asked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied with the procedures for payment of bus grant.

Yes, Sir.

Will the Minister assure the House that it is possible for him to identify, and if necessary to publish, the amount of grant available to each bus? If that is the position now, why was it not so in the past?

The hon. Gentleman knows that, when the scheme was in its earlier stages, stage payments were allowed to local authorities. That appears to have given rise to an enormous amount of paper work. When the hon. Gentleman pressed me about the individual cost of fleet line buses, I found that the first 17 buses gave rise to 50 pages of paper work. The local authorities bought more than 2,000 buses. I do not agree that we should spend all the time and money involved on providing individual costs for each bus, going back into the past. The present system allows us to know exactly how the money is being spent.

Will the Minister confirm, or deny, the reports in both The Guardian and the Financial Times about the rather peculiar bus grant that we are told the Minister proposes to make to private operators in those areas where, the Ministry is trying to bribe county councils to introduce trial areas?

The stories are ill-founded. The new bus grant has nothing to do with the creation of trial areas. Currently, we are considering transport supplementary grants for all local authorities that made bids this year. We shall consider the bids made by counties contemplating trial areas for any transitional costs that might arise.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is much better to have competition in bus transport than to adopt the sort of plans proposed by the London Labour Party—at great expense to London ratepayers if the Labour Party ever comes to power—whereby free transport will be provided out of the rates?

The first fruits of competition that we are seeing in the context of inter-city coaches, following the Transport Act 1980, are all to the good of consumers. They are leading to an extension of better services. I agree that if the London Labour Party introduces in London the sort of policies that have been introduced in South Yorkshire by the South Yorkshire Labour Party, the eventual cost to the ratepayers will be ruinous. Presumably, the Labour Party will then be obliged by reality to abandon its policy.

asked the Minister of Transport what the decline in the capital expenditure of roads as a proportion of the total public expenditure will he between 1978–79 and 1983–84 on the basis of the Government's proposed public expenditure plans.

Decisions on the allocation in future years of trunk road resources between construction and maintenance have yet to be made. However, I expect expenditure on capital projects to remain broadly in line with the 0·4 per cent. of total public expenditure in Great Britain which it represented in 1978–79 and 1979–80.

As the total expenditure on road construction and maintenance in England is planned to fall between 1978–79 and 1983–84, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of public expenditure, how can the Minister assure us that there will not be a further cut in the construction programme, as maintenance costs on all motorways and trunk roads are bound to rise during that period? Does the planned reduction of total road construction and maintenance expenditure from £1,123 million in 1978–79 to £1,065 million in 1983–84—which is a cut in the percentage of public expenditure on roads—indicate that the Government intend the road programme to bear more than a fair share of the total public expenditure cuts?

I am not trying to give the right hon. Gentleman an absolute guarantee about the future. This is an extremely curious issue for the Opposition to latch upon. The largest cuts in road spending in Britain, and in the history of the road programme, were implemented by the previous Labour Administration, when expenditure went down by half. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at our record for the first year he will see that we spent more on motorways and trunk roads than was spent in either of the last two years of the Labour Government.

In view of the savage cuts that have been made in local areas, particularly in expenditure on education, social services and many other sectors, does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is no earthly reason why some of these rather fanciful new road schemes, which I gather are still in the Ministry pipeline, should not at the least be deferred for a considerable period, and preferably abandoned?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend that there are fanciful schemes in our programme. We have pruned them. Indeed, all the representations that I am receiving refer in particular to the need for bypasses to be built. The important thing is that, as far as possible, we should seek to protect investment programmes, and that is what we are trying to do.

In view of the many repairs to our motorways, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that our motorways are not of an adequate standard? When considering the future of motorways, will he ensure that they are built to a higher standard? Will he also bear in mind that road conditions throughout the country are deteriorating so much that more accidents are bound to occur and that something more should be done to make certain that our roads are brought up to a good standard?

There is no evidence to support the hon. Gentleman's contention that our roads are not up to standard. In fact, the examinations and inquiries carried out by the local authorities show the opposite to be the case. Clearly, when we come to motorways, such as the Ml, there is no question but that because of the amount of traffic over and above the projected increases, and particularly the increase in heavy goods vehicle traffic, maintenance will continue to be necessary. There is no escaping that question.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied with the coordination of policy on transport by road, rail and water.

Yes, Sir. My policy is to create the conditions in which full and fair competition between these different modes of transport can flourish.

My right hon. Friend's policy of introducing more private capital into road transport and the subsidiary activities of British Rail is to be welcomed, but will he consider whether this could be extended to waterways; in particular to the operation of the British Waterways Board, for example with regard to the Kennet and Avon canal? In that context, will he have discussions with his right hon. Friend at the Department of the Environment to see whether responsibility for the waterways should be transferred from the Department of the Environment to the Ministry of Transport?

I am prepared to enter into discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is in charge of waterways. There might be a case for looking at the arrangement here, but I do not think that it is the No. 1 priority at present. As to privatisation, we shall of course consider all opportunities to introduce private capital, because we believe that that is in the interests of the industries concerned.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give just one concrete example of a so-called "condition" that he has created or helped to create?

Yes, indeed. The condition that we have created in relation to new coach services operating on motorways is a dramatic and pleasing example of what can happen, not by the introduction of some enormous national plan—which apparently is the policy of the Labour Party—but by the removal of restrictions to allow competition to take place. The result is that new services have developed and prices have come down. That has not happened too often in public transport in the past.

Is my right hon Friend aware that there are examples of stretches of waterways where private investors are keen to provide capital on a co-operative basis with the British Waterways Board?

I am prepared, obviously in consultation with my right hon. Friend, to look at any plans of that kind.

If there is to be proper competition between roadway and waterway, should they not be funded in the same way; in other words, by public capital? Will he look at this matter in conjunction with the report of the inland shipping group of the Inland Waterways Association, which is due to be published today?

I shall look at it. If the report is due to be published today, I look forward to seeing it.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce legislation further to reduce the permitted noise level of motor cycles; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend made regulations on 6 August which reduce the maximum noise levels permitted for new motor cycles from 1982. We are considering even more stringent limits for all vehicles for the longer term.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that helpful reply. Does he agree that if it were possible further to reduce the permitted noise levels that would not only protect the environment but might act as a de facto import control with regard to Japanese bikes? In view of what he has said, will he keep in close touch with the Home Office to ensure that, as far as possible, the new regulations are enforced by the police?

I am not sure whether regulations will distinguish between motor cycles on the basis of their origin. The EEC regulations that we have implemented have taken us in the right direction, and we intend to go further. Enforcement can be difficult where people modify motor cycles compared with their original manufacture. The police have difficulties, but they bring 11,000 successful prosecutions each year for noisy vehicles of all kinds. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, so that that enforcement effort can be maintained.

Despite the changes in regulations, is not this noise still inflicted in large measure in support of the Japanese balance of payments? Should not a higher priority be afforded to safety than to noise? In that regard, has the Minister noted the extremely serious comments of the South Yorkshire coroner? Will he take note of those and show rather more urgent concern about reducing the current heavy toll of young lives?

There is considerable concern about noise on the roads, whether the noise be Japanese in origin or of any other nationality. As to motor cycle safety, I have noted the remarks of the South Yorkshire coroner. We have been considering this problem for some time, and my right hon. Friend is due to answer a later question on the subject.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will mount a new advertising campaign using all forms of advertising to promote road safety in general and to reduce the level of road casualties among schoolchildren in particular.

Advertising and publicity have a vital role to play in road safety, particularly in respect to the young. I am spending nearly £5 million this year on publicity campaigns. This is in addition to voluntary sponsorship such as that provided by the Sunday Mirror, "glow worm" campaign and from firms such as the Co-operative Wholesale Society and VG stores.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that particularly helpful reply, which is characteristic of him. Will he outline the measures that he might introduce in legislation during the forthcoming Session?

With a supplementary question such as that, my hon. Friend's constituency must need a bypass or something of that kind. He knows that in addition to the legislation that I hope we shall put forward there will be a continuing need for publicity and advertising. If one takes drinking and driving as an example, the Blennerhassett committee proposed that the advertising and publicity campaign should continue, and I am sure that that is right.

Did the Minister say "Jesus wants him for a glow worm"? With regard to road safety, especially in relation to children, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the problems that children face when crossing the road is to find a way to do so in Tory areas such as Cumbria, where 41 school crossing patrols have just been dismissed? How does the Minister have the cheek to talk about keeping death off the roads when he is driving young children to their death?

That is a pretty stupid comment from the hon. Gentleman. I do not regard road safety as an issue of party politics, but if the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, which I know he does not want to do, he will see that the 1979 figures for child safety and child casualties, are, I am glad to say, the best since 1958. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Transport what criteria he employs in the choice of members of local advisory boards of the British Transport Docks Board.

I appoint members whose experience and local knowledge appear to me to be best suited to the local boards' needs.

When does the Minister expect to fill the vacancy that has arisen on the Humber advisory board by a nominee from the Goole chamber of commerce and shipping?

I assume that the next step will be that the Goole and district chamber of commerce will put forward a new representative. I regret that steps that have so far been taken, whereby one of the original nominees was appointed by me and the hon. Gentleman then led a campaign against him inside the chamber to force him to resign.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has reached a decision on the inspector's report following the public inquiry into the Blythe bridge to Uttoxeter section of the A564 Stoke to Derby link.

The inspector's report is still being considered. I hope that it will be possible to announce a decision soon.

Since the inspector's report was submitted some months ago, does not my hon. and learned Friend think that it is time that a decision was published? Many of my constituents consider that this road is required urgently, and the sooner it is started the better.

We received the report in June of this year, and I am anxious in all these cases that there should not be too great a delay between receiving the inspector's report and giving a decision. It is not simply a question of reading the report; it is also a question of evaluating highly complex arguments and producing a detailed decision letter that will stand up to scrutiny in the courts of law and elsewhere when a final decision is taken. I appreciate my hon. Friend's strong views about the road. We have been proceeding with the matter as quickly as possible.

asked the Minister of Transport when last he discussed the financial structure of British Railways with the chairman.

I have regular meetings with the chairman to discuss current policy issues, including finance. I met him last week and I shall meet him again in two weeks.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the railways are facing a crisis? Passenger takings and freight receipts are down and fares are going up, and yet British Rail is still asked to manage 11,000 miles of permanent way. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are now 19 British Rail employees for every mile of permanent way? Is it not time that British Rail was given a new flexibility about the extent of the railway system in this country and about its freedom to reduce the gross overmanning on the railways?

My hon. Friend is obviously right when he says that productivity must be the key to the future of British Rail. Clearly, that is the sort of policy that the chairman of British Rail, Sir Peter Parker, is putting forward. We recognise the problems of British Rail, and we have increased its external finance limit by £40 million in the current year. That decision has been welcomed by British Rail and gives it the sort of flexibility that it should have.

In his discussions with Sir Peter Parker, will the Minister give him a clear assurance that British Rail will not be required to sell any of its subsidiaries prematurely, in adverse financial conditions, to meet any part of its capital programme?

The sale of assets must continue to be part of British Rail's programme—a policy that is agreed between us. The decision on the timing of that sale depends upon British Rail. It will have to take into account a number of factors. including its ability to live within the external finance limit. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the holding company, which will in future incorporate these subsidiary companies, will be wholly-owned by British Rail. That policy has been welcomed by the British Railways Board.

What hope can my right hon. Friend hold out for the replacement of out-of-date rolling stock which came into service shortly after the Second World War, unless something is done about the financial structure of British Rail?

The investment that is taking place in British Rail is the investment programme, obviously revalued, that we inherited from the previous Labour Government. We have 95 HSTs either in service or authorised, and a rolling programme of 220 EMUs. It could be, and is, argued by some in British Rail that we should do more, but I hope that everyone will understand how much public money goes into the railway system.

Is the Minister aware that the amount of public money that is spent by this country on helping its railways falls tremendously short of the levels of its competitors? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the money does not come from the public purse to aid the railways to compete, it can come only from vastly increased fares, which will affect everyone who uses the railway system?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. That is one option, but the other is to increase the efficiency and productivity of British Rail. That is what the British Railways Board is trying to do. It has put forward a number of proposals. I understand the hon. Gentleman's close interest in the railway industry, and I hope that all those who are associated with the industry will support the chairman of the board in what he is trying to do.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will take further steps to publicise the car-sharing proposals contained in the Transport Bill.

The leaflets and posters that we have distributed have had an enthusiastic response. Great interest is being shown both by local newspapers and local radio. There has also been an excellent response from employers and voluntary organisations, with whom I am in close touch. I am now considering building on this with a further publicity campaign in the new year.

As I am reassured by that answer, I have no further question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in one of the recent radio advertisements inviting people to write in for these leaflets, half the radio time was taken up by asking them to write to the Department of Transport Publicity Stores, Building 3, Victoria Road, South Ruislip, Middlesex HA4 ONZ? Would it be possible to produce a longer address, to ensure that any would-be car user is guaranteed to get writer's cramp?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on a defect in our campaign which I confess I did not know about. I shall follow it up, and I should be most surprised if we could not improve on it.

asked the Minister of Transport what further discussions he has had with Leyland Vehicles Ltd. in connection with type approval regulations for imported trucks.

My right hon. Friend is today publishing a consultation paper about a national type approval scheme for trucks. It would apply to both imported and home-produced vehicles. Leyland Vehicles Ltd. will be closely involved in those talks.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this Conservative initiative is greatly welcomed by Leyland Vehicles Ltd., particularly as the success of the new T45, which is potentially a world-beating truck, is dependent on fair competition from outside?

We hoped that this move would help the industry, and I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend. who has a close interest in Leyland Trucks. I recently visited Leyland Trucks and saw examples of the T45. It is a pity that more Opposition Members do not fall into the practice of thanking my right hon. Friend and myself for our answers and for the steps that we are taking in this and other areas.

As Leyland Vehicles, Bathgate is in my constituency, may I ask whether the Government are looking at the problems that arise from homologation?

Yes.

asked the Minister for Transport if he will provide special funding to British Railways to enable them to open freight branch lines for passenger transport.

No, Sir. The Government already provide general support for existing passenger rail services.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it is absurd that in a developing area such as that covered by the Walsall to Rugeley line, which is used extensively by mainline passenger transport during the weekend, the line should be available only for commerce during the week? In view of the low Government subsidy to British Rail and the Government's mean attitude in cutting public expenditure for local authorities, does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the only hope for these lines is to provide special Government support?

British Rail has to take a decision, with our encouragement, about the commercial prospects for a new passenger railway service and whether it is likely to cover its costs. On the question of support, it should also look to the local authorities. In the West Midlands, for instance, the county council is giving support to an extensive system of new passenger services.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the answer that was given a moment ago about British Rail to the effect that we were continuing the previous Government's policy, is a low level of expectancy on this side of the House? We expect our Government to do better than the Labour Government. On that basis, will my hon. and learned Friend look at the situation in France—taking the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair Wilson)—where the track bed is owned by the State? Is it not time that we started considering the fundamental changes that are needed to enable British Rail to compete effectively in the 1980s?

Will the Minister take note of the fact that passing the buck to the metropolitan county councils does not work, as they are not willing to spend more money on promoting more services? Is the Minister now telling the House that the best hope for those living in the metropolitan county council areas is for Labour to take control of all of them next May?

The passenger transport authorities are sucessfully supporting extensive passenger services, and the Conservative-controlled West Midlands county council is maintaining support for services, many of them on new lines brought back into passenger service.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the introduction of further measures to reduce Civil Service staff in his Department.

We plan to make a reduction of 2,645 staff by 1 April 1984. This is equivalent to some 19 per cent. of staff in post on 1 March 1979. In addition, major changes planned in the road construction sub-units will result in a contraction of 1,600 in the staff on the payroll of my Department. On this basis there will in all be a reduction of nearly 30 per cent. But I shall continue the search for further savings.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Would it be possible for him to project the likely additional staff savings to 1984? Will he indicate to the House whether the sale of heavy vehicle testing stations at some time in the future would have any effect on the figures?

The savings from the policy on HGV testing stations is taken account of in the figures that I have just given to my hon. Friend.

Will not the reduction of staff in the road construction units be more than matched by an increase in staff from private contractors, probably at great expense to the taxpayer?

I am glad to tell the House that we have had about 100 proposals from consultants on the work that they want to take over. The work that they will be taking over will, of course, include the criteria for choosing consultants. and also criteria on the staff. We believe that it is better for the road building programme and for the country generally that there should be this shift from public to private enterprise.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the support on the Conservative Benches for his closing of many of the road construction units? Will he make sure that he is not deflected in any way from this plan?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that the arrangements that we have are to the benefit not only of the taxpayer and the country generally, but, in the long term, of the staff who are involved.

When considering the privatisation of heavy goods vehicle testing, will the Minister take note of the fact that the people who operate the heavy goods vehicles are extremely dubious about handing over the testing to private enterprise, as they feel that they would not get the same impartial judgment that they get in the present circumstances?

I understand the concern. One of the reasons for it is, I believe, a misunderstanding of what is being proposed. What we are proposing is that the purely mechanical process of the annual check should go to the private sector. We shall, of course, continue to set the standards and to operate by our own staff the policing function of spot checks. I do not think that note has been taken of that point.

asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received about the introduction of random breathalyser tests.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on timing of legislation affecting drinking and driving.

I have received many representations both for and against random testing. Although I believe that reform of drink drive laws is necessary, I do not believe that it is necessary to give police unrestricted powers to test. Random testing does not therefore form part of my proposals. However, there are changes in the law which are important and I shall be introducing the necessary legislation as soon as possible.

Does the Minister agree that alcohol is a contributory factor in an increasing number of road accidents? What positive proposals will he bring forward to reduce the tendency of motorists to ignore the present laws on drinking and driving?

I could not agree more with the central point that the hon. Gentleman is putting. At the moment, one in three of the drivers killed is over the limit, and that is the kind of problem that we have to tackle. We shall put forward legislation as soon as possible. Part of those proposals will be the introduction of evidential breath testing—breath machines in police stations. We shall improve the legislation, so that people are not acquitted on technicalities. We shall put together a package of pro- posals that will, I hope, have support on each side of the House.

Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the legislation that he proposes will be effective in closing any technical loopholes that may exist, particularly with reference to those drivers who have consumed an inordinate amount of alcohol?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. At the moment, over half of those who are convicted are not just a little over the limit; they have consumed almost twice the limit, or more than that. That is the kind of problem with which we are dealing. That is why we want to eliminate the technical defences and to do certain other things. For example, I hope that we shall put forward proposals that will increase the penalties for hit and run, which is connected in many cases with drinking and driving.

If the Minister believes that road safety is not a matter of party politics, will he ensure that, in Government time, there will be an opportunity to have a free vote on random testing, as I believe that he is to allow the House—ifThe Guardian can be believed—a free vote on seat belts in Government time?

I am not sure of the source from which The Guardian received that story. It is certainly not the intention, although it may well be that there will be a Private Member's Bill in this House, or in another place, on the subject of seat belts. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to wait until he has seen the proposals. If we are successful in finding a place in the legislative programme the Bill will be taken in Committee, and doubtless there will be an opportunity to debate the matter. I am sure that if we debate drinking and driving that kind of issue can and should be properly debated, but my advice to the House is that this is not a power that is necessary, and my fear is that it could endanger the good relations that exist between the police and the public. That is something that we should also have in mind.

Is not the biggest technical loophole in the drinking and driving legislation the confidence that most drivers have that they can get drunk and drive, and get away with it? Will the Minister give us one idea that he has that might reduce the current horrifying figures—which indicate that 4 out of 10 drivers killed are drunk—by even 2 per cent?

I agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. With the breath test machines that we shall be introducing the whole process of testing and checking will be quicker for the police—and, incidentally, for the driver—and will enable the police to check more efficiently than they are able to do at the moment. I ask the hon. Gentleman, before he dismisses those arguments, to await the legislation and the details of it, because I assure him that there is nothing between us on the intent.

asked the Minister of Transport how many applications he has received from private developers for the operation of the motorway service stations.

I am glad to say that excellent progress is being made. I have agreed terms, subject to contract, for the sale of half the service areas in England and negotiations are well advanced on the others.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. It is very good news. Will he go a little further and advise the House when he expects the negotiations for the sale of the remaining service stations to be completed?

I very much hope that the bulk of the negotiations will be completed in the next few weeks. Once they are completed I shall make a full state-men to the House.

Will the Minister discourage those who wish to sell alcoholic drinks on motorways? Not only does the consumption of alcohol lead to deaths on the road; it leads to gross ill-behaviour at football matches and so on. Will he encourage only those operators who promise not to sell alcoholic drinks?

No one sells alcohol on the motorways at the moment. We have no intention of changing that position. In other words, it will remain as it is today.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. In the negotiations that are taking place, does he intend to draw attention to the fact that in recent weeks and months an exorbitant charge for petrol has been made at service stations? Will he ensure the House that in the negotiations he will make it clear that he expects to see the same healthy element of competition on petrol sales at service stations as on the consumption of food?

That is one of the purposes of what we are seeking to do. We believe that as a result of this policy there will be much greater competition between motorway service areas. There will certainly be competition in price on petrol. I think that we shall see signs of that very shortly. Increased competition is a much better way of achieving better standards than the catering inspections that the previous Labour Government had in mind.

Further to what the Minister said to his hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown), does he believe that this exploitation of motorists can be stopped only by positive price control over petrol?

No. That was the last and totally discredited policy of the Labour Government. I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait a few months and then see what the situation is. I think that the best way forward is by competition. I believe that he will find that his words ring fairly hollow in a few months' time.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is now able to make a further statement about the Channel tunnel project.

The British and French railways' project and a number of other schemes are still being developed. We hope to receive substantive proposals, including financing details, by the end of the year.

I realise that the Minister cannot anticipate that matter. However, will he confirm that the scheme under active consideration is the single track British Rail-SNCF scheme, not the ludicrous Brunnel which various powerful private interests are putting forward, which will be many times more expensive?

The British Rail-SNCF scheme is only one of several being investigated. We have invited people to come forward with propositions. There are several active consortia in this area. We are waiting for all of them to work out their proposals and to come to us with them, together with suggestions for their financing.

Will my hon. and learned Friend assure the House that any political risk that arises from the construction of the tunnel will be underwritten by the Government? Whereas commercial interests are well capable of underwriting commercial risk, there is always the political uncertainty. May we have an assurance on that point?

I could not put the distinction more clearly than has my hon. Friend. That is precisely the position. If the Government, for political reasons, midway through the scheme were to cancel it, there would be some obligation on them to make good the financial loss; but in our opinion the commercial risk should be taken by those financing the project. There is no way in which the Government will put risk capital into any project of any kind.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on his examination of the problems experienced by motor cyclists and road safety.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on his examination of measures designed to improve safety for motor cyclists.

Casualties among motor cyclists are a cause of wide public concern and I believe that measures to improve safety are essential. The most urgent need is to improve the safety of the young and inexperienced rider. I will be proposing three main measures: a reduction in the maximum size of the learner machine; the introduction of a two-part test for learners; and a limitation on the duration of the provisional entitlement to ride a motor cycle. I hope to introduce legislation on this at the earliest opportunity.

I agree that this is a vital and urgent matter. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the present standard of training that is available for motor cyclists and the thoroughness of the motor cycle driving test?

I am satisfied with the standards, although we shall review them. The real problem is not so much the provision of training facilities; it is that young riders are not taking advantage of the training facilities that exist. About 85 per cent. of those going on to the road for the first time as riders are not undergoing training. That is a totally unsatisfactory situation, and that is what we are aiming to improve.

Has my right hon. Friend made any estimate of the number of lives, particularly young lives, that could be saved if and when these measures come into force?

The casualty rate has gone up from 43,000 in 1972, to 67,000 in 1979. At the moment 1,100 motor cyclists are killed each year, and about half of those are teenagers. That is the size of the problem, and that is why it is urgent to act.

Will the Minister say why he has not taken question 31, standing in my name, with questions 19 and 29? Does he feel any sense of obligation to local authorities such as the South Yorkshire county council, which is seeking to pursue motor cycle safety and which, if it is to maintain that attitude, will need a great deal more Government support than appears to be threatened now? Does he agree that it is urgent to take action to amend the regulations to reflect the reality that motor cycles today are 30 miles an hour faster than vehicles of equivalent size 20 years ago?

I apologise for the first omission, but the hon. Gentleman has got his supplementary in.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Department should be congratulated on the excellent and effective television advertising "Think Bike" campaign? Will he consider extending that to a "Think Car" campaign for motor cyclists, who cut in at traffic lights and put their feet under the front wheels of motor cars?

I shall consider that suggestion. The first part of my right hon. Friend's question is important. One reason why the casualty rate is so high stems from the inherent difficulties of motor cyclists and the fact that many car drivers do not notice them. That has been the purpose of our advertising campaign, and that campaign will continue.

Will the changes that the Minister proposes to make in motor cycle licensing and testing require primary legislation? If not, will he assure us that we shall have ample opportunity to debate them in the House? If the House and the Minister are convinced, as I am, that it is wise to have different categories of motor cycle licence, will he seek to persuade his fellow Transport Ministers in the Community that Community licensing of motor bikes, as reflected in the directive, might be changed to take account of this factor?

The short answer is that it will be in the main transport legislation. Therefore, right hon. and hon. Members will have an opportunity to debate it not only on the Floor of the House but in Committee. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman will have the time that he took on the previous Bill to put his points.

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

My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with the Chairman of British Railways at which matters of policy and investment are discussed. He is meeting the chairman again in two weeks.

Is not the reality that British Rail needs a great deal of investment to refurbish passenger and other rolling stock and railway equipment, that it is so short of cash that it is seeking to reduce the 11,000-mile passenger network and that already the Woodhead route is under scrutiny for closure? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that he will in no way insist to British Rail that investment must be reduced to increase productivity if safety standards will thereby be reduced?

We have not reduced British Rail's investment ceiling. The investment ceiling must be related to the ability of the railway business to afford and make a contribution to it, and of the Government and the country to afford it.

I recognise the Government's efforts to defend British Rail's capital programme, but when my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he urge him to give a higher priority in future capital investment to the needs of short-haul commuters, especially in London and the South-East, as these have been somewhat neglected in the interests of long-haul passengers?

We have been looking at the problem in the light of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That report showed that about 23 per cent. of British Rail's capital programmes were being devoted to commuter services over the period 1970 to 1979. I hope that something of that level will be maintained.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the number of non-industrial and industrial civil servants; and how these figures compare with mid-1979.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what are the latest totals of industrial and non-industrial civil servants employed by Her Majesty's Government.

On 1 October 1980, there were 543,200 non-industrial and 153,900 industrial staff in post, a reduction of 17,000 and 9,600 respectively compared with 1 July 1979.

Are those reductions in line with the planned reductions announced in the Prime Minister's statement in the summer? Given the annual turnover in the Civil Service, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the planned reduction overall, to 630,000 by 1983–84, can be achieved without any redundancies?

These figures are in line with the statement in May of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It remains the Government's firm aim to achieve the figures by April 1984. I cannot say that there will be no redundancies. We are certainly not looking for compulsory redundancies and I hope that there will be very few.

Is the Minister aware of the impact which these policies are having on the morale of the Civil Service? In the light of the present low morale there, how can he justify the strict pay policy which is being introduced for the Government's own employees, with the suspension of the Pay Research Unit, and in the light of the fact that there is no pay policy from the Government for any other sector throughout the country?

This question relates to manpower. It has nothing to do with pay. But, in view of what the hon. Gentleman says, I should have thought that it was common ground, certainly among large sections in the House, that in the national interest it was obviously wise that in the public sector we should try to have settlements as low as possible.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reductions made so far in the Civil Service do not seem to be in extent anything like the redundancies in the private manufacturing sector? Is not this serious imbalance a very great drawback in the nation's recovery?'

I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that our aim to get the Civil Service down to the lowest figures for 40 years by April 1984 represents quite a reasonable achievement. I hope that he will think that it is sensible for the Government to aim to do that in the next two or three years.

Does the Minister recognise that, in view of the Government's current policies and with ever-increasing unemployment, 586,000 additional people on the dole will entail extra work and responsibilities for civil servants? Are not the Government contributing towards that problem?

Of course there will be extra work for civil servants if unemployment remains at a high level, but I have taken that fully into account in announcing the figures for the size of the Civil Service.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service how the number of civil servants compares with that on 3 May 1979; how many Civil Service jobs have been turned over to the private sector; and at what cost.

On 1 April 1979, the nearest date for which figures are available, there were 732,300 civil servants as compared with 697,100 on 1 October 1980. Very few Civil Service jobs have been transferred to the private sector in this period.

For those civil servants who remain in post, will my right hon. Friend introduce a pay policy similar to that which is being put forward by Rolls Royce—a nil norm, plus increases related only to productivity? Will he scotch, once and for all, the figures going around of 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. at a time when people in manufacturing industry, which produces the wealth that pays for the Civil Service, are taking wage settlements far below those figures?

I note what my hon. Friend says. My right and noble Friend the Lord President made it clear as long ago as August that next year the cash limit would be the major determinant of Civil Service pay. I shall certainly bear what my hon. Friend says in mind. So far, no cash limit has been set.

Since the definition of "civil servant" is so artificial, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman could give us the number of Crown servants and servants of Crown corporations, excluding those in the market sector. The figure should be something approaching 2 million.

I am afraid that I could not do that without notice. What I think the House is interested in is to see the figures on a like-with-like basis over the months, so that it can compare what is being achieved and what is not being achieved.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have completely abandoned the principle of comparability in pay awards in the public sector? If that is so, does he agree that it will have the effect of making the private sector more attractive and thus ultimately reducing the number of civil servants?

I can speak only for the Civil Service, and not for the whole public sector. What the Government have done is to suspend pay research for 1981. No decisions have been taken about later years. We are discussing at present improvements to the pay research system with the Council of Civil Service Unions. Decisions will be arrived at in due course. However, I certainly take note of what my hon. Friend says.

Is it not a fact that, on the question of numbers, much of the reduction in Civil Service staff has been offset by an increase, for example, in the number of people employed by get-rich-quick private cleaning contractors? Why has the Minister not produced a proper estimate, in answer to this question, of the number of jobs now being done in the private sector which were previously done in the public sector?

Because the number is so very small. [Interruption.] What I have already promised the Select Committee—and the House can have it if it likes—is that we shall make a quarterly return of those figures. So far, they have been so small that it has not been worth making such a return.

Is the Minister aware, however, of the serious allegations being made about the activities of some of these contractors that have been employed by the Government—that they are employing children and that they are evading taxes, and other allegations about the cleaning of Government Departments? Does he agree that it is quite wrong to be declaring cleaners in Government Departments redundant and then bringing in bucket-shop operations to take over those jobs? What will he do to stop it?

It is not for me to decide the cleaning arrangements for each Government Department. It is up to each Department to make its own arrangements in the most economical way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] What I am saying is correct. It is for each Government Department to decide; it is not for me to lay down a central rule. If the hon. Member has allegations to make against any firm that is operating in a Government Department, I hope that he will take them up with the Minister responsible.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many requests he has received since May 1979 from permanent secretaries in the Civil Service who wished to transfer to private industry immediately following their retirement.

Since May 1979 the Government have received requests from six permanent secretaries serving in, or recently retired from, the United Kingdom Civil Service to take up outside business appointments. The business appointments rules require a minimum period of three months to elapse between a permanent secretary leaving the Civil Service and taking up an appointment within the scope of the rules.

Will the Minister confirm or deny that one of these requests came from Sir Jack Rampton, a former permanent secretary at the Department of Industry, who has been reported in the press as being likely to be appointed chairman of a large British company with extensive construction interests in the North Sea? If that is so, would it not be most improper for a civil servant of that seniority to move immediately to such a company?

As the hon. Gentleman has tabled his question, I must tell him that the Government have received no such request from Sir Jack Rampton to take up a business appointment. Were any such request to be received, it would have to be considered in accordance with the rules.

Will the Minister assure the House that any future applications of this sort will be refused if the business appointment concerned is anything to do with the particular matters with which the civil servant was dealing in the Civil Service? Is not any other arrangement unacceptable to the House and the nation?

What I think is acceptable are the rules that were laid down by the previous Government in 1975 after a thorough review of the rules that then applied. I think that that deals fully with the hon. Member's point. However, if the House finds that that is not so, the Government will be willing to accept any advice that the House cares to give.

Is it not strange how the private sector continually criticises civil servants for being on its back but invites senior permanent secretaries and deputy secretaries into its boardrooms? Is it not extraordinary that so many should retire, or retire prematurely, from their Civil Service careers to finish up in a well-paid job in a boardroom? Does that not smack of some degree of corruption? Are not the rules totally inadequate, whether they were produced by this Government or the previous Government?

I have no evidence that the rules are inadequate. If the House, or if the Select Committee which has been considering this matter, comes to the view that they are inadequate, the Government will be willing to consider the matter again.

Is it proper that given the delicate issue of relations between oil companies and Government Departments a period of three months should be thought to be adequate?

No. I do not think that that is the case. As I said to the House that is the minimum period for a permanant secretary. The committee may recommend to the Prime Minister any period up to two years. It is for the Prime Minister of the day to decide on applications made by permanent secretaries, and the Prime Minister makes her own decision in all such matters.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may take Lords amendment No. 6. I must inform the House that the amendment involves privilege.

The amendment is des-signed to increase the board's financial limits. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade announced recently that the flotation would not be made of the shares of British Airways next year.

It was never a runner.

That remark underlines the hon. Gentleman's long-held lack of faith in British Airways; nothing more. If the hon. Gentleman believes that British Airways are viable he must believe that it is possible to launch it on to the market.

The Minister has got it wrong. I am concerned about the way in which the Government are messing up an otherwise efficiently run airline. In Committee we warned the Minister and his colleagues that this would happen. I very much regret that such things have come to pass. It is a sad day for me, because the Minister has fallen flat on his face.

Although the hon. Gentleman has used a lot of words he has not said anything. If he believes that British Airways are a viable, well-run airline, he must believe that they could stand on their own feet as a private sector company. If he does not believe that private investors could be persuaded to put their money into the airline, he must ask himself whether any public investor could be so persuaded.

The Minister's tone was quieter than normal. That is appropriate, because he has had to eat some humble pie. The Government wish to increase British Airway's borrowing powers, because they have reluctantly had to announce that they will be unable to float the shares in 1981. In addition, I suspect that the Minister will find that he cannot float them after that date.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not hear me say that the increase does not represent any addition to forecast public expenditure, because the airline's future borrowing requirement was included in that forecast.

I heard that, but I doubt whether that is the whole story. If there had been a successful flotation of the shares the Government would probably have claimed that they had achieved a reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement. However, that is another matter. One must watch what the Under-Secretary says and study the fine print carefully when he tries to sell something to the House.

I am anxious not to detain the House or the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith), who I know has a pressing engagement later today, but I do not think that we should let him get away with that superficial speech. The Government have made a sensible decision and it does not represent a U-turn in any sense. I know that Labour Members are anxious to represent it as such at all costs, but in fact the position is quite clear—the Government remain committed to proceed with the sale of assets of British Airways, in part at least, and will do so at the right and propitious moment. The "right moment" was something that Labour Members called for in Committee, so their support for this amendment should not come as a surprise.

I did not.

The right hon. Member did, because he said that British Airways shares would never be marketable.

That is idiotic. I did not say that.

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make idiotic statements, perhaps he will do the House the courtesy of getting to his feet.

The hon. Member is such an expert on idiotic statements that I cannot rival him, but he must be reminded of our opposition throughout the Committee stage—I suppose that he listened to the debates from time to time—when we said that it was not impossible but completely unwise to sell shares.

I can claim to be an expert on idiotic statements, having listened at length to the right hon. Gentleman in Committee. That was an education in itself. Although he is boxing the compass now, he made it perfectly clear in Committee that his opposition to this measure was not on grounds of saleability but on a doctrinaire basis. That will not surprise anyone. The right hon. Gentleman should know that British Airways and other airlines throughout the world are taking steps to increase viability and slim down costs in order to put themselves in a position where they can offer a decent return to investors. The sooner that time comes the better all of us will be pleased—except the right hon. Gentleman, of course. We look forward to that day even if he does not.

I address my remarks to the effect on the public sector borrowing requirement of the failure to go ahead with the sale of shares. I hope to draw the Minister out a little more on this question.

I think that it is worth making two points. First, the hon. Member has omitted one reason for the denationalisation of British Airways—in fact, the prime reason. Denationalisation will be good for British Airways; it is a better way to run an airline. Secondly, the hon.

The Minister is attempting to avoid the obvious charge that there has been a complete misjudgment by the Government about the state of the economy and the business that they were proposing to privatise or denationalise. The outcome of all this has been months of uncertainty. British Airways have had considerable difficulty, and at the end of the day there has been no indication of any time scale for the proposal.

I support this amendment. I am very pleased to see the Civil Aviation Bill entering the legislative home straight at last. I welcome the Government's pragmatic approach to the flotation of shares in British Airways, just as I welcome the indication of pragmatic Socialism from the Labour Front Bench. It is time that we saw more of that. I appreciate that the delay in the flotation of shares has been instrumental in the need for this amendment. It is one of the reasons for it.

The Under-Secretary's speech is the second concession speech that we have heard in 12 hours. While humility has never previously been the hon. Gentleman's forte, on this occasion he has obviously decided that if humble pie has to be eaten the best way to eat it is to bolt it whole, although he did exhibit shades of schizophrenia when interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr).

"British Airways', own fuel bill rose 72 per cent… . but they still managed to make a profit, more than could be said for many of their competitors. More recently, the general economic downturn has reduced airline traffic throughout the world and this has inevitably hit operators' profits, again throughout the industry worldwide."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 1980; Vol. 413, c. 1495.]

"I have done my best to find out exactly what would have happened if another place had been sitting at this moment and in what way the Statement would have been made. I can tell the House that the best I have been able to find out at the moment is that the Statement would have been made in the same way, as a press statement."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 October 1980; Vol. 413, c. 868.]

By leave of the House, it may be helpful if I answer one or two of the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) wanted me to reassure him that we would not attempt to launch shares at a time when it would be damaging to the corporation. I gave that assurance a number of times during the earlier stages of the passage of the Bill through the House and I am happy to give it again. Since the prime objective of denationalisation is to benefit British Airways, we would not carry it through in a way that would damage the corporation. That would not be the way to persuade anyone to invest.

Why does the Under-Secretary continue to be so coy about the amount that he would hope to raise from the sale of British Airways? Does he not owe it to the country to tell us how much he expects to raise, at least within a broad range, from selling what, on his own ad- mission, will be a profitable national asset?

I do not know what the state of the stock market will be, or how profitable the airline will be. I do not know what other opportunities there will be for investors to invest in alternative propositions. It is impossible to give a figure. The hon. Gentleman can read the accounts and make his own estimate.

The hon. Gentleman will concede that British Airways is in good flying shape under public ownership, which demonstrates that there is not much reason to change the situation. He constantly suggests that we are seeking to denigrate the activities of the corporation in order to subvert his scheme.

In saying that he believes that British Airways are a viable and successful concern, the hon. Gentleman underlines our belief that public sector investors will come forward to buy shares in it.

Would it not have been better if the Government had gone to another place, which was sitting, and made the statement there, as they were required to do? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is not the first time that the Government have behaved disrespectfully to another place? They had to apologise not only on this occasion but on another.

I am sure that if I were in the hon. Gentleman's position I should be looking for some reason to say that the Government had been disrespectful to this House or to another place. However, that is not the case. The statement was singularly unexciting, and was properly dealt with by my right hon. Friend.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5.

These amendments are even less controversial than those that we have just discussed. I do not think that there can be any disagreement about these matters. These four amendments are consequential on the passing of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. We could not take account of that Act when the Bill was discussed earlier in the House. Now we can. The Magistrates' Courts Act is a consolidation measure which, when it comes into force on a day to be specified, will replace those parts of the Criminal Law Act 1977 which are specified in the penalty provisions of clause 10 of the Civil Aviation Bill.

Is the Minister able to indicate, as a matter of information, when the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 will come into force?

No. I regret that I am not informed. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman asks one of my colleagues in the Home Department the answer will be provided.