asked the Minister of Transport when he intends to bring in new provisions for road service licensing.

asked the Minister of Transport when he plans to implement the changes in bus licensing that are contained in the Transport Bill.

If the House accepts tonight the amendments made in another place to the Transport Bill, I shall bring its road service licensing provisions into effect in October. Licences will then no longer be required for long distance services and will be easier to obtain for stage carriage ones. Apart from the abolition of conductor licensing at the end of July, the rest of the Bill's licensing provisions will come into force in the spring of next year.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the provisions will not reduce safety measures, particularly on buses, and that they will contribute towards greater efficiency and improvements on existing and new services? Will he also confirm that they will reduce the present level of bureaucracy?

I can assure my hon. Friend on all those points. The safety standards are basic to the system and no changes are proposed. We intend to remove the restrictions that prevent new services from developing. One of the Bill's chief aims is to encourage new services for the travelling public.

Does not my right hon. Friend accept that there is now an opportunity in country districts to use more smaller vehicles, offering greater flexibility, and that when the customer requires, those vehicles should be provided by private enterprise?

We expect that one of the major achievements of the Transport Bill will be to encourage new operators to come forward in rural areas. I agree that nothing is more important than to encourage new and smaller operators in rural areas.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a general tendency for owners of small lorries to order much larger lorries and vans? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about that?

I shall look into that question. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares the hope that the Transport Bill, with its removal of restrictions, will lead to new services for the public. At present, the public fare served badly in many areas.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the proposals in the reply that he gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) can be put into effect only if the House rejects one of the Lords amendments tonight? Is not he aware that the amendment would sweep away a series of statutory safety standards that now apply to a certain category of bus?

We shall discuss that issue when we debate the Transport Bill and the Lords amendment tonight and, probably, on Thursday night. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, who is an Opposition spokesman, will welcome the new opportunities now presented, for example, by long distance express services. Those services will be of direct benefit to many thousands of people.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will discuss with his European Economic Community transport colleagues the gradual removal of the toll charges on motorways within the Community.

No, Sir. However, the European Conference of Ministers of Transport, which embraces all Community Members, is studying the question of infrastructure charging for road use and it is expected that the place of tolls will be included.

I thank the Minister for that statement. Does he not think that it is grossly unfair that during the coming holiday season British motorists travelling on the Continent will pay many hundreds of thousands of pounds towards the upkeep of Continental motorways, while Continental motorists coming here in the holiday season contribute nothing to the cost of our roads? Will he consider imposing a landing tax or some other sort of charge in order to provide a balance?

No. The charges are not discriminatory between motorists of different countries. There is a general agreement that visitors to other countries must pay the taxes and charges there while visitors here pay our rates of fuel tax.

Will the Minister look at the possibility of lifting the toll charge on tunnels? If that were done, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) would be correct in his statement.

There is a long-standing policy of all Governments that there is a justification for tolls on estuarial crossings of various kinds. It is necessary to keep those toll charges up to date.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is yet in a position to make a statement as to the projected Buntingford bypass on the trunk road A10 and the timetabling of the implementation of this project.

Buntingford bypass is among schemes in the main trunk road programme for 1984 onwards.

My constituents no doubt will be grateful, after waiting so long for this crumb of comfort, that their bypass is at least included, but inevitably there will be some disappointment that it has such a delayed classification. Will my hon. and learned Friend undertake to expedite matters, as far as he can, for the provision of the bypass before the traffic thundering down the picturesque Buntingford High Street finally shatters the listed buildings that flank it, and the sensibilities of my constituents who live and work there?

I am glad to be able to reassure my right hon. and learned Friend that the bypass has not been deferred in any way. It remains in the main programme for 1984 onwards and that is the only practicable estimate of time that we could put upon it. It may appear to be deferred because the date, like that for many other schemes, is somewhat later than that in the last Government's White Paper. That is because that White Paper was full of over-optimistic dates, setting out targets for specific schemes that could not be achieved. Buntingford is being proceeded with as quickly as possible and it has not been deferred in any way.

Since the Government's policy is to give greater priority to motorways than bypasses—which will aggravate the problems for many towns—will he be sympathetic to any restrictions placed on traffic going into those areas?

I refute entirely the suggestion contained in some newspaper reports that we are giving priority to motorways as opposed to bypasses. We have inherited important major schemes, such as the M25 around London, which are taking a large proportion of the funds over the next few years. Our change of policy and change of emphasis is to bring forward more bypasses of historic towns and villages, and as we get the major motorway programmes behind us, that will be the emerging pattern of road construction in the future.

May I refer to my hon. and learned Friend's reference to the M25? He has now had the inspector's report for the Leatherhead-Ashtead intersection. When can we expect a decision on that?

I do not have to tell my hon. Friend, whose constituency is involved, that this is an extremely difficult inquiry giving rise to a difficult decision. But we expect a decision very soon.

asked the Minister of Transport what percentage of public expenditure by his Department in 1980–81 and 1981–82 will be spent on motorway construction; and what percentage on railway electrification.

Planned expenditure on motorways and trunk roads is £302 million in 1980–81 and £298 million in 1981–82—at 1979 survey prices. That is about 13 per cent. of the public expenditure programmes for which our Department is responsible. Railway investment is not classified as public expenditure by the Department. The British Railways Board's investment ceiling in these years is £277 million—at 1979 survey prices—and I understand that it plans to spend about £8 million on new electrification schemes in each year.

In the light of the Venice communiqué to which the Prime Minister is a signatory, would it not be more sensible to concentrate on an electrified railway system which can be powered essentially by coal, rather than on building more and more motorways, which will need an oil-based traffic system, when we will not have any oil?

We have a study in progress on the electrification proposals for British Rail and we are awaiting the final results of that in the summer. We accept that there is a future for electrification of considerable parts of the railway network in this country. But that is not a case for abandoning motorway building as well. There is a rough balance between road construction spending and railway investment in this country.

May I make it clear that I have an interest in this question? Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the British Rail electrification programme is realistic, bearing in mind that those companies trying to export electrification schemes need to have a firm foundation to work on in this country?

I am sure that it is realistic. As part of the study we are considering how far it is justified to go in for a major programme in the future. We all expect the amount of electrification of the rail network to be increased in the future.

Is the hon. and learned Member aware that we would welcome any additional expenditure on rail electrification? Will he consider roads electrification, bearing in mind the decisions of the summit conference that we should use more coal and nuclear energy? Will he therefore encourage the return of the trolley bus to our roads?

The Government would not object to the reintroduction of trolley buses to our roads but there are no proposals forthcoming at present. There is a great deal of interest and research in electric vehicles of all kinds and the Government are anxious to encourage that.

asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in the introduction of tachographs; and if he will make a statement.

I have to date approved approximately two-thirds of the proposed network of 450 major tachograph installation centres. This network is being supplemented by a number of more modestly equipped stations in remote areas.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the statement he made on 10 March exempting certain vehicles from the tachograph requirement did not take any cognisance of EEC regulations whereby the limit is 3·5 metric tons liveweight? In view of the fact that many vehicles leaving rural constituencies such as mine have a greater liveweight than that will he consider some form of exemption to carry them into the EEC?

I shall look at that point again. Certainly my information is that we have taken as much as we safely can from the EEC regulations. However, I shall examine the point further.

asked the Minister of Transport what capital programmes for London Transport have been cut in the last 12 months.

The overall control of London Transport's capital expenditure programme is a matter for the Greater London Council. I understand that, following the transport supplementary grant settlement for 1980–81, the council asked the London Transport Executive to reduce its capital budget for 1980 by £12 million. This is being achieved by the deferment or rephasing of a variety of projects.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many people think that, the more London Transport has spent on capital programmes in recent years, the worse has become the service and the higher the fares? In fact, there are 10 per cent. more people employed in London Transport now than there were in 1973. Will the Minister do something, either through the GLC or directly, to see that the unions co-operate in getting better productivity so that the commuter can get a better service?

The GLC and London Transport are both now seriously discussing ways of improving performance on London Transport using the advice they have received from consultants commissioned by London Transport. I am sure that all those involved are fully aware of the need to improve the productivity of the system.

Where contributions to capital amounts spent by London Transport are made by the Ministry of Transport and by the Treasury, is the Minister fully confident that there is proper value for money? Can he assure the House that in future the actual amounts under such grants are made known?

I know that the hon. Member is concerned about new bus grant which has been paid to London Transport for the Fleet line buses, which have not proved very satisfactory. We only decide eligibility for grant, and there is no way in which the Department can take over from London Transport the choice of a particular type of bus. The buses LT has now ordered are very much more reliable.

While productivity may be one of the problems, is it not clear from the report to which my hon. and learned Friend referred that there is considerable criticism of management in London Transport's operations and of the relationship between London Transport and the GLC? Will my hon. and learned Friend consult our right hon. Friend the Minister about my proposal that British Rail should take over the running of London Transport rail services and that the National Bus Company should take over the running of the bus services, in view of the expertise that resides in both those bodies and the apparent lack of it in London Transport?

To be fair, the report praised the technical efficiency of middle and line management in London Transport, though it made many criticisms of management in general and the executive. The GLC and London Transport are anxiously considering the recommenddations and it is for them to decide. Certainly my right hon. Friend will consider the rather more sweeping suggestions put forward by my hon. Friend.

I do not know which report the Minister is referring to. I am more interested in the report by Leslie Chapman, the author of "Your Disobedient Servant", who points out that the London Transport management are taken round in chaffeur-driven limousines when they ought to be experiencing their own services. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the passengers on the underground would love to see some of those over-paid and under-worked people using the services that the public have to use instead of being driven around in limousines?

I am sure that the hon. Member knows that Sir Horace Cutler and the GLC also took a close interest in that report and some of its findings.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will seek to introduce a new method of totting-up for traffic offences based on a points system.

I am sure that such a change would be widely welcomed. I am therefore, glad to say that our working group on traffic law which has been considering this issue as part of its remit has made good progress and should be able to report on it shortly.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. May I ask him to look at my suggestion as a matter of priority, because there are millions of business users of motor cars to whom the present totting-up system can be unfair? Will my right hon. Friend therefor consider taking action as soon as possible?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that there would be great public support for a change along the lines that he suggests, not least among professional drivers such as lorry drivers. I cannot give any guarantee on legislative time, but I should like to make as much progress as quickly as I can.

When will the various working parties, such as that on the totting-up system, report? We hear so much from the Ministry about working parties—I could give examples of that considering motor cycles, and many other subjects—that are forever working, but never reporting. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we look forward to their reports, so that we can get effective action to cut down the number of deaths on the roads?

The Government are making much greater progress with motor cycle safety than was the case previously. I gladly take to heart what the hon. Gentleman said about the report on totting-up. I should point out that the working party was set up only a few months ago, but I hope that we shall soon have the results of its work on totting-up.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the present system is principally arbitrary, based as it is largely on Vascar traps and radar? Will he consider removing some of the petty and minor offences that form the totting-up procedure, thereby introducing a fairer system?

We want a fairer system which distinguishes between the undoubtedly serious offences such as reckless driving and the less serious offences, such as breaches of some of the construction and use regulations. Many other countries have introduced a points system which distinguishes in seriousness between various traffic offences. I believe that that would be in the interests of the travelling public and I believe that there would be great public support for it.

asked the Minister of Transport what response he has received to his White Paper, "Policy for Roads, England 1980".

asked the Minister of Transport if he has received any reaction to the White Paper on policy for roads.

Generally favourable.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for including in the recent White Paper the green light enabling Tamworth to receive its long overdue bypass, by way of the M42? However, does he agree that it is still essential, from a conservationist and environmental point of view, that heavy traffic be taken away from such centres and that he should continue to give top priority to the construction of bypasses?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's recognition of the progress that is being made on the M42 south of Birmingham. I agree that we should make as much progress as we can on bypasses. I would expect the balance to change in future from motorway and major trunk road building to much more emphasis on bypasses, for exactly the sort of reasons that my hon. Friend put forward.

In view of the importance placed in the White Paper on maintaining adequate road transport links with our ports, can the Minister say when he expects to make a decision on the M3 public inquiry, which took place about three years ago?

I understand the concern among hon. Members about that road. I hope that we shall be able to come to a decision on it shortly.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while my constituents generally welcome the White Paper, they are still worried about the road that runs between Hebden Bridge and Todmorden and the planning blight attached to it? May we have an early decision in this matter?

Yes.

Is the Minister aware, from his visit to Norfolk and Norwich at the weekend, that there is great dissatisfaction among business interests, those concerned with tourism and traffic to the ports and others about the delay on dates for the improvement of the A11 and A47, compared with the dates set by the previous Government in 1978?

The right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. The dates set out by the previous Government in the 1978 roads White Paper bore no relation to the resources that would be available and were entirely theoretical dates. Having seen the position in Norfolk for myself I understand the concern that he and other Norfolk Members have expressed, particularly on the All and the A47.

In view of the importance that the Minister has said that he attaches to bypasses in connection with the White Paper, will he reconsider his decision to postpone the Dalton bypass in my constituency? Will he concede that the other improvements to the A590, important as they are, will merely worsen the position of Dalton as a traffic bottleneck and will bring about considerable problems for the residents of that area?

I shall certainly look at that point. There is no way is which I shall be able to fit all the bypasses that we all know ought to be built in this country into the programme for the next four years. We are spending more than was spent during the last two years of the previous Government, because we have managed to eradicate the problem of underspending which delayed so much in those years.

asked the Minister of Transport what has been the average percentage increase in public transport fares since May 1979.

In the 12 months to May 1980, the average percentage fare increase for rail and bus travel has been 28 per cent.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the increase in fares has been even greater than the 21·9 per cent. rate of inflation caused by the Government and that part of the reason for that has been the Government's cuts in subsidies to public transport bodies and local authorities? Does he agree that the Government, instead of increasing fares, should take action to decrease fares, which will encourage more people to use public transport rather than private transport and will thereby encourage the conservation of energy?

The major constituents in transport costs are fuel and wages. Fuel and oil costs have increased by 50 per cent. over the past 12 months and I shall not labour excessively what has happened to wage increases. There have been some economies in revenue support, but they have not been drastic and they are a comparatively minor cause of the present problems.

Relating this question again directly to London Transport, may I ask whether my hon. and learned Friend agrees that there is a direct relationship between fares and services in London and that if fares go up, the standard of service goes down? Will he note that there seems to be some evidence that, if we are not careful, the Government or their successors will have to face a collapse of public transport in London, because the consumer will not be able to afford the fares and the service will become unacceptable to those using it?

The situation is serious but not so dramatic, perhaps, as that in London at the moment. I accept that one of the main restraining influences on fares is the need to improve the efficiency of the system and increase productivity in the use of manpower. There comes a stage, if everyone hands on fare increases to the public, when it is counter-productive and the public refuse to pay and take up other means of transport.

Has the Minister taken note of the successful low fares policy with which the South Yorkshire county council and the Sheffield district council has persisted? Will he note that this matter was put before the people at the last elections and resulted in a resounding victory? Has he noticed that more people are using road transport in that area and using it to an increasing extent compared with anywhere else in Britain?

The hon. Gentleman's last statement cannot be supported. I know of no evidence to support it. The South Yorkshire county council is not running a successful low fares policy. It is very expensive and wasteful and is being paid for by the ratepayers of South Yorkshire.

What inquiries are taking place to find alternative sources of revenue for public transport, apart from fares and State subsidies? Has my hon. and learned Friend considered the situation that applies to the Paris metropolitan system, under which a third of the revenue, I understand, is obtainable from such sources?

I am aware of the arrangements made in Paris, but careful consultation would be required before new forms of taxation were introduced that might affect employment possibilities in London.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that he cannot get away with his arguments about South Yorkshire? Will he accept that, in South Yorkshire, more people are travelling by bus than on any other passenger transport system in the country?

There is no doubt that people who use buses in South York shire tend to make more regular use of them because the fares are lower. As far as I am aware, people are not being diverted from cars on to buses. The same people are using them more often, at enormous expense to the ratepayers of South Yorkshire. There can be few other areas of the country where the general public would be prepared to pay such fantastic costs for artificially low fares.

asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has to keep up the standards of maintenance of the roads in the light of the proposals of the White Paper on roads.

Maintaining trunk roads and motorways is one of the three main priorities mentioned in my roads White Paper. We must protect the value of the huge investment made over the years in road construction with adequate maintenance today. My proposals for tackling this include identifying those stretches of heavily trafficked roads which require early treatment and carrying out a programme to get repairs completed quickly, economically and with as little traffic disruption as possible.

Does not the Minister agree that motorway maintenance is likely to take a far higher share of the budget in the immediate years ahead? Will not this mean that a smaller amount will be spent on trunk road schemes? Does he not agree that any skimping of the road maintenance programme is a penny-wise, pound-foolish policy—a policy that the Government are pursuing in so many other directions?

The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse the Government of pursuing that kind of policy in road investment and maintenance when we look at the record of the previous Government during their last two years. The position has improved. I agree that road maintenance is of the greatest importance. It will become increasingly important over the next decade.

Has the Minister noticed that, of the 115 schemes proposed in the White Paper for postponement or cancellation, no fewer than seven happen to be in the constituency of Skipton, which I am proud to represent? Is this deliberate? Is the Minister's mind open? Is he prepared to hear logical, dispassionate, sincere and intellectual argument to the effect that at least two or three of these schemes might be restored to their original priority?

I am always open to sincere and intellectual arguments. I look forward to a discussion with my hon. Friend.

Does the Minister accept that the deterioration of roads and pavements in cities is a matter of grave concern for elderly people and others? Is he aware that city highway authorities do not have the money to maintain them properly, which means that the danger is growing daily? What, if anything, does he propose to do to help?

About £500 million a year is going towards local road maintenance. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of the national survey showing that, over the last four or five years, local roads have improved rather than deteriorated. If the hon. and learned Gentleman disagrees, I would point out that during most of that time, the Labour Government were in power. I am concerned about the issues that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised. I shall give more thought to them.

asked the Minister of Transport if he has received any proposals for private investment in Sealink.

The chairman of the British Railways Board has made proposals for introducing capital into several of the board's subsidiaries, including Sea-link. I am discussing these proposals with him.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the denationalisation of British Rail subsidiaries, especially Sea-link, would be of great benefit to the employees and to the long-suffering public? Would it not make the subsidiaries attempt to be commercially viable and efficient?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Under this plan the sub sidiaries will be freed from public sector restraints. We would hope to see further development of these subsidiaries. One of the products of such a process will be not only wealth creation but job creation.

Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be full and adequate consultation with the trade unions before this process comes about and before any legislation is introduced in the House? Is he aware that any suggestion of lessening British Rail control over the subsidiaries will be resisted to the full by the trade unions and by hon. Members?

I give an assurance to the hon. Gentleman that consultation will take place. I am seeing Sidney Weighell and the National Union of Railwaymen this evening on this subject. There is a great deal of common ground. We all want the subsidiaries to expand. We all want a continuing link with the railways, but we also surely want the benefit of private capital. The important matter is not the ideological views of the hon. Gentleman but the development of these businesses.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on his consideration of the future of the National Ports Council.

Yes, Sir. I intend to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to abolish the National Ports Council. This will place firmly on the ports industry the responsibility, through the British Ports Association, for improving the industry's efficiency and performance. I know that it welcomes this and I am satisfied with the arrangements it proposes to this end.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will there be any saving to public funds from the abolition of the National Ports Council?

The major saving will be a saving to the industry which at the moment, finances the National Ports Council through the levy system. That is costing over £1 million a year. The proposal is supported overwhelmingly by the industry, including my hon. Friend's own port.

Is the Minister aware that this is one of the most retrograde steps taken by any Government? The answer to the problems of the ports is not to abolish the National Ports Council but to pursue a policy of co-ordinating the ports throughout the country and bringing them under public control.

With all our experience in this country of bringing industries under public control. I do not think that anyone in his right mind would go down that path. What is needed is for the ports industry to take greater responsibility over its own affairs. This is what our policy is about. It is, I believe, the way forward for the ports industry.

Why has the right hon. Gentleman appointed the existing chairman of the National Ports Council to take over the functions of the chairman of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company on a part-time basis? He has now transferred, without fee, unlike Mr. MacGregor, the existing chairman of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company to an already defunct organisation. Is this playing fair?

It is certainly playing fair. I believe that Sir Arthur Peterson, in his new role as chairman of the National Ports Council, has an important role to play in winding down the National Ports Council and looking after the interests of the staff. There is a further question on the Order Paper concerning Sir John Page.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to improve safety for cyclists.

Yes, Sir. We are taking a fresh look at the whole subject of cycling in order to decide how best to improve facilities and safety for cyclists, and my right hon. Friend will be publishing a consultation paper shortly.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. Will he pay par ticular attention to all the experiments that have taken place in the separation of cyclists from general traffic? Secondly, will he pay attention to the tremendous fuel saving involved when more people start cycling?

Certainly, Sir. The Department already gives advice and limited funds to experimental schemes segregating cyclists from other traffic. We are anxious to have some more of these schemes coming forward, and we shall offer such assistance as we can.

Is the Minister aware that there have been a considerable number of foreign cycles dumped on the British market recently, which have not been safe to start with and which have contributed to a considerable number of accidents? They have also put off many people from cycling. Will he take steps to introduce a British standard for bicycles which would lead to safe machines being sold in Britain?

We are certainly anxious to look at that problem. We are already contemplating, for instance, a new regulation on braking standards as soon as a new British standard can be arrived at. It is important that we maintain safety standards on British-made and imported bicycles.

Perhaps I may declare an interest as a part-time fair-weather cyclist. Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that we must welcome the Government's new-found, positive attitude towards cyclists and pedestrians? Will he assure the House that when the consultations that he has announced are complete, there will be more positive action from the Government, including, perhaps, a requirement on local authorities to provide safe cycle tracks?

We hope that the consultation paper will lead to a useful exercise. We are anxious to provoke more suggestions from those interested in cycling as to exactly what steps they would like the Government to be taking. Whether we shall impose new requirements or statutory duties on local authorities to spend funds on new facilities is a different matter, because we must have regard to the economic problems facing local authorities.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the conditions out in the country? Many people are worried about his complacency over the maintenance of roads. Is he aware that that relates directly to the safety of cyclists and motor cyclists? Not only has the Parliamentary Secretary never been to Sheffield to try its public transport system; he has not been on the roads of places such as Kirkburton in my constituency, where the roads have so many potholes—under his Administration—that they are a danger to motor cyclists and cyclists.

Kirkburton is a bit of a bicycle ride from where I usually spend my time. However, we are not complacent about maintenance. We are spending an ever-increasing amount on the maintenance of trunk roads and other roads. I quite accept that, in judging what is the right level of maintenance, we must have regard to the interests of two-wheeled travellers.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the ratio of vehicle excise duty to road expenditure in 1980–81.

The vehicle excise duty yield is expected to be £1,300 million and road expenditure approximately £1,950 million. The estimated ratio is 0·7:1.

Does the Minister recall that during the last election campaign, his party promised to reduce taxation? This year road users are paying £7 billion in taxes—£2½ billion more than in the last year of the Labour Government. Is the Minister aware that the average car user now pays £7 a week and has to put up with more congestion, more potholes, more delays and more dangers, as a direct result of the present Government's road policy?

That is all very well—if it were not for the fatal flaw in the hon. Gentleman's argument. The present Government are spending more not less, upon trunk road investment and road maintenance. That is because of the pure incompetence of the previous Labour Government, who were not even able to spend the money that was allocated to those things.

What about all those motorists who pay nothing at all towards the maintenance of roads and so on? Is the Minister satisfied that we are making suitable progress in reducing the apparently large number of people who get away for, seemingly, a very long time, without paying vehicle excise duty?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct about that. We have already had one campaign concerning this matter. Another campaign is now in being. I assure my hon. Friend that the present Government will take every action open to them to detect vehicle excise duty evaders, because I agree with my hon. Friend that it is wrong and is something which the public abhor.

Is the Minister aware that, according to the House of Commons Library, there has not been a debate in this House on roads initiated by any Government for at least the last 30 years? Can the Minister think of any instance in which so much money has been spent with so little discussion?

As I have said previously to the hon. Gentleman, no one would be more pleased than I would if we could arrange a debate upon roads policy in this House. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a matter of importance and that it is something which should be debated on the Floor of the House. I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to ensure that vehicle components, including those imported, conform to construction and use regulations; and if he will make a statement.

Substantial resources are already devoted by the Department, through type approval of cars and annual testing schemes, and by the police, to ensuring that vehicles and their components comply with construction and use requirements. I have no evidence to suggest that components generally fail to meet our standards, but I am always ready to consider available evidence and the need for appropriate action.

Does the Minister accept that many people in the vehicle industry are unhappy with the existing limited tests which are made? Will he look particularly at tightening up the system of testing imported components, where some of the dangers could lie?

There are 150,000 convictions a year for breach of the construction and use regulations. We are doing our best to enforce them. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about some imported parts. We have investigated brake diaphragms. We are looking for evidence, as complaints are arising about brake linings. If the hon. Gentleman will produce any evidence that he has about substandard imported parts, we shall be anxious to investigate it.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will launch a campaign to publicise the changes in the law relating to car-sharing when the Transport Bill receives Royal Assent.

The Transport Bill removes the remaining restrictions on the advertising of car sharing. I plan to bring the relevant provisions into force in October. Notes for guidance are being prepared and I am holding discussions with local authorities, companies and voluntary organisations. I am intending to encourage motorists to take full advantage of the new opportunities.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that car-sharing has the potential to play a most useful part in reducing wasteful congestion and the use of fuel? Does he agree that the use of public expenditure in this way could be extremely cost-effective? Will he, therefore, consider using all possible means of advertising, including television?

We shall certainly consider whatever means we can to encourage car-sharing, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has given. In London, for example, in the peak hours about 130,000 cars are coming into London, carrying only 176,000 people. I think that that shows the kind of potential that car-sharing has. There is great potential in the rural areas, as well.

Has the Minister considered discussing with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary any changes that may be necessary in the Representation of the People Act in terms of carriage of electors to the polls in relation to his new car-sharing law?

No, I have not discussed that matter. I do not think that any change is needed, but I shall certainly take that point on board.

Will my right hon. Friend consider examining and, perhaps introducing, the scheme which operates in Istanbul using vehicles known as dolmus? A dolmus is a vehicle which is like a taxi, which picks up people on the way down a pre-ordained route and puts them down on that route—

It is called a bus.

It does not fill up just once. It is like a bus, but it is a taxi. It is more flexible than a bus. The charge is about a quarter of the price of a taxi. It is very useful in some parts of the world. It could be a very useful innovation in the United Kingdom.

I welcome my hon. Friend's example. I think that the general point that he makes is very good—that we should look at new ways of serving the travelling public. I believe that car-sharing is one way and the Government are certainly prepared to look at other new, alternative, ways, because I believe that the criterion should be the service to the travelling public. That is what matters, above all.

Is the Minister still satisfied that those people offering their cars for car-sharing will not have to pay an extra premium on their insurance and, indeed, that the passengers in the car, if involved in an incident, are not likely to be denied a claim for damages because it is considered that it is "hire and reward" scheme?

I am convinced on both of the points that the hon. Gentleman raises. In case there is any doubt, I think that the message should go forth that insurance policies cover car-sharing. That was one of the things—and I pay tribute to them—that the previous Government cleared up. Therefore, the obstacles in the way of car-sharing have now been removed. I believe that this can make a very useful contribution to urban and rural mobility.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects the stages of the M63 in Stockport now under construction to be completed.

Spring 1982.

In view of the increasing number of people who are out of work in the construction industry, will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider trying to speed up the contract so that that section of the road can be opened more quickly? Will he, particularly, look at the way in which the contracts should go on to the next stage so that we can have some continuity of construction within Stockport?

I do not think that taking more people on will speed up construction. The problem is diverting the work of statutory undertakers at the moment. We are anxious to get on with the next section from Portwood to Denton. We hope to publish our Highways Act proposals this summer and I expect that construction will begin in the 1982–83 period.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the latest figure of the total numbers of industrial and non-industrial civil servants, how this compares with 12 months before; and what is his estimate of the figure 12 months hence.

At 1 April 1979 there were 732,000 staff in post. Of these 565,800 were non-industrials and 166,500 industrials. At 1 April 1980 the corresponding figures were 705,100, 547,700 and 157,400. As a result of the Government's action to reduce the size of the Civil Service, I expect the total to be well under 700,000 by the end of this financial year.

May I first congratulate my right hon. Friend on becoming a Privy Councillor? I hope that that business goes in strictly alphabetical order. So far as the planned reduction of the total number of civil servants to 630,000 by 1984 is concerned, given the annual turnover of people retiring and those voluntarily leaving non-Civil Service jobs, cannot that figure easily be obtained by recruiting three people for every four who leave? There is, therefore, no need for any forced redundancies.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. Concerning the reduction of staff to 630,000 by May 1984, we are certainly not looking for compulsory redundancies. I think that there will be very few of them. I certainly hope so. My hon. Friend is right to point out that there will be a large number of people leaving through natural wastage. Therefore, I hope that we shall be able to achieve our objective largely through voluntary redundancies.

Does the right hon. Gentleman take pride in the fact that he is further increasing the number of people unemployed? Will he tell me how such people will obtain alternative employment and thereby reduce the unemployment figures, which are catastrophic and a disgrace both to the country and to the Government?

I am not increasing the unemployment figures. As I said a moment ago—[Interruption.] I hope that the House will allow me to give—

If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that he understands nothing.

I should like to be allowed to answer the question. I am not increasing the unemployment figures. As I said to my hon. Friend, the vacancies will occur through natural wastage and large numbers of people retiring. I understand the point about school leavers and recruitment opportunities. Surely the House recognises that the way to resolve the country's economic problem is not by creating artificial jobs in the public sector but by trying to expand the private sector and encouraging the productive sector of the community.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a large and important section of the work force in his Department are the humble ladies who do a darned good job cleaning up Civil Service establishments? Is the policy of the Government to do away with these ladies, take them off the payroll and hand over the gravy to the so-called private enterprise cleaning agencies?

Our policy on cleaners is that Departments are asked to use the most economical form of cleaning. The practice will vary from one Department to another.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is his estimate of the cash savings to be made annually in reducing the Civil Service from 700,000 to 630,000; and what will be the additional cost of paying the private sector for work which will still need to be done but will not be done, after the reduction, by the Civil Service.

Detailed plans of the Departments' savings have yet to be settled, but the gross savings could be £500 million a year at current prices by 1984. It is too early to say how much this will be offset by the cost of work put out to the private sector.

As I am sure that my right hon. Friend would never, under any circumstances, wish to mislead the public, may I ask him, when he gives figures in future about the reduction in the size of the Civil Service, to say, at the same time, what, if any, additional costs have been incurred by putting out work to the private sector?

Yes, I have no wish to mislead the public. Plans are being drawn up in detail in every Department. When they have been drawn up in full I shall be able to give a full picture to my hon. Friend.

Would that represent a reduction in the gross national product?

The right hon. Gentleman is a better economist than I am. I leave that matter to him.

May I tell my right hon. Friend that, though we are all at one with him in our efforts to save money, I am sure that we would be wrong to discriminate against civil servants? I believe we have done that by using them as a whipping boy for all the problems of society and by what I consider to be the gross inequity of denying to civil servants and members of the Armed Forces those tax reliefs obtained by other United Kingdom residents on overseas service. Civil servants are currently denied these reliefs and I believe that that is monstrously unfair.

I entirely agree with the first half of my hon. Friends question. As to the second half, that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is well aware of the problem but I will draw it to his attention again.

As the Minister's Department is responsible for open government, and for the provision of as much information as possible to the House and to the public, will he try to get his hon. Friends who are responsible for bringing in this army of civilian mercenaries to do Civil Service jobs to publish the facts and figures about them so that we may all see what savings, if any, are being achieved?

I think that the hon. Gentleman, uncharacteristically, exaggerates the situation. There is no question of an army of civilian mercenaries. A small percentage of the savings in the Civil Service will result from work going out to the private sector.

What is the national gain in paying these people to do nothing rather than paying them to do some work?

As I explained to the House a moment ago, the savings in the Civil Service will be achieved largely as a result of people retiring or leaving the service, anyway. During the next three years it is estimated that almost 250,000 people will leave the service in the normal way.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made with technology agreements within Government Departments so that best use can be made of computerised office equipment, modern telematics and information, and computerised storage and retrieval.

A great deal of equipment incorporating recent developments in technology is used in Government Departments. Full advantage of computerised equipment and other forms of new technology will continue to be taken. We should much prefer to introduce this equipment with the active co-operation of the Civil Service unions and discussions are taking place with that intention.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, following the Select Committee visit to the United States—since I tabled this question—there is ample evidence there, in Government Departments and commercial offices, of the use of word processors, microfiche and terminals for video screens. Is it not a fact that his Department has taken a long time to achieve the co-operation which already exists in other countries?

There is a large number of microcomputers in operation in the Civil Service already. About 250 word processors and 500 automatic typewriters are being used and more are in train. However, I take my hon. Friend's point and I shall continue to examine it as a matter of the greatest urgency.

How can the Minister expect co-operation when he and his Government are using the Civil Service as a whipping boy for their own mistaken policies and while the Government are embarking on slashing cuts in numbers in the Service? Does not the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that civil servants will be concerned to preserve and maintain jobs? Does he realise that, in such circumstances, they will not be prepared to collaborate with a Government who are determined to destroy jobs and add to the enormously long dole queues?

I think that the hon. Gentleman wholly misrepresents the position. The Civil Service unions have, traditionally, always taken a most constructive attitude to the introduction of new technology and I have every reason to believe that they will continue to do so.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to encourage and build the development of the British information technology in dustry is through an enlightened and coordinated Government purchasing policy, and that the best vehicle for making such decision might be the Department of Industry?

Yes, I think I agree with my hon. Friend. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the current total of industrial and non-industrial civil servants employed by the Government.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman).

Is the Minister aware that his reply to the question on cuts in Civil Service manpower was totally unsatisfactory? How can he say that the Government's target of cutting 110,000 Civil Service jobs will not affect unemployment? Is it not sick news for the 179,000 young people on the unemployment register that those job opportunities are not available to them when they leave school?

The hon. Member has once again outlined the clear difference that exists between him and me on this issue. I believe that the future prosperity of this country depends on our creating real jobs in the private, wealth-producing sector. It does not depend on the artificial creation of unnecessary jobs in the public sector.