asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a further statement on the capital reconstruction of the British Transport Docks Board.

The forthcoming Transport Bill will include legislation to introduce private capital into the board's undertaking. That will reconstitute the board and enable me to sell shares. It will also free the business from public sector constraints.

Is it not encouraging that the board, which has a good record in commercial terms, has welcomed the Government's proposals? What effect does my right hon. Friend think the capital reconstruction will have in terms of investment by private industry?

One of the major effects will be that the new company will be free from public sector restraints on investment. The board greatly welcomes that, and I think that it will do extremely well in the private sector.

Does the Minister agree that the British Transport Docks Board has been successful ever since it was set up? Is he aware that even in times of difficulty it has shown profitability and that it has been a successful part of public enterprise? Is he further aware that at this time it does not want meddling interference from people who know nothing about the industry?

The hon. Gentleman has just made an extremely good case for the policy the Government are adopting. We are to take away the meddling interference in the board's activities. For the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gave, the board should be responsible for its future.

Will the Minister confirm that in the privatisation of the British Transport Docks Board the majority of shares will not be sold to the private sector? If that is so, will the management board of the new company have greater control, with no interference by the Government?

First, I welcome the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) back to the Opposition Front Bench. The vital issue in this matter is where the control rests. The Government will retain a 51 per cent. stake, but the control of the company will remain in the private sector.

asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received on the relative operating costs of private bus operators and the National Bus Company.

I have not received representations, but I have read with interest a report published last week by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory called "The Economics of Stage Carriage Operation by Private Bus and Coach Companies". It finds that the average fare on services run by private companies in two traffic areas was 25 per cent. less than that charged by the National Bus Company on its services.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that reflects poorly on the National Bus Company and that it bodes ill for the future of the NBC if it fails to act to cut costs and improve efficiency? Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the Transport Act, which gives new opportunities to private bus companies, will result in even lower relative fares for people travelling on buses?

My right hon. Friend has already set a tight financial limit for the National Bus Company, and he proposes to agree soon a financial target and performance standards. The Transport Act 1980 will enable any operator, public or private, who can provide an efficient service to the public to thrive and expand his services.

How can the NBC possibly achieve the low cost that is achieved by private operators, as long as it continues to provide many services on unremunerative routes? Is the hon. and learnt d Gentleman recommending that this social service by the National Bus Company should be cut?

The NBC received £37 million in 1979 for running unremunerative services. The comparison made by the TRRL was between services run by private companies receiving no subsidy and those run by the NBC receiving subsidy. Had the NBC not received any subsidy, its fares would have been about 40 per cent. higher.

asked the Minister of Transport what is his policy towards future investment in the railways; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the rail investment programme.

I meet the chairman regularly to discuss a range of subjects, including investment. We have, in fact, made no cuts in the investment ceiling which the last Government judged adequate for the British Railways Board and which this year stands at £325 million.

Is the Minister proud of the fact that he presides over a railway system with the highest fares, the worst level of wages and the lowest level of investment in West Europe? Is it not time that he granted the British Railways Board and the railway unions the 30 per cent. increase in investment for which they have for so long and so rightly campaigned?

I do not accept anything of what the hon. Gentleman has said. The external finance limit and the investment that we have set for British Rail are fair. However, I have announced today that, within the present external finance limit, the passenger grant ceiling has been it creased by £23 million. That means that the passenger grant ceiling for 1981 will be £678 million. That is a direct grant from the Government to the passenger railways. The money is earmarked for passenger services. I hope that the effect will be that the present level of fares will be held for the next 12 months.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has struck the right balance on financial assistance to British Rail? If he were to go further at this stage, it would greatly increase the public sector borrowing requirement, put pressure on interest and exchange rates and further deflate the economy, with bad effects on British Rail.

I agree with my right hon. Friend. We have sought to recognise the special difficulties that British Rail has had during the past two years. We increased the external finance limit last year, and the external finance limit for the coming year is £920 million. A vast amount of money is going into direct support for passenger services. The support going from the taxpayer and the ratepayer to passenger services is running at £2 million a day.

If it is not the Minister's intention to cut British Rail's investment programme, why has he refused to approve every investment proposal that British Rail has put before him since May of this year? Is British Rail still awaiting his approval for the electrification of the rail network in East Anglia, the renewal of signalling in the west of England, the EMUs, the locomotive and freight wagon rolling programmes and the introduction of a number of advanced passenger trains?

The right hon. Gentleman has mixed up a number of matters in that supplementary question. First and foremost, he must accept that our investment ceiling is the same as the investment ceiling that we inherited from the Labour Government, of which he was a leading member. The main electrification proposals have just arrived. There are 95 HSTs being built or approved, and there is an existing rolling programme of 220 EMUs. Considerable resources are being devoted to the railways. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would recognise with some consistency what happened under the Labour Government.

Wilt the Minister answer the question? What investment proposals from British Rail has he approved since May of this year?

As I have just said, we are continuing with the rolling programme of 220 EMUs. We have given approval for 25 freight locomotives. We have received the electrification proposals literally in the last few days, and we shall respond to them, as I have already said. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the fact that the investment ceiling being observed by the Government is the same as the investment ceiling that was set by the Labour Government. It begs all credibility if the right hon. Gentleman changes his position after only 18 months in Opposition. The laws of arithmetic do not change.

Will my right hon. Friend call in the leaders of both British Rail and the trade unions and make it clear to them that before there can be any increase in the capital investment programme there will have to be substantial evidence of an improvement in productivity and efficiency? Will he also tell them that to the many commuters in Brentwood and Ongar who travel to and from London each day there is ample evidence of areas in which increased productivity and efficiency could be achieved?

My hon. Friend is right about improvements in the productivity and efficiency of British Rail. After all, that is what the British Railways Board is trying to achieve. It is in the interests not only of the customer, who is the most important person in the debate, but of the railway industry that opportunities for improved efficiency are taken.

When discussing the investment plans of British Rail, will the Minister bear in mind the fearful and permanent economic damage caused by the ill-judged cuts of 20 yew's ago under Dr. Beeching as an object lesson to be avoided at all costs?

I have made my position clear on Beeching-type cuts in rural services. The Government are not prepared to see such cuts take place again. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a warm welcome for the extra support that he has announced today for passengers within the same external finance limit? Does he accept also that it is nonsense for the Opposition to attack his investment programme when he is not only maintaining the level of investment that he inherited from the Labour Government but is increasing the amount of support? If the Opposition are truly concerned to improve the railways, should we not have a condemnation by the spokesman for the Opposition of any threat of industrial action by the unions, based on the present levels of investment?

I hope that the advice of all in the House on the prospect of industrial action will be that the situation should be cooled. We should remember that industrial action can only harm the railways and their customers. I very much hope that that message will come from both sides of the House.

asked the Minister of Transport what funds he will make available to the British Railways Board to enable early replacement of the ageing diesel multiple unit fleets.

The railways board is working on possible replacement designs for its diesel multiple unit fleet. Investment priorities are, however, a matter for the board within its overall investment and finance limits.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that rail passengers in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and many other areas outside Greater London are having to put up with travelling conditions that would cause a commuter strike if they were imposed on passengers in the London area? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman pay an official visit to the rail services of north Manchester and Lancashire to see for himself how bad the services are? Given the funds available to British Rail, how long will it be before the rolling stock that is being used, which is more than a quarter of a century old, is replaced?

British Rail is at the moment spending money on refurbishing about 300 of its DMUs per year. It has not come to us with any proposals for investment in new DMUs, because it is still designing replacement vehicles. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that in the spring British Rail will be experimenting with a passenger service with a lightweight DMU design on the Preston-Blackburn-Colne service. I shall certainly consider making a visit to the area to see that new vehicle in operation.

When does British Rail expect to announce its decision on the experiments on the lightweight service in Eye? When will British Rail, in addition to its strictures on investment, publish some comparison of manning between European countries, so that we may know the truth?

My right hon. Friend has visited and used the line in Mid-Suffolk where the new Leyland vehicle is being tried. We are following that experiment with as close an interest as is the board, because that line seems to offer great opportunities for cost-cutting and will enable rural services to be maintained at reasonable cost to the taxpayer.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the timing of the Armitage committee report on heavy lorries.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) yesterday, the report has been published and copies are available in the Library. I should like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to Sir Arthur and his team of assessors for the work that they have put into this independent inquiry. It will obviously take a little time for the Government to consider this wide-ranging report and its recommendations, but I shall make a statement on our views in due course.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the implications of the recommendations of the Armitage report go far beyond lorry weights and axle loads, important though they are? Is he further aware that they must, therefore, be viewed in the wider context of transport strategies, industrial needs and environmental considerations? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that we shall have an opportunity to debate the report before any decision is announced?

I gladly give that assurance. It is vital that we should have a debate on the Armitage report. The only proposal that we shall put forward in the Transport Bill — I think that it will meet with the approval of the House — is that concerning vehicle excise duty on heavier vehicles. The heaviest vehicles will be required to pay their full track cost.

If the Minister is disposed in favour of accepting the representations made on behalf of the lorry lobby, will he make compensating benefits available to British Rail so that it can improve its freight attractions? For example, improved section 8 grants and other such benefits could be made available, which would ensure the existence of a viable rail freight system.

It would do the hon. Gentleman quite a lot of good to read the report and the part on section 8 grants. The report has not been proposed, even remotely, by the lorry lobby. It is an independent report. Those who have had anything to do with it and who have given evidence will pay tribute to that fact.

Given that a large number of jobs depend upon the implementation of some of those recommendations, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no delay in holding a debate and in bringing forward the necessary legislation?

Obviously, that is a matter for my right hon Friend the Leader of the House to consider, but I hope that we shall be able to hold a debate on the Armitage report. It would be convenient to the House if such a debate were to be held within the next two months. That is the speediest progress that we can make. I agree with my hon. Friend's general point.

For that debate, will the Minister provide statistics showing how much it would cost to build bypasses for all the rural villages and historical towns over the length and breadth of Britain? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that figures will be issued to equate the cost of that against the claimed savings in the Armitage report?

I shall try to provide the maximum amount of information. This is not a matter of party dispute. The Armitage report refers to priority for bypasses, and that priority is very much a part of the Government's road-building programme.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that those who live alongside the South Circular Road and other narrow roads are deeply concerned because such roads are already immersed in heavy lorries? Will he give careful thought to this issue before going ahead with the recommendations in the Armitage report, with the exception of increasing taxes on heavy lorries? Will my right Friend also give an assurance that he will first consult the House of Commons?

My hon. Friend has made a fair point. That is why we thought it best to have an independent report and to follow that with a general debate in the House of Commons. That is a fair way to proceed. The proposals made by the Armitage report concern heavier lorries but not bigger lorries. That is an important distinction.

Will the Minister accept that I join him in paying that well-deserved compliment to Sir Arthur Armitage and his committee? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be wrong to raise lorry weights without first introducing the road construction programme, an increase in rail freight facilities and the enforcement of lorry safeguards, which the Armitage report shows to be necessary?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his endorsement of the fact that the Armitage committee is independent. His general point is that a package of proposals is involved. That is right. The House should have the opportunity to consider that package and to debate it.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is planning to introduce measures that will improve road safety for cyclists.

We have been taking a fresh look at the whole subject of cycling in order to decide how best to improve facilities and safety for cyclists, and we shall be publishing a consultation paper soon. Meanwhile, we have just carried out a pilot publicity compaign on cycling safety in East Anglia.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, but does he recognise the importance of encouraging cycling and cyclists, given the need for energy conservation? Will he tell us more precisely when we can expect to see the consultation paper?

For the reason that my hon. Friend has given, we recognise the importance of encouraging people to cycle. We are trying to produce some specific proposals to be included in the consultation paper. We hope that the consultation paper will be published some time in the new year.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that just as cyclists in other countries are helped, something should be done for cyclists in Britain? Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there should be proper cycle tracks by the side of every major road? Is he aware that thousands of cyclists use footpaths and endanger the lives and limbs of pedestrians because the Government have failed to give cyclists proper protection?

This Government have taken more interest in cyclists than have any other Government for as long as anyone can remember. We are considering our proposals and we shall produce a paper. There is some limit to resources. Meanwhile, we are pressing on with the financing of experimental schemes in a number of cities. At present we are planning schemes in Bedford, Cambridge, Chelmsford, Chichester and York. Schemes are already in existence in Peterborough, Middlesbrough and Stevenage, which have been assisted by the Department.

At the same time, will my hon. and learned Friend consider the need for improvements in safety for riders on horseback?

That is a serious question. I am glad to say that I am in frequent correspondence with those who know more about horses than I. I intend to take note of their advice.

That point is as much related to this question as it is to the next.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on his policy towards changes to the present system of totting-up for traffic offences.

I intend to include provisions in the forthcoming Transport Bill, which will replace the present totting-up system with a system based on points. This change has been recommended by the review body which the Government set up last year and has been supported by the motoring organisations and many others. I believe that it will be generally welcomed as a significant reform of our motoring laws in line with the commitment I made in Opposition.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent reply. Is he aware that he will be supported by many millions of motorists? Will he assure me that there will be an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to debate the points allocated to each specific penalty?

Yes, I give that assurance. The points system will be based on a distinction between the seriousness of the offence or otherwise. For example, reckless driving might appear at one end, and construction and use regulations at the other. There will be a debate on the exact total that each offence should be given.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the idea of extending a fixed-penalty system to cover a wider range of road traffic offences has been delayed, not dropped?

An extension of the fixed-penalty system—I refer to the ticket system as opposed to on-the-spot fines—is still being considered by the working party, which includes the Department of Transport and the Home Office. As we made such rapid progress on totting up, we thought it right to make the swiftest progress possible on totting-up legislation.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the contribution made to British Rail finances over the last five years by British Rail subsidiaries.

The subsidiaries taken altogether have not made a contribution to British Rail finances over the last five years, because profits and depreciation, even including money from non-operational property, have not matched investment in the businesses. The net cash outflow from the board over the period 1975 to 1979 was about £11·6 million.

Does not that answer provide added reason for encouraging private investment in areas that are inappropriate for nationalised industries? Can my right hon. Friend give any guidance on the method and timing, bearing in mind that my hon. Friends and I believe that he should take that action—and the sooner the better?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The provisions, which will involve the hotel business, Sealink,

Does the Minister agree that he should think again about the disposal of Sealink, which made a £13 million profit last year, in view of the greedy interest expressed by the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden), whose company has set up a private monopoly and who has made it clear by statements issued on the subject that he is not interested in the socially necessary ferry services operated by British Rail?

The hon. Gentleman should wait for the proposals. They will enable British Rail to sell the controlling part of Sealink. It will be for the board to consider offers, not only from European Ferries Ltd. but from other organisations and institutions. As regards the general policy, I am sure that Sealink will do much better in the private sector.

In order the better to encourage the subsidiaries of British Rail to conduct joint ventures with private enterprise, will my right hon. Friend have discussions with the Treasury to ensure that when the joint ventures take place the part of the capital that comes from private enterprise will not be debited against the public sector borrowing requirement?

One of the aims is to remove the subsidiary companies from the necessary public sector restraints. My hon. Friend should wait for the detail of the Bill. He will then see the method that we intend to use.

Is the Minister aware that many people involved in the railway industry see the denial of essential investment in British Rail as a means of exerting pressure on it to sell profitable assets, such as Sealink, to the private sector? Is he further aware that if Sealink and Townsend Thoresen Car Ferries Ltd., which has made a knock-down offer for Sealink, are put together, they will control over 70 per cent. of the market? Is that the Conservatives' policy for private competition?

The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I say. The board must decide on the offers. Obviously, European Ferries will not be the only organisation to make offers. Secondly, the Opposition should recognise that the British Rail Board supports what we are doing and does not oppose it.

asked the Minister of Transport what have been the receipts to date from the sale of motorway service areas.

I have agreed terms with the Rank Organisation, Granada, Trusthouse Forte and Imperial Foods for them to purchase new 50-year leases of the motorway service areas that they currently operate. This accounts for three-quarters of the English MSAs. I have received offers for several of the others and am expecting offers for the remainder. Overall, the proceeds of the sale should amount to around £50 million, with the Exchequer benefiting by well over £40 million in the current financial year.

I am grateful for that answer. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anxiety about the provision of a 24-hour service? Will he confirm that the 24-hour service will continue?

Yes, I can confirm that the 24-hour fuel and refreshment service will continue. We have made that a condition.

Is the Minister aware that over the years consumers have been ripped off in these service areas at one time or another? What will he do to ensure competition in these areas? What will he do to ensure that high prices will not be brought about purely as a result of monopoly leasing?

One of the aims is to ensure that there is competition between the motorway service areas. We are seeking to reform the position described by the hon. Gentleman. We shall enable the motorway service areas, for the first time, to advertise their names on the motorways. In various other ways competition will be brought into play. If the hon. Gentleman cares to go up the M, for example, he will see that petrol prices have come down to a level that is closer to that which applies off the motorway.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not wish to mislead the House. On the M3 and M27, petrol prices for the unfortunate motorist who happens to run out of petrol are about 20p per gallon more than anywhere else. How will my right hon. Friend safeguard the motorist against being milked?

That position was made possible under the old system of rentals charged to the motorway service areas. I do not know the position on the M3, but I know what happens on the M1, where petrol prices have come down to a level that is much nearer to that which applies in garages off the motorway.

Without some form of inspection of the new leased areas, how will the Minister ensure that reasonable conditions for the motorist prevail? Will he assure the House that there will be no reduction of facilities and that alcoholic drinks will not be available to bring about death and danger? What does he intend to do about the Blennerhassett report?

About five questions were wrapped up in that one. I give an assurance that there is no question of alcohol being served at the motorway service areas. The conditions are laid out in the leases. It is better for the consumer to have more competition between the motorway service areas than to have a system of Government inspection as proposed by the Prior report.

asked the Minister of Transport what sum of money he has earmarked as a cash incentive to local authorities for the promotion of private enterprise local bus services.

None. The transport supplementary grant settlement, which will be announced next week, will include provision for revenue support which counties will be able to use to promote local bus services of all kinds.

Is it not true that Devon, Herefordshire, Norfolk and Worcester have been offered money—indeed, several hundred thousand pounds? Is there not a danger that that money could be used simply to purchase free buses for private enterprise operators?

The hon. Gentleman has made two mistakes. First, Hereford and Worcester are now the same county. Secondly, no such money has been offered for the purpose that he describes. The counties, I am glad to say, are contemplating trial areas. Some counties have approached us about the possibility of extra revenue support to meet the transitional costs of their trial areas. That revenue support for those counties, as for any others, will be available to the operators that are best placed to provide a service to the passengers, regardless of whether they are in the public or the private sector.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a further statement explaining the reasons for the view he expressed in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Eastleigh, Official Report, 5 November, column 596, that private operators can run the heavy goods vehicle testing stations more efficiently without lowering safety standards.

I believe that there is substantial room for improvement in the present system to provide a service better geared to operators' real needs. Under proper controls, testing can continue to be carried out to high standards outside the Civil Service. I hope to propose legislation to enable this to be done in the next Session of Parliament. In the meantime, I shall be continuing discussions with the industry on the details of the new arrangements.

Nevertheless, does my right hon. Friend agree with the representations that have been made by road hauliers and individual garages in my constituency that heavy goods vehicle testing is not an appropriate function for the competitive market? Does he accept that the stations must fulfil statutory functions objectively? Have they not been working well? For heaven's sake, let us leave well alone.

The straight answer is that I do not agree. I believe that the new system will provide a better service to the customer, which is what the policy is all about. I know that the industry has expressed concern. That is why we have discussions with representatives of it. I sincerely hope that over the coming months we can meet the fears and concern that they have expressed.

Are not the proposals another example of the Minister's silly dogma? Are they not a recipe for even more unsafe lorries and for bribery and backhanders from various operators in the road haulage business? Will the right hon. Gentleman, for once, listen to the wise words of his hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who summed up the position correctly?

I always listen to the wise words of my hon. Friend, but I do not happen to agree with them on this occasion. We have several months in which to look at the details. One of the things that we want to do is to improve the service to the road haulage industry—for example, by getting stations to open earlier and to open on Saturdays. That is what the policy is all about.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that road safety is particularly endangered at present by the failure adequately to grit roads in adverse weather conditions? Does he accept that it is his responsibility to put an end to this problem?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the matter. I am to have talks with the county councils concerned.

asked the Minister of Transport what is now his final estimate of the aggregate cost to public funds of the regional highways traffic model; and if he will publish in the Official Report the names of those responsible for initiating this project.

The cost of commissioned work on the regional highway traffic model project was £6·9 million. Inclusion of estimated costs for work by departmental staff and local authorities would increase that to about £8·2 million.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it might be salutary for the future if the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) and all those associated with him were invited to recompense the public purse for this appalling and totally ludicrous waste of money on a meaningless bureaucratic project?

I gave the right hon. Member for Dudley, East notice that I would mention him today. I agree that he appears to have commissioned a singularly unsuccessful and very expensive project. At least, we have collected much valuable data. Following the advice of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment, we are trying to make the best use of the data and trying at least to gain some advantage from this very expensive story.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to provide additional capital to improve rail services in London and the South-East.

Almost a quarter of British Rail's investment programme is being devoted to London's commuter network, enabling major improvements to be made. The board decides its priorities within the investment ceiling, which, as I have already said, has not been reduced.

As the Minister has not approved a capital application from British Rail since May of this year, does he accept as a plain fact that it is simply claptrap for him to talk about retaining or improving the services in the South-Eastern region unless the Government do their duty and provide public funds for capital investment?

What the hon. Gentleman has said turns the true position on its head. He cannot have been listening to what I said. The Government are financing a rolling programme of 220 EMUs. The investment level that the Government are working to is exactly the same as the one that the last Labour Government worked to, updated in real terms.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, far from improving rail services, British Rail is planning to reduce the quality of service in the London suburbs? Does he agree that it does not make sense to propose to close down suburban stations in the evening—stations which are often unmanned in any event—and that this will produce minimal economies but cause the maximum of inconvenience?

I have just been given the press notice from the board, which says:

"The fall in demand and excess capacity together mean that, like any other business, the railway must take action to bring supply more into line with demand."

Following the last question, will the right hon. Gentleman at least examine the Broad Street-Richmond line, which serves my constituency, and find the small amount of cash necessary to keep the stations open after 7 o'clock at night? Is it not a scandal, in view of the great congestion of roads in North-West London, that this major line will be closed from 7 o'clock in the evening?

My hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary knows that line. I shall look at the position, But I do not want to interfere with the management decisions of British Rail.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the short-haul commuter services provide a much-needed social service for many of my constituents? Will he press the British Railways Board to reconsider the way in which it proposes to deal with the matter, in view of the threat to the ordinary lifestyle of many of my constituents?

There is a duty on the board, and I am not prepared to make promises about what I can achieve with the board on this matter when what it is saying is that it is seeking to match supply and demand. That is something that any business must do. I shall, of course, talk to the chairman about the position, but I must repeat that British Rail must live within its budget.

Is the Minister aware that the report of the Monopolies and Merges Commission on South-Eastern services made it clear that productivity improvements would not be enough to meet the problems of reducing services? If the right hon. Gentleman believes that the demand is falling and that British Rail will have to adjust to that, does he maintain the commitment that the wholesale closure of lines will not take place at the present level of investment?

Yes, Sir. I keep to the commitment that the wholesale closure of lines will not take place. It is not I who am saying that there is a fall in demand and excess capacity; I was reading from a statement by British Rail that was issued today.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not discourteous to the House that, in answer to a question, the Minister did not give a ministerial answer but quoted from a press notice? We are entitled—

Order. I shall make a ruling about points of order on questions at the end of Question Time.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the financial limits set for British Rail by his Department.

The British Railways Board's external finance limit for 1980–81 stands at £790 million. This reflects the £40 million increase I announced on 18 September to take account of the board's worsening business position. The limit for 1981–82 is £920 million. Both limits present the board with challenging but realistic targets. I have today announced the ceiling on the grant for passenger services for 1981.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Within those financial limits, how much money will British Rail spend on advertising?

I understand that British Rail's advertising budget is running at about £9½ million a year.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the French Government have invested more in the Paris Metro than we have invested in the whole of British Rail? The lack of investment is having adverse effects. For example, the Sheffield to London line is so badly affected that in the railways it is known as the longest railway siding in Britain. Will the right hon. Gentleman do something to remedy the position, because all the towns on that line are desperate for investment?

The position in France, and particularly in Paris, is that the money and revenue for the railways come from a special tax on businesses. That is an option that the hon. Gentleman might support, but it is not an option that many businesses in London would support. I understand the European comparisons, but we have to deal with the situation in Britain today, not with generalised comparisons throughout Western Europe.

Does my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the bully-boy tactics employed by the Opposition and trade unions in trying to force the Government away from the position that he so clearly outlined? Will he, having privatised the British Rail subsidiaries, consider that one solution to the problem may well be further privatisation of certain aspects of British Rail's business?

Whatever differences there may be between the Government and the Opposition—and clearly there are a number of important ones—I think that the advice from both sides of the House must basically be that it is best to cool the present situation and that industrial action can only harm the railway industry and passengers. I hope that that message goes out from both sides of the House.

Does the Minister accept that to talk of the EFL limit in the terms that he has done is ridiculous? Does he realise that it is not accepted as reasonable by either British Rail or the rail unions? Does he further realise that it would not be accepted by any rail user who had a grain of sense? As the Minister does not have a grain of sense, we do not expect a sensible answer from him.

That was a pretty pathetic supplementary. I shall try to fill in the hon. Gentleman. The external finance limit of British Rail is £920 million. Taxpayers, and the ratepayers to a lesser extent, are paying £2 million a day in support for rail services. That is a fair deal. As far as I know, that external finance limit is not rejected by the railways board but is accepted by it.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service when last he met representatives of the staff side of the National Whitley Council to discuss terms and conditions of service.

My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President of the Council and I last met the Council of Civil Service Unions on 1 August to discuss Civil Service pay. I do, of course, see representatives of the union side regularly on everyday business matters.

Has the Minister discussed with the Council of Civil Service Unions the remarks made by the Prime Minister, which were published at the weekend, about index-linked pensions? Will he assure the House that those remarks do not pre-empt the findings of the Scott inquiry into index-linked pensions, as that would make the inquiry a waste of public funds and be an insult to those taking part in it? Can he assure retired public service pensioners that their pensions will not be affected? Is he aware that they planned their retirement on the basis of their pensions? Even if a change is made in pensions for existing servants of the Crown, will he assure us that that will not affect those who have already retired?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), when she said that we must await the Scott inquiry before taking decisions on any of these matters.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this might be a good moment to get shot of the whole ludicrous principle of comparability in the negotiation of public sector wages, including the Civil Service, for good and for all?

I note my hon. Friend's remarks. Perhaps we should await the Scott inquiry and consider the position in the light of that.

Will the Minister confirm that the important matter of index-linked pensions affects not only 385,000 dependants and retired civil servants but more than 1½ million public service dependants and retired workers, including Health Service workers, policemen, firemen, the Armed Services and so on? Does he not feel that the remarks being made by the Prime Minister and by others of his colleagues can only be unsettling, not only to existing workers but especially to retired people? Is it not time that we stopped sabre-rattling and at least reassured retired people?

I agree that it is an important matter that affects the categories of people that the hon. Gentleman recited. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday in the House that we must await the Scott inquiry report. That seems to be sensible.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what liaison he has with Sir Derek Rayner about his work.

I keep in close touch with Sir Derek Rayner. My officials work with his and with officials in Departments in a concerted search for greater efficiency.

Will my right hon. Friend give the House some details of the possible source of the savings that might be recommended by Sir Derek Rayner?

My hon. Friend may know that there have been a number of scrutinies in Departments, led by Sir Derek Rayner, using civil servants in those Departments. So far, decisions already taken will save about £25 million a year and more than £20 million once and for all. Savings are growing continually as further decisions are taken. A new round of scrutinies will begin shortly.

In discussions with Sir Derek Rayner and his associates, will the Minister raise the question of protecting the pension rights and job conditions of those affected by the hare-brained privatisation scheme for the Royal ordnance factories?

Any question of the change of status of Royal ordnance factories is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I shall draw his attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Will my right hon. Friend assure us that progress is being made towards reducing some of the top-heavy layers in the administrative grades of the Civil Service, notably at under-secretary level?

The top levels have taken a more than proportionate share of the reductions in the size of the Civil Service. It is our firm intention that there should be savings all along the line, including in the top sections.

Is the Minister aware that there is a conflict between the assurance that Civil Service cuts would not involve closures in branches and out-stations and the decision of the Department of Industry to close the out-station of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist in Glasgow? Will he investigate the matter and ensure that that valuable facility in Scotland remains open?

I shall investigate anything that the hon. Gentleman asks me to investigate. That appears to be a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, but I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's point.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the current state of negotiations over Civil Service pay.

The Government have made clear that the 1981 Civil Service pay settlement will be based on the cash limit, reflecting what the country as a whole can afford.

As the Secretary of State for the Environment said that the 6 per cent. pay policy would continue for two years, will the Minister say whether that 6 per cent. cash limit will apply to Civil Service pay negotiations for the same two-year period?

We have not even set the cash limit for the Civil Service for 1981, let alone 1982. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not object if I ask him to be patient for a little longer.

May I press my right hon. Friend a little further on the question of comparability? Is he aware that the issue that must be of concern is the suspension of comparability for only the present negotiations? Does he agree that our experience during the past year shows that the whole concept of comparability in assessing appropriate rates of pay thoughout the public sector is nonsense?

I note my hon. Friend's view, of which I was already aware. Decisions have been taken about the 1981 pay settlement. No decisions whatsoever have been taken about 1982. Talks are taking place with trade unions about that matter. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said, and we shall discuss the matter with him.

Under the Government's present policy, can any civil servant obtain more than 6 per cent., and, if so, how?

As no cash limit has yet been set for the Civil Service, it is impossible for me to answer that question. I have said on many occasions that pay will be dealt with broadly within the same financial disciplines as those already announced, but no cash limit has been set.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what proposals he now has for dispersing Civil Service posts to the Northern region.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave him on 5 November.

Is the Minister aware that the Government constantly wring their hands and repeat that the employment situation in the Northern region can improve only when the national economy improves? Does he accept that the Government have it within their power to transfer many jobs to the Northern region? In view of the desperate and deteriorating position in that area, will he reverse the decision that he made last year, when he stopped hundreds of jobs from going to the North?

I should be misleading the House and the hon. Gentleman if I were to say that we would reopen the question of dispersal. That was the subject of a review last year, when a considered statement was made. The Government will stick to their decisions. We intend to continue with the dispersal of the same numbers and the same posts to the same locations that we announced. I cannot today announce a further review.

Because unemployment in the onsett and Stanley part of the Northern region is already catastrophic and is increasing rapidly, will the Minister review the position and try to send some jobs there?

I cannot add anything to my reply to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand). There are proportionately more Civil Service jobs in the Northern region than in most other parts of the country. I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman in the way that he wishes.

Will the Minister at least stop his colleagues from dispersing Civil Service jobs from the Northern region by relocating, as they plan to do, the regional offices of the Departments of the Environment and Transport in Leeds instead of Newcastle? Does he not realise the damage that that will cause?

I shall take up that matter with my right hon. Friend, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do so as well.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what have been the total reductions in the numbers of non-industrial and industrial civil servants, respectively, since May 1979; and by how much these figures differ from the annual reductions made between 1974 and 1979.

Between 1 April 1979 and 1 October 1980, non-industrial staff numbers fell by 22,600 and industrial staff by 12,600. Between April 1974 and April 1979, non-industrial staff numbers rose by 53,900 and industrial staff numbers fell by 13,700.

I welcome that trend, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are on course with the planned reductions to a total of 630,000 by 1974? Will he confirm also that that target can be achieved, in theory, by recruiting only three new entrants to the Civil Service for every four who leave voluntarily or retire naturally?

Yes, I can confirm that we ale on course to achieve that aim. I have not done the mathematics, but I think that my hon. Friend is broadly right in his assumptions.

Yesterday, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) raised the question of points of order arising out of questions. I have referred to the record. I said on 19 July 1978 that I preferred to take points of order arising out of Question Time immediately at the end o0f Question Time but other points of order after statements. I must warn the House that that is not an encouragement for points of order, because nine times out of ten, as the House knows, it is not a point of order. It is either a point of indignation or frustration, or some other disease from which hon. Members suffer.