked the Minister of Transport when he plans to announce his decision on the standard to which the Oxford to Birmingham section of the M40 is to be built.

The necessary further studies have now been completed and I hope to announce the decisions on the standard and status of the new road in the near future.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he bear in mind that motorways are by far the safest type of road and that any down-grading from the original plan will mean that more people will be killed and injured? Does he recognise that that will be the result of the dual-purpose road is built instead?

I accept that the accident record of motorways is much better than that of other major roads. The decision on the appropriate standard for the road must be made in the light of traffic surveys and an economic analysis of the costs and benefits. We are near to making a decision. It is a vital route.

:Would it not be cheaper and generally more satisfactory if the M40 extension from Oxford to Birmingham were abandoned and the present main road from Oxford to Birmingham widened and improved, as has been done most successfully along many stretches of the A1?

That is one of the decisions that we have to make. There has been an investigation into a possible alternative—namely, improving the existing roads north of Banbury. We shall reach decisions on that at the same time as we reach decisions on the status of the whole route.

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

Sir Arthur Armitage has received written evidence from a large number of organisations and individuals. This evidence is now being considered in detail by Sir Arthur and his assessors. I understand that Sir Arthur hopes to present his report by the summer.

Will the Minister give an undertaking that before he acts on the report of the Armitage inquiry the issue will be debated in the House? Will he tell us why his Department recently increased international road haulage quotas by 20 percent. in December 1979? When will his Department change its attitude towards the menace of a heavy lorry?

I can give an assurance that no decision on the issue of lorry weight will be made before the House has had an opportunity to debate that important issue. The hon. Gentleman referred to quotas for international journeys. Surely it is the joint policy of both sides of the House to help British road hauliers to expand their business inside Europe.

When motorways are being designed is the assumption made that larger lorries will be permitted or is it assumed that they will be banned?

Assumptions are made on the same basis as hitherto. We are not making assumptions that the weight of lorries is to be increased. That is one of the major reasons for setting up the Armitage inquiry.

Does the Minister realise that the assumptions to which he has referred take account of the noise of vehicles? Is he aware that of the mix of ordinary private vehicles and heavier lorries the latter are noisier? Does he agree that the Armitage inquiry should pay more attention to the noise generated by heavy lorries, especially on motorways in urban areas? Is he aware that some bedrooms are no more than 50 ft. away from the motorway? That is one of the many reasons why heavier lorries should not be allowed.

That is one of the major issues. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important. It is a matter that may be submitted to the Armitage inquiry. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues want to put such matters to the inquiry, he and they will be able to do so. That is why we have set up the inquiry. The inquiry was promised by the previous Labour Government. It is a promise that we have sustained. The purpose of having such an inquiry is illustrated by my reply.

During my travels along motorways it has become clear to me that water spray from heavy lorries—

Order. Many things may be clear to the hon. Gentleman, but he must ask a question.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that investigations into heavy lorries include water spray from lorries and the major accidents that are caused because lorries travel far too close to one another on motorways?

The Transport and Road Research Laboratory is working on water spray. There is no reason why that matter should not be referred to the Armitage inquiry. I should like further to consider my hon. Friend's second point.

asked the Minister of Transport if he has now decided the site for a service area on the M11 motorway; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir, at Birchanger, at the junction with the A120.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that firm decision will be welcomed? Is he able to give some idea of the date of completion of the construction? On a somewhat lighter note, will he promise my constituents that it will be insulated against noise rather more successfully than the road itself?

The next stage is to have a meeting with the four local authorities that are involved. The meeting has been arranged for 31 January. The Department will seek outline planning permission. As my right hon. Friend has outlined, we have a policy towards motorway service areas. That will involve putting out the long lease to tender. The developer will deal with detailed planning permission and the eventual development of the site. Noise will be borne in mind when dealing with planning decisions on site. I am aware of the disquiet that my hon. Friend has passed on to me. I refer to the noise from the concrete surface of the new motorway that passes through his constituency.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to receive the report of the Cairncross review of the Channel Tunnel project.

I hope to receive very shortly interim comments from Sir Alec Cairncross on the economic aspects of the Railways Board's preliminary studies.

Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to study his right hon. Friend's statement on airports policy, in which it is stated that the Government assume the existence of the Channel Tunnel by 1988 in terms of the plans for the third London airport? May we take it that the Channel Tunnel is now Government policy? Such an announcement, if made formally today, would be widely welcomed on both sides of the House and on both sides of the channel.

The hon. Gentleman would be wrong to assume that. No decision has been taken on the Channel Tunnel. We hope to have the preliminary views of Sir Alec Cairncross very shortly. I shall be making a statement to the House within the next four to six weeks.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that full account is being taken of the views of local authorities?

We have not come to a conclusion. In reaching a conclusion the views of local authorities will be one of the factors to be borne very much in mind.

The Minister has said that he is awaiting the view of Sir Alec Cairncross on the economics of the project. We are all aware of the dangers of terrorism. Does he agree that if we had a Channel Tunnel it would be impossible to control it against terrorism?

Obviously that point will be considered, but we are at a preliminary stage in the consideration of the project. If the hon. Gentleman will wait until I have made a statement on the Cairncross report, we shall then be in a better position to look at that specific project.

Is not one of the two principal objectives and probable consequences of the project to facilitate the extinction of our manufacturing industries, by allowing the products of our industrial competitors to come in more easily and quickly? Does the Minister agree that the other objective and consequence is that it will disguise what the Community will pretend is a cut in our contribution, by giving a grant towards the project that will only further its own industrial purposes?

I had always thought that the case for a Channel Tunnel was based upon the need for a better transport link. However, no decision has been made and I shall make a statement as soon as possible.

If this is not within the terms of reference of the Cairncross report, will the Government consider the possibilities of using steel for a channel tunnel as that could be of great help to the steel industry next year?

I am happy to look at that point.

Will my right hon. Friend the Minister consider introducing an early Bill allowing the two Governments involved to do the basic job of digging a hole? That is the most complicated Bill of all, and we need a preliminary Bill at the earliest opportunity.

I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to obtain an assessment of the financial effects of a Channel Tunnel before we consider digging the hole.

asked the Minister of Transport how many miles of motorways he expects to be opened in 1980.

About 40. The widening of five and a half miles of the M5 should also be completed this year.

Will the Minister tell us how many of those 40 miles will be elevated section? Will he assure the House that those elevated sections will not involve the catastrophic problems that arose in the West Midlands, because of the failure of the road joints? As the Minister knows, those road joints have caused considerable problems on the M5 and the M6.

To the best of my recollection, not very much elevated section will be opened this year. I am familiar with the problems that have arisen on the long elevated section in the West Midlands. There are design defects and technical problems that were not foreseen. I have seen the work that is being undertaken to replace those joints with joints which, it is hoped, will be of better wearing quality and more suitable for the traffic.

In view of the problems and costs that are now arising due to the short design life of surfaces on the original motorways, how does that compare with the design life of roads now being constructed?

Fortunately, the present standards of paving on motorways are designed to meet modern levels of traffic. However, we face many years of difficulty, because the early motorways were built on expectations of traffic load and vehicle weight that have been far exceeded.

Will the Minister look beyond 1980 and tell us when he expects to publish the long delayed White Paper on the Government's plans for future motorways? How much longer will the people of North-East Lancashire have to wait for the M65?

The White Paper will be published after the Government's White Paper on public spending programmes. I can only estimate that it will be published some time in April. I am familiar with the anxiety felt in that part of Lancashire to get on with the motorway and, fortunately, we have recently made some announcements about the Burnley section.

Will my hon. Friend tell us whether those 40 miles include the completion of the M56 as far as the Welsh border? There is a great need in that area for improved communications, as job losses are becoming severe.

Unfortunately, it does not include the completion of that part of the motorway, as that section has been delayed by a strike. However, those sections are important and they will probably be opened next year.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied with the provision of facilities for disabled people on trains and in stations.

Facilities on trains and stations are the responsibility of the British Rail board. However, I know that it has already taken a number of steps to cater for the special needs of disabled people.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that provision is made for the disabled on the Inverness to Aberdeen train? That is often the only way that the disabled can travel in the North-East of Scotland.

I shall consult the British Rail board about facilities on those particular trains. British Rail is anxious to improve facilities and the most modern stock contains elaborate provisions for the disabled and caters for wheelchairs and other necessities.

Will the Minister consider that British Rail, by attempting to cut costs in ticket collection, has reduced staff? Certain stations in Glasgow that formerly had two exits now have only one. That causes difficulty to the disabled and perhaps the Minister will discuss that with the chairman of British Rail.

The question of the particular number of entrances and exits to a station must be taken up with the board of British Rail. The design and rebuilding of modern stations now takes full account of the 1970 Act, and the need to make provision for access for disabled people at all stages of boarding a train.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the question of the carriage of disabled people cannot be dissociated from the carriage of bicycles and British Rail's policy concerning what can be carried? I reinforce the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) concerning the considerable disadvantages suffered by commuters as they are not allowed to put bicycles on commuter trains.

My right hon. Friend the Minister has already dealt with the question of bicycles and we realise that there is a great concern. However, the disabled are a separate category, although they are equally important. As I have said, British Rail makes considerable efforts to accommodate the disabled on trains.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on his policy towards the M25 scheme.

Its completion retains the highest priority in the trunk road programme and is not likely to be delayed by any policy decisions or expenditure constraints.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for the courteous way in which he received a delegation of councillors from the borough of Watford last week, but will he reassure the people of Watford that both he, and his Department, are opposed to any suggestion that the A41 or the A405 should be upgraded?

I appreciated the discussions that I had with representatives from Watford. We were in complete agreement that the alternative possibility of upgrading the routes through the middle of the urban area of Watford—which would almost certainly necessitate the demolition of houses in order to accommodate the traffic—is regarded as unacceptable. We prefer the M25.

As the section of the M25 between the top of Reigate Hill and the M3 and the M4 would greatly relieve my constituents in Hampton and Hampton Hill who suffer from heavy traffic, can my hon. Friend tell us whether he has received the report of the public inquiry into that section? Will he do everything possible to speed up a decision?

As regards the Leather-head interchange, we have the inspector's report, but we have not yet reached a decision. If my hon. Friend is referring to the section between Leatherhead and Wisley on the A3, some decisions remain to be made on minor variations to the route. However, subject to those variations we expect that, if everything goes well, the section will be opened in 1983.

How soon can we get on with the construction of the section of the M25 that runs between Swanley and Sevenoaks?

We are still awaiting the inspector's report about a section of the M25 that is probably more controversial than any other. As soon as I have the inspector's report, we shall begin consideration of it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his first answer is most welcome as thousands of my constituents still feel threatened by the uncertainty surrounding the M23? Is he further aware that the early completion of the M25 will help them considerably?

:I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am convinced that large areas of outer London in particular will experience great relief from traffic problems—particularly those caused by heavy lorries—once the M25 is completed.

asked the Minister of Transport if, in the light of the recent increases in oil prices, he will review the level of Government support for public transport.

The level of support to public transport by central and local government is currently running at almost £800 million a year. The price of oil is one of the factors I have in mind in making provision for the level of support.

When other Governments are increasing their investments in public transport as part of their policies of energy conservation, is it not monstrous that our Government are cutting expenditure on public transport? They are forcing up fares, cutting back on services and forcing more people to use cars, and therefore oil.

I do not accept that as a characterisation of our policy. Clearly public expenditure policy has implications for transport policy. However, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the policy as regards railways, he will see how successful we have been in maintaining support for that system.

In many rural areas buses are an extremely wasteful form of public transport, and will my right hon. Friend persevere with his policy of encouraging such forms of transport as social cars?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is what we intend to do. We intend to extend the opportunities for car sharing and take away some of the restrictions that have been imposed. I agree that such a policy has implications for energy conservation, and at some stage we hope that we shall have the support of the Opposition Front Bench.

Does the Minister's reply mean that, where cross-subsidisation is maintained, the transport system as we know it today, particularly in rural areas, will be undermined by a reduction in grants and by the Transport Bill which proposes to replace buses and rail transport by cars?

That is a ridiculous statement of the position. The Transport Bill seeks to extend and increase the provision of transport. I would have expected the support of the official Opposition Front Bench.

Is the Minister aware that the reduction of the transport grant to the Tyne and Wear county council will make it difficult for the lower paid worker to afford the heavily increased cost of transport to work?

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the provision made for Tyne and Wear over the years, he will see that Tyne and Wear has not done badly from the TSG system.

asked the Minister of Transport what further steps he is taking to reduce the number of road accidents.

Our immediate priority is drinking and driving, and in that connection we published a consultation paper last month. We are also concerned with the problem of motor cycle safety, and we expect to bring forward further proposals in due course.

May I remind the Minister that the average number of road deaths per year in this country is 6,500? Does he agree that, if that many people were killed on the railways or in aeroplane crashes every year, the Government would be forced to take immediate and decisive action? Is he aware that, although the proposals that he mentioned are important, they are comparatively minor compared with the scale of the problem? Will he and his right hon. Friend shake off their complacency and take a major initiative to end the appalling slaughter on our roads?

No one is complacent. The figures are appalling. They have improved, but that is no great cause for satisfaction. However, I do not accept that our proposals are irrelevant or unimportant. When one looks at the association between drink and road accident figures in this country, that shows that we are tackling the most important problem of all by dealing with defects in the breathaliser law.

Can my hon. Friend say whether mini round- abouts have proved more safe than traditional roundabouts?

Such considerations are constantly under review with the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. To the best of my recollection—although I had better promise to write to my hon. Friend—the effect of mini roundabouts on road safety is fairly adequate. They certainly improve traffic problems at junctions, and we would not persevere with them if they increased accident statistics.

How long must road safety committees, this House and the nation wait before the Minister makes up his mind what to do about motor cyclists, who can buy a motor cycle from a showroom and, without instruction or training, go immediately on the road? That practice is adding to the number of fatal road accidents.

Not very long. The discussions that I am engaged in should be completed in about a month, and we can then produce a policy on motor cycle training and motor cycle safety generally. We had to wait for the report of the advisory committee set up by the previous Government, and we have had that for only a little over a month. It is a matter of great urgency, and we are dealing with it as such.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to publish the final report of the steering group on the case for further main line electrification.

I expect the report to be ready for publication by early summer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman hazard a guess as to what might be in that report? Can he indicate whether he looks favourably on a further escalation of main line electrification and, if so, how does he see his chances of getting the money out of the modern day Scrooge who is ensconced in No. 12?

I am not sure that such language improves the hon. Gentleman's case. The interim report looked at the costs of electrification. We are now looking at the revenue implications in the sense of more traffic for British Rail. As I have made clear on a number of occasions, I am sympathetic to what is being attempted, but we must wait for the report before making final decisions.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that on electrification we are taking decisions for a generation ahead? If we accept that in 10 or 20 years' time oil will be limited, we have to consider electrification as soon as possible.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one reason why we are considering electrification sympathetically.

Will the Minister consider the problems caused by the failure so far to take electrification beyond Bedford for the London-Midland region? That is the prime cause of the type of breakdown referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). Does the Minister agree that those breakdowns cannot be alleviated without an early decision on electrification for the line between Sheffield and Bedford?

We can consider individual schemes on their merits, but we shall still have to wait for the report before finalising our policy. I believe that there is great sympathy and support for electrification.

Does the Minister agree that the option set out in the joint study by his Department and British Rail for maximum electrification has enormous economic, social and technological implications and will have an important effect on future energy policy? Will he therefore consider a debate in the House before or immediately following the final report and before any Government decision?

:I shall certainly pass on the right hon. Gentleman's views to the Leader of the House. However, I believe that it would be more constructive to have any discussion after the final report is published. Clearly it will be published and made generally available.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will arrange to make a substantial saving by arranging for the extinguishing of all unnecessary street and motorway lighting between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m.

Lighting is installed and operated on motorways and trunk roads only where and when the estimated cost of accidents that it saves exceeds the cost of the basic energy required for the lighting.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's answer, but will he consider whether the lights, for instance, on motorways that blaze away all night, regardless of the weather, could be extinguished, as that would be a tremendous saving in fuel costs?

:The lights on motorways make a substantial difference to accident levels, which is an end in itself, but that in turn leads to substantial savings in cost. To the best of our ability to estimate, the comparatively small cost to the community of lighting is less than the accident costs that would otherwise be incurred.

The Minister accepts that motorway lighting reduces accidents, so does he intend to continue the lighting programme on the motorway between London and Birmingham all the way along?

There is no present intention to continue it all the way along. Throughout most of the route there is fairly full provision at hazardous and urban areas. Where inquiries indicate that accident figures can be substantially improved by more lighting, we remain ready to extend lighting arrangements.

Does the Minister agree that life is pretty miserable as it is without returning us to the dark ages?

I trust that we have more to enliven us than merely motorway lighting, although that lighting serves a useful purpose.

asked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to avoid wasteful competition in the transport industry.

My policy is to encourage fair competition in order to improve efficiency and widen consumer choice.

Will the Minister try to integrate our road and rail transport system and get the heavy traffic onto the under-used railways? Will he also pursue the policy of electrifying main line railways to conserve energy for the future?

I am entirely in favour of fair competition between British Rail's freight service and road haulage, but I am not in favour of directing freight from road to rail. That would be a foolish policy and one that was even rejected by the previous Government.

Does the Minister accept that his policy of curtailing investment is leading British Rail to consider the closure of freight-only routes, like the Wood-head route across the Pennines? Does he further agree that that will mean a shift away from rail freight to road transport, which is retrogressive.

I do not accept that. I have already answered the question twice about the Woodhead tunnel. We are not curtailing investment as the hon. Member suggests. We are maintaining it at the level of the last Government.

Is it not a fact that the very success of British Rail's intercity services has forced the passenger road transport industry to look again at its fares? Is that not, in essence, the best possible outcome of competition?

Absolutely. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Under the Transport Bill we shall be able to have further competition between coach operators on long-distance services. I believe that competition like that makes sense, and is in the best interests of the travelling public.

Will the Minister accept that the competition to which he has referred has resulted in duplication and has had wasteful economic and social consequences? Are the Government prepared to look again at these consequences?

The alternative policy that the hon. Member suggests is one of having a transport central planning authority, which would be vastly wasteful. Also, it was entirely rejected by the previous Labour Government during five years in office.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is satisfied with the efficiency of the Civil Service.

:I am never satisfied. But progress is being made all the time.

Is the Minister aware of the near collapse in morale among engineers in the Civil Service as a result of their recent arbitration award—if that is the correct word for it? Will he accept that that collapse in morale will gravely weaken and endanger the efficiency of the Civil Service? What does he intend to do about it?

I very much hope that that is not the case. The award to which the hon. Member referred is the award by the independent Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal. I have no control over its findings. It is an independent body and it has been the practice in the past for both sides to agree to its findings.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in many cases the organisation methods of the Civil Service are not at all bad, but the problem that really arises is whether whole Departments need to exist at all? Does he agree that this is primarily a political question for Ministers and perhaps for departmentally related Select Committees as well?

The important point that we, as a House of Commons, must decide is whether a great many of the functions of government need to continue. This is continuously under review and I welcome my hon. Friend's support.

Is the Minister aware that the efficiency and morale of the Civil Service in West Central Scotland would be further enhanced if he would give an assurance that there will be no redundancies at the Post Office savings bank in Glasgow? Also, can he tell us when a firm date will be anounced for the dispersal of defence jobs to Glasgow?

There was a debate in the House on dispersal recently. I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the hon. Member's comments. The question of the national savings bank is not for my Department, but, as I told the House on 6 December, we hope to have very few redundancies.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress he has made in recruiting new members to broaden the experience of the Pay Research Unit board.

I have had discussions with the National Staff Side and am considering possible candidates for recommendation to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is responsible for making the appointments.

This is a matter of some urgency. Will my hon. Friend agree that taxpayers in the private sector can hardly be blamed if they look askance at a system which puts a value of 2·6 per cent. on the benefit of index-linked pensions? These are unavailable in the private sector, they would not be allowed by the Inland Revenue even if they were available, and they must be topped up by taxpayers in the private sector. Will my hon. Friend ensure as a matter of urgency that if he must have the investigations of the Government's actuaries investigated by the Pay Research Unit board, that body should include people who are qualified in the business of actuarial computations in the private sector?

I note what my hon. Friend says. I do not think that the proposal to refer pensions to the Pay Research Board is a good idea. The Government are now considering how best to ensure that independent outside scrutiny can be given to the valuation of pensions.

Will the Minister say whether the Pay Research Unit board will have anything to do? If a report in The Guardian on Monday is correct, it seems that the Government are considering abandoning pay research as a means of negotiating Civil Service pay. Will the Minister say whether that report is correct?

It is most unwise for me to comment on speculation in the press. There is a later question on this matter.

But in view of the speculation that has occurred—and which has been enhanced by hon. Members today—about the removal of index linking pensions for policemen, the Armed Forces, teachers and all other public servants, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government are reconsidering index linking for Civil Service pensions?

I told the House just a few moments ago that we had proposed to refer the question of pensions to the Pay Research Unit board, but now the idea is that we should consider how best an independent outside scrutiny can be given to the valuation of pensions in the public sector.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the total number of civil servants at the last date for which figures are available; and what is the number who retired or voluntarily transferred to non-Civil Service jobs in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

At 1 October 1979,the latest date for which figures are available, there were 712,300 civil servants: of these, 552,000 were non-industrials and 160,300 were industrials. During the 12 months ending 30 September 1979, 63,000 non-industrial civil servants retired or voluntarily transferred to non-Civil Service jobs. No information is held centrally on retirements or voluntary transfers of industrial staff.

Apart from the Government's short-term commitment to reduce the number of civil servants, is there any long-term strategy? If so, would it be based upon permitting an intake each year of but a proportion of the natural wastage?

That is an interesting idea which I shall certainly consider. The Government's long-term strategy is to try to reduce the role and functions of government in such a way that we can also reduce the size of the Civil Service as a whole. But the Civil Service, of course, must do the job that this House sets it to do. We must have a number of civil servants for that purpose. The problem is to match what is required by this House in the most efficient and proper way.

Does the Minister ever wonder how his Department gives him such precise figures when at the same time it refuses to define the term "civil servants"? Is it not true that the number of people paid either by the taxpayer or by corporations owned by the Crown and who receive inflation-proof pensions is about 7 million—one-third of the work force?

I believe that the number who receive inflation-proof pensions is about 5·5 million, including every Member of this House, the Armed Forces, teachers, nurses and everyone in the public sector.

My hon. Friend says that he seeks rigorously to cut down the number of functions that must be performed by the Civil Service. Will he speak with his colleagues and ask them to speak with their colleagues in Europe to stop some of the damn silly regulations which arrive in this House late at night and which we then must process? Does he not agree that this causes more civil servants to be employed?

That is a matter for the Foreign Secretary and I shall certainly draw his attention to my hon. Friend's remarks.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if the Government will accept the principle of fair comparison on the basis of pay research for the settlement of Civil Service pay in the forthcoming round of negotiations; and how this will be affected by cash limits.

The Government will reconcile pay research with the system of cash limits. When the pay research evidence for the non-industrial Civil Service is available, but before the negotiations have been concluded, we propose to determine a single cash limited provision for Civil Service pay awards in 1980–81.

Will the Minister confirm that the cash limit that has been put on the Civil Service for pay is 14 per cent., as has been leaked in documents to the newspapers from Treasury civil servants? If that is the case, and the Pay Research Unit comes up with figures of 17 per cent. or 18 per cent. as suggested in the press, will he tell the House how many further cuts in manpower or services there will be in order to match the figures?

I cannot confirm that figure. No cash limit has been set for Civil Service pay. I have explained that that has yet to be settled. It will be settled in the light of evidence supplied, and therefore the rest of the hon. Member's question is purely hypothetical.

Will not my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member's question highlights the folly of these comparability exercises which lead inevitably to redundancies that might not otherwise occur or be necessary had the trade unions involved been encouraged to negotiate direct with their employers on the basis of ability to pay?

As a general principle, that must be right. Civil Service pay rises have been worked out in this way for the past 25 years. My hon. Friend will recall what the Conservative election manifesto said about reconciling pay research with cash limits. I did not write that part of the manifesto, but I am trying to implement it.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received from the Civil Service unions following his announcement on 6 December about cuts in manpower.

My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President and I met representatives of the National Staff Side immediately after the announcement on 6 December and they put to us their views on the manpower reductions. Since then they have been in contact with my Department on a number of occasions.

In view of the evidence that is coming to light that the Government are making manpower cuts and are farming work out to the private sector even where there are no apparent financial savings, will the Minister say whether it is Government policy to farm out work to the private sector even where there is no evidence of increase in efficiency or reduction in cost?

The Government's policy on putting work out to the private sector is that it should be done onl where there is clear operational or economic justification.