asked the Secretary of State for Transport what studies the Greater London Transport Division of his Department has made of the comparative running costs of public transport in other European capital cities.

None as such, but the division has access to a wide range of studies, including those undertaken by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory and by International organisations.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Parisian contributes 40 per cent. in fares towards the running costs of public transport, while the Londoner contributes 60 per cent.? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman's Department recognised that a modern transport system needs public funds and that, without them it will decline, with all that that implies for the economy?

It is clear that a modern transport system—whether in London or anywhere else—needs some support. We are discussing what form that support should take. The hon. Gentleman seems to be advocating the spending of yet more money, which can come only from taxpayers and ratepayers.

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that his car sharing scheme shows no signs of solving the major problems that face London Transport? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the study commissioned by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory shows that the scheme's major effect has been to draw passengers away from the bus service and towards cars that would, in any case, be used? Is not the only solution to the major problems facing London's public transport system greater investment and a policy of lower fares?

The right hon. Gentleman has widened the question. Car sharing was never thought to be a complete solution to all the problems that face London and the rural areas. However, both in city and country areas, it contributes towards a solution. The Government have taken the restrictions off car sharing. Indeed, that is in line with the Labour Government's policy. However, I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not like to be reminded that the Labour Government pursued that policy.

Did my right hon. Friend notice that the London Transport executives gave evidence to the Select Committee a few days ago which showed that 73 per cent. of the costs of public transport in London could be attributed to labour? Will my right hon. Friend try to get comparative figures for European cities?

Yes, Sir. However, the operating costs of all passenger transport undertakings involve a high proportion of labour costs. The lesson, not only for London Transport but for all transport undertakings, is that we must place the highest premium on the best productivity that we can manage.

Although I concede the Secretary of State's point that public support must come from rates or taxes, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the British practice of putting a high proportion of costs on to the traveller is out of line with the practice in most countries and in most urban areas?

It is out of line with what takes place in Paris. However, the hon. Gentleman should inquire of London businesses whether they wish a further addition to be made to their rate burden.

Taxes.

The hon. Gentleman may shout "taxes", but he should ask the taxpayers whether they want to pay even higher taxes than they do at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the Under-secretary of State's visit to Mountsorrel, Leicestershire, on 6 February to meet representatives of the A6 action group and local councillors; and what further action he envisages, following that meeting.

The visit enabled me to see and hear about the very real problems of these villages. I shall now be considering whether room can be found for a bypass in the trunk road programme in the light of the needs of other towns.

Following my hon. and learned Friend's most helpful visit, which was much appreciated by my constituents, does he recall the very unsatisfactory environmental conditions that he saw in Mountsorrel and elsewhere as a result of the traffic on the A6? Although nobody can expect a bypass at once, will my hon. and learned Friend do his best to introduce a bypass into the programme as soon as possible?

Conditions in those towns were obviously unsatisfactory. Sooner or later a bypass will have to be built to take the lorries out of them. As I promised when I made my visit, we shall review the programme this year. We shall have to weigh this up against other priorities to see if we can put a scheme into the national programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the progress of work on the M63/M56 in Stockport.

Construction of the M63 Stockport/East-West bypass is proceeding satisfactorily and should be finished by the spring of 1982. Detailed proposals for the M63/M66 extension from Portwood to Denton were published in September 1980 and objections are now being considered.

I am sure that the Minister appreciates that many of my constituents will welcome the progress that has been made on the piece of motorway being constructed now, but many others fear that it will simply move traffic congestion from one area to another. What is the timetable for going out to contract for the new section round to Denton?

It is certainly the case that the traffic will be moved from one place to another, although conditions should not be as bad at Portwood as they are at the present terminal. We have received some objections to the draft orders that were published last year. A public inquiry will be the next step, and I hope it can be held in the autumn of this year.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has made to the recommendation in the report from the Transport Select Committee on the roads White Paper that there should be a firm commitment to maintain the real size of the road construction budget at the 1980–81 level.

I shall be responding to the Select Committee's report in due course. I have already made clear that while I cannot give any guarantees, I hope to maintain investment in the road programme.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the Armitage report, and also the fact that the Select Committee has expressed very clear views on the subject? Is it wise to cut the construction programme? Is my right hon. Friend aware that at Bedford we have seen very little progress on works on the A428 and also the western relief road? We have been asking for something to happen for a long time but we still find very little being done.

We should be clear about the position in terms of cutting investment. The Government have not presided over massive cuts in road investment. Our whole intent has been to try to maintain investment in the trunk road and motorway programme. I understand my hon. Friend's constituency interest, because he loses no opportunity—and rightly so—to tell me about it. This is a matter which is currently under discussion between the county council and the Department.

Will the Secretary of State recognise that the Select Committee's recommendation was that there should be a higher priority for more resources for investment in transport? Will he now recognise that the higher priority given in Europe to higher subsidies is crucial to a proper transport industry, and that fanciful ideas such as the hiving off of the Southern region of British Rail or car sharing are no solution? The Secretary of State should learn the lesson that his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Industry and the Secretary of State for Energy have learnt, namely, that more subsidies are needed if we are to have a proper transport system in this country.

The hon. Gentleman has managed to get about 15 separate subjects into his question, none of which has anything to do with road investment. Investment was cut by the Labour Government by 46 per cent. The massive cuts in road investment took place under the Labour Government.

Will the Minister agree that an investment in transport, whether road or rail, at the present time can be nothing but beneficial? Will he agree that it is necessary to build a really efficient infrastructure for the future, when the upturn in the economy eventually comes?

I endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said—much more reasonably, if I may say so, than the Opposition Front Bench. What the hon. Gentleman says is right. The strategy of the Government is to try to maintain the investment in the road programme. Certainly one would want to look forward to that investment increasing as the economy recovers from the present position.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations have taken place with British Railways regarding investment to replace the diesel multiple unit fleet.

The British Railways Board is not yet in a position to submit detailed proposals to me for replacing the diesel multiple unit fleet since it has not yet decided on the replacement vehicle or vehicles.

Will the Minister encourage British Rail to produce a substitute design? If secondary routes, such as the Keighley-Bradford and Keighley-Leeds services, are to be improved and provide a speedy and reliable service, British Rail will have to come forward with new designs in the very near future. The lightweight railbuses with which British Rail is currently experimenting are no satisfactory solution. Will the Minister accept that encouraging British Rail to produce new designs and having a proper level of investment will unquestionably help to reduce the disgraceful level of unemployment which was revealed yesterday?

I agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman says. Obviously, the railbus has an application in some areas. I am not claiming for one moment that it has an application in all areas. At the moment, we are awaiting the investment submission from the board for the replacement of the DMU fleet. I am afraid that I shall have to wait for that before giving a substantive answer to the hon. Gentleman.

With regard to investment in new passenger and freight transport, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is widespread feeling on each side of the House that the sooner he comes to a positive decision on electrification—I hope in favour of it—the better we shall all like it?

That subject comes up under the next question.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for a rolling programme of electrification of British Railways main lines; and if he will make a statement.

The report of the review of main line electrification was published on 11 February. The financial assessment which it presents is favourable, but I have to consider the wider issues which it raises, including the prospects for the commercial rail business and how the funds to finance electrification might be generated.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with Sir Peter Parker's statement that we have a golden opportunity to back a winner this time? Does he further agree that the large-scale implementation of electrification which is recommended in the report is vital to the structure of the railway system? Is he aware that such a move would give a further tremendous uplift to the electrical industries, to the supply industries and to the export potential for everything attached to the railway system? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will implement a rolling programme and not try to act in a piecemeal way?

We do not want to look at the issue in a piecemeal way. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that aspect. I also agree with him that such a move is of profound importance for the private sector in supplying the equipment. In the next few months we shall be considering this in conjunction with the British Rail corporate plan and the plan for electrification, which take us over the next decade. They have to be considered together.

Does my right hon. Friend see any scope for private investment in British Rail—if not in electrification then in passenger rolling stock—which would leave more resources available for electrification?

We are in the Transport Bill seeking private investment in some of the subsidiaries. I shall be eager and happy to look at other opportunities. My right hon. Friend has mentioned an avenue which the Government should explore.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us are wondering whether he appreciates the large number of private firms which depend upon orders from the British Railways Board for the maintenance and repair of the track and repair of coaching and freight stock? Is he aware that Callender Cables of Prescot—just across the border from my constituency in St. Helens—has recently made 750 men redundant as a result of the lack of orders from British Rail? Will he see what steps he can take to assist the BRB to provide the necessary work to enable Prescot Cables to take those men back into full-time work?

I thought that I had made clear that that is one of the major factors that we shall take into account in considering investment and in considering the whole electrification programme. The prospect for the private sector is one of the factors, but there are also the opportunities for the railway business as a whole. That is why we are trying to do it together. I have also talked to the rail council at a very constructive meeting, and I am very grateful for its advice on the whole electrification issue.

Will my right hon. Friend develop urgently the co-operation between British Rail and private sector finance sources so as to speed the development of electrification on the railways? Is it not the case that the electricity programme can be divided into bite-sized chunks that will enable private sector finance to be forthcoming in the right sort of amounts?

This is one of the issues being looked at by the British Railways Board in dealing with this matter. I shall consider any proposals put to me. There may be difficulties, particularly in identifying the investment within a network system, but it is in the interests of the railway industry for us to look at all opportunities for investment in it.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the case for an extensive electrification programme has been borne out conclusively in his own Department's report, together with that of British Railways, and that the major option available to the Secretary of State is the one which would have a practical and long-term effect, not only for the railways but for the British industry as well?

I understand that time is very important. We must put together the electrification proposals with the corporate review. We are talking of Ministers considering this during the next month or two. That is the time scale that we have in mind. That is right because of the importance of this for the railway industry. The sort of decisions that we are taking now will affect the railway industry for the whole of the 1980s.

Lewis asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has had any proposals put to him for the closure of rail services.

British Rail has made proposals for the closure of two passenger services in passenger transport excutive areas, one following the withdrawal of PTE support; and three other proposals, involving the termination of a short shuttle, the closure of a station in south London and the re-routeing of some services in East Anglia. London Transport has also put forward one closure proposal.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British Railways are forecasting about 3,000 miles of track closure by 1990, unless more investment is forthcoming? How does the right hon. Gentleman expect to live up to his earlier reputation and assurances of no substantial cuts in British Rail services unless he makes more money available for investment?

We are talking about expenditure of less than £20 million a year on the 3,000 miles that the hon. Gentleman mentions. That comes within the £1,850 million budget of British Railways. With collect and deliver parcels British Rail is losing £40 million a year. There is considerable scope for providing the sort of investment of which the hon. Gentleman speaks. That is clearly one of the things that we want to achieve.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there has recently been speculation about widespread closures and, if possible, deny such speculation?

The Government's policy on this matter has not changed in any way. We are not prepared to see the sort of Beeching cuts that took place in the 1960s. That decision rests with me and I am glad to affirm it.

Does the Minister realise that British Railways have warned the local authorities quite specifically about a number of lines that they will not be able to maintain if they have no additional investment? Is he aware that those lines include the Newcastle to Edinburgh local services? Does he share the fears of British Railways?

I imagine that those lines are within the 3,000 miles mentioned by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis). I understand the fears. There are ways in which we can find the investment within the existing provision. I shall talk to British Railways about that. It is part of the whole review of British Rail policy that we are conducting.

Will the Minister consider the future of the Manchester-Sheffield-Wath electrified line scheduled for closure on 1 June this year? Will he, even at this late stage, agree to an independent public inquiry to investigate the future of that line, bearing in mind that a precedent was set some years ago when one of his predecessors set up a public inquiry into the future of the Waterford-Fishguard steamer freight-only service? Does the Minister agree that it is not good enough for him to say that the matter does not concern him?

I understand the concern about the matter. The public must be clear that this is a freight line and not a passenger service. British Rail must have total discretion. Closures will save British Rail £2½ million a year. That will be achieved without traffic loss. Given those figures and the present position, it is extremely difficult to argue with British Rail's judgment.

Will my right Friend make a close study of any proposals from Southern region for the closure or rescheduling of commuter services in south-east London, where we have no alternative public transport facilities?

All closure proposals have to come to me. There has to be a hearing of the Transport Users Consultative Committee; and, as a result, the committee makes proposals to me. It is in that context that a decision would be made.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his proposals with regard to lorry weights and dimensions.

I welcome any further representations on the Armitage report until mid-March. The Government will come to decisions on the recommendations made in the report after that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the clear rejection by Armitage of the European Commission suggestion for heavier axle loadings makes the prospect of European agreement on heavier lorries more remote? Does he agree that any decision to change the weight and dimensions of lorries is essentially a matter for Britain alone and that the Armitage report did not make out a strong case on economic or environmental grounds for any significant changes?

It depends on what my hon. Friend means by "significant changes". I entirely agree with his first point. I have made it clear that we shall be making decisions in the British context. From the general interest point of view, there is a balance between the demands of environment and industry. It is wise for the House to take time to investigate the various proposals and the points that have been made by industry.

Will the Minister confirm the undertaking given to the House by the Under-Secretary to the effect that any new Government proposals will be brought before the House for debate and decision?

Clearly any proposals about weight made in an order will be brought before the House. Of that there is no question, but the issue has not gone to Ministers yet. We shall consider how best the House can be consulted. We all want consultation on these proposals.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Armitage report is out of print and unobtainable from the Vote Office? Will he give an undertaking that, as we had only a half-day debate earlier, there will be a proper full day's debate on Armitage before the Government reach a conclusion, not afterwards?

I am sure that we can remedy the first matter. On the second point, in reaching our decision we shall consider how the House should be involved. I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. I shall talk to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the last time this matter was discussed in the House we were given very short notice? Is he aware that the House was concerned that there should be a full-scale debate on Armitage? Is the Minister aware that it is not a question of the Government considering how best to consult the House but rather a question of the House asserting its right to debate a subject? Will the Minister consider the importance in his proposals—because the time scale brings easement to the industry—of introducing a package in accordance with Armitage in order that environmental and other matters are included in his decision?

I shall talk to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the first point. I do not think that I can go further than that. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, it is a package of proposals and that is why we intend to take time to consider all the implications. It is a question not only of weight but of other proposals, such as taxation, upon which we are already acting, bypasses, and other such matters. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider raising the maximum level of grant which can be obtained for investing in freight terminals alongside railways under section 8 of the Railways Act 1974, as amended by section 16 of the Transport Act 1978.

This is one of the recommendations made in Sir Arthur Armitage's report, "Inquiry into Lorries, People and the Environment", which we are currently considering.

The Minister's reply will be seen as a disappointment by those of us on both sides of the House who think that, for economic and environmental reasons, the extension of section 8 grants is vital if we are to get more freight off the roads and on to the railways. The proposals in the Armitage report are supported by many hon. Members on both sides of the House who want to see that happen. Can the Minister say whether, independent of the report coming back to the House, he is prepared to make a statement or to make a stand on the issue of section 8 grants and implement suggestions in the report?

I do not see why my reply is disappointing, because we are keen to see a transfer of freight from road to rail where it makes sense and where there are environmental advantages. We give section 8 grants regularly. We have not cut the sum available. We have allowed all the applications bar one; I think that we have allowed 33 different grant applications so far.

Will the Minister accept that action needs to be taken urgently, and that it is not part of an Armitage package? Does he agree that what we need is less intrusion by the lorry—not larger lorries in return for more grants—but simply more grants to switch traffic from road to rail? If less than 2 per cent, were switched, British Rail's freight operation would move into the black.

It is not part of the Armitage package. We are determined to transfer traffic from road to rail. We are already giving the grants, and have turned down only one application. All that we are looking at is the possibility of improvements. We have not been guilty of neglecting this area so far.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if prior to reaching a conclusion on the implementation of the Armitage report, he will cause a study to be made of the number of bridges in Yorkshire and Humberside which would need to be strengthened if lorries of the size envisaged in that report were permitted to use them.

No, Sir. The Armitage recommendations for heavier lorries were framed specifically to avoid the need for any strengthening of bridges.

Will the Minister disregard the strident propaganda of the road transport lobby on this issue and examine ways in which long-distance heavy loads can be carried more frequently by rail and by water? The investment needed for that would obviate the need for the very heavy lorries.

I try to avoid strident propaganda from all sections of the transport industry. I hope that I can refute a myth—that the armitage recommendations require millions of pounds to be spent on strengthening our bridges. We are anxious to look at possible ways of improving section 8 procedures, amongst other means, to find better methods for transferring traffic from road to rail, and even water, where that proves to be feasible.

Is the Minister aware that all the costs should be borne in mind before a decision is made on this very important subject—not only the strengthening of bridges, but even the impact of heavy lorries on road markings, which are surely the cheapest way of ensuring road safety? This is a very important area, which should be considered before any decision is made on Armitage.

I agree that the cost part of the problem is very important. That is why we are taking steps in the Transport Bill to alter the system of heavy goods vehicle taxation, to make sure that the heaviest lorries pay their proper share of road costs.

Before the Minister reaches any conclusion on the Armitage report, whether in respect of bridges or anything else, will he guarantee properly to consult highway authorities? Can he name any local authority, parish council or community council that is in favour of the proposals?

We are consulting widely. One of the first bodies that we consulted was the House of Commons. That is why we had a very quick debate. As my right hon. Friend has already said, Ministers as a whole have not yet considered the report. They will not make decisions on the matter until we have consulted all interested bodies and tried to come to a well-informed, balanced judgment on very difficult issues.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish the Green Paper on cycling.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the timing of the consultation paper on cycling.

Soon.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the Under-Secretary saying last June that a consultation paper would be published "shortly"—that was the hon. and learned Gentleman's word—and in December last year that it would be published "soon"? We have had the same reply again today. Is not this a clear indication that the Government have no interest whatever in the promotion of cycling, even in these days of energy conservation, pollution and emphasis on physical fitness? Does he not agree that the need for active interest in the matter is greater than ever? Will he and his hon. and learned Friend send me £1 each to join the all-party group on cycling, as a demonstration of their good intent?

I suppose that as I have had a salary increase I can say that I shall send the hon. Gentleman £1. I cannot speak for my hon. and learned Friend the Under-secretary, who, regrettably, has not yet received an increase.

I shall send £1 to join the all-party cycling group.

That is one of the changes that we shall want to develop. Only today we have helped in the promotion of a cycle route in London. More imaginative things can be done in promoting cycling, and we should like to do them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recent proposal by one of the London boroughs to turn pedestrian pavements into cycle tracks? Will his Green Paper, when it is published, deal with that aspect and possible changes in the law to enable such things to be done?

We shall examine that matter. I do not know whether the Green Paper will deal with it, but certainly it will be part of the debate. I am sure that the responses to the Green Paper on cycling will include such suggestions. There are problems, but I shall not detain the House with them now.

I endorse my right hon. Friend's commitment to cycling, and particularly its advantages for physical fitness. But does he agree that, while two wheels are better for fitness than four, no wheels are best of all? Will he also give his support to walking?

At one stage we also had a pedestrian paper—

They are all pedestrian.

The House may think that all our papers are pedestrian. We were going to produce a paper on pedestrian policy. I am encouraged by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman). We shall see whether we can bring forward that paper afterwards.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the expected commercial operational starting date of the advanced passenger train.

I understand from the Railways Board that it plans to start operating the APT prototypes in commercial service later this year, but at the moment there is no firm date for their introduction. I am awaiting the board's latest appreciation of the prospects for the APT.

I thank the Minister for that information. Is he aware of some of the rumours and stories circulating that there may now be several years' delay because of technical troubles that the APT has encountered? Will he give the House some of the information that he has about the alleged technical troubles, and give an assurance that if there is any further delay it will not be on his part, through lack of money?

None of the delay has had anything to do with Government policy or cuts in support. I can give the hon. Gentleman that categorical assurance. The three prototypes are being modified to cure the tilt and braking system problems that have come up. There have been various other delays, stretching back to 1974. That is why it is important that the three prototypes go into service as early as possible.

Can my right hon. Friend give any idea of the cost of the APT programme to date, and say whether it shows any export potential?

Expenditure on the project so far is £42 million. If it can be developed into a good production run and show itself in service, there could be export potential. But the most important thing is that the three prototypes get into service at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what process he uses to satisfy himself of the safety standards of the railways.

British Rail is required to report to my Department a wide range of accidents and incidents. The information collected is used to compare one year's safety record with another, and by this means a watch is kept on long-term trends. A full analysis is then published annually in the chief inspecting officer's report on railways safety. The provisional results for 1980 show that, for the third time in five years, not a single passenger was killed in a train accident, and the incidence of potentially serious accidents was the lowest ever recorded.

The Secretary of State and the House will agree that that is a highly commendable record for British Rail, and one that should be made widely known. However, will he bear in mind that there is increasing concern in British Rail about the ability to keep up that record? There is a considerable backlog of track maintenance. I shall not dwell on the question of investment—

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not dwell on anything. He should ask a question.

Will the Secretary of State take into account the need for British Rail and, indeed, his Department, to examine the efficiency and the long-term advantage, as well as the viability, of steel sleepers in order to cope with the backlog of track maintenance?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the investment ceiling has been maintained in real terms at the same level as under the previous Government. Track renewal is extra to the investment ceiling. We shall look at the question of steel sleepers.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that maintaining this sort of safety record is extremely expensive for British Rail? Will he not agree that the fire at Taunton on the sleeping car train, which cost some lives, led to a tremendous amount of money being spent by British Rail to put matters right? Will he ensure that when he considers the Armitage report he will insist on the same strict adherence to safety in relation to lorry users as he does in relation to British Rail?

I agree that there is a comparison. The House will wish to examine, when we discuss Armitage, the question of safety, including the safety of lorries.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what account he took of the £3·6 million underspent on the trunk road construction budget for 1979–80 in fixing the amount for 1980–81.

The cash limit for roads was overspent by £3·9 million in 1979–80. Within that limit, the lower spending on new construction was more than offset by an increase in motorway and trunk road maintenance. The allocation for new construction within the cash limit for 1980–81 is sufficient to enable good progress to be made with the schemes in the Government's programme.

Will the Minister agree that he has not accurately assessed the inflation factors in these figures? This has had the effect of slowing down the construction programme even though this is not immediately apparent. Does he also agree that the outcome is that starts on many important road schemes have been delayed?

There were difficulties, certainly in the first year, in estimating inflation figures correctly. That had an effect on the volume of new construction. Nevertheless, we are now maintaining good progress with the programme. We look certain to start work on all the main programme schemes that are ready this year. I hope that we shall be able to build a substantial part of the reserve schemes that are waiting to be built. There are no substantial delays or shortfall in our capital construction programme.

If there is any underspending on new road and motorway construction will these sums be used to hasten completion of the M25 ring motorway around London that is so badly needed?

I am glad to say that we are avoiding, by more careful management, the massive underspending that always plagued the Labour Government's road programme. With the money available we are giving the highest priority of all to the M25 orbital road round London. I am glad to say that we have passed the half-way point of construction. I hope that we shall get the whole road open well to time.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of the Exchequer contribution to London Transport in 1981–82 on the provision of services.

It is the responsibility of the GLC in the first place to assess the appropriate support level for London Transport in the light of its effect on services and against London's other transport needs. We then take that assessment and its implications into account when considering the allocation of TSG.

Is the Minister aware that more money has been spent on public transport in Paris since 1970 than in the whole of Britain and that the number of passengers in Paris is increasing whereas, on London Transport, it is declining? Does he not agree that his policies are leading to London having the worst and costliest public transport system of any major city in western Europe?

The authorities in Paris are taking steps to try and increase the proportion of revenue that comes from fares because the cost of that system has become insupportable to the national taxpayer. Here, in London, we are increasing the amount of grants given to the GLC for, among other things, capital investment in the public passenger transport system. The grant that Government gave this year to Greater London was £15 million higher for capital investment in transport.

What account is taken of the fact that some free provision of transport is made in London for pensioners that is not available elsewhere?

That was included in the plans that the GLC put to us. It is a substantial part of the support that the GLC gives to the public transport system. Not every local authority has the same needs. Each authority has to assess its own transport priorities and decide how best to spend the Government grant to give the best benefit to passengers in its area.

Has the Minister any plans to change the method of providing financial support for London Transport undertakings carrying commuters? If not, will he prevail on the Essex county council to provide the grant that is available for the support of the Epping-Ongar section of the Central line? Will he reject proposals to close that line?

London does quite well by the present method. Twenty five per cent, of the funds available nationally for local government transport expenditure goes to the GLC. I have discussed with the Essex county council its policy towards support of the Epping-Ongar line. The proposals for closure have been considered by the TUCC. They are before my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, at the moment. He will be giving a decision on that difficult matter in the near future.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any further plans to increase transport investment.

My plans for transport investment will be published next month in the public expenditure White Paper.

Will the Minister include in his proposals financial support for the 225 route from Orrell to Bolton?

The 225 route is a local government road. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about it. I was deprived of the opportunity of giving him a substantive reply last night in his Adjournment debate.

Has the Secretary of State seen the reports of the statement by the manager of the Eastern region of British Rail to the effect that, inevitably, over the next 10 years, 34 branch and rural lines will close unless further investment takes place? Is it not true that trains and track urgently need replacing? Its it not also true that the public service obligation has reduced in real terms since the right hon. Gentleman came into office? What does he intend to do about it?

I have seen the statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am bound to tell him that there are a number of notable inaccuracies in that statement. The passenger manager, Mr. Patteson, says that support from the taxpayer was less in 1979 than in 1975. If, by that, he means passenger support, which is the support that the Government give, he is totally incorrect. I do not believe that he has set out a fair or objective statement. I shall be making a full response to the passenger manager's statement.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that capital investment is extremely good for employment? Will he indicate what priority he gives, for instance, to aiding British Rail or the other projects that have been submitted to him to proceed with the Channel tunnel? Does he further agree that this would undoubtedly provide the hard-pressed construction industry with valuable work and reduce unemployment in that industry?

My hon. Friend is right to concentrate on, and to stress the importance of the Channel tunnel. The Government have tried to get the tunnel programme moving again with the aid of private investment. This is a matter that the Government should be examining at this time. If we can get private investment and private risk-taking into this area, we can get some of the investment that this country so badly needs.

Has the Secretary of State noted the interesting initiative of the steel workers, the mineworkers and the railwaymen to press jointly for increased investment in their industries? Has he noted that, since those initiatives, his colleagues have announced substantially greater funds for the mines and the steel industry? When does he hope to come to the House to announce proposals for increased funds for the railways?

I am seeing representatives of the rail unions and the other two unions—the triple alliance to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I do not think that if I were the hon. Gentleman I would jump to any conclusions just yet.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has upon the relative effectiveness of the different fare schemes applied by public road transport undertakings.

I am collecting information on this but what we do know is that indiscriminate subsidies to keep fares artificially low have meant soaring bills for the ratepayer and can force a loss of jobs and investment in industry. Local authorities would be well advised to scrutinise very closely just what benefits the public get from costly policies of this sort.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he recall that the experience of the South Yorkshire fares experiment has often been put forward by Opposition Members as a good example of a beneficial scheme? Will he let me know today, or at some other time, the cost of the South Yorkshire scheme to the domestic and industrial ratepayer in South Yorkshire?

My information is that revenue support in South Yorkshire, leaving aside concessionary fares, is at present costing £35 million a year and is likely to go up to £47 million next year. Although this is apparently now the policy of the Opposition, it was opposed by the Labour Government. The Minister of Transport at that time described the policies as wasteful. I think that is right.

Does the Secretary of State accept that that level of support is recognised as normal in Europe and America? Does he accept that more people travel on that system than on Tory metropolitan authority systems, where there are high redundancies and high fares? Does he understand that the Opposition believe that it is important that a transport policy leads to more people travelling on the buses?

It is true that the number of passengers has increased by 2 per cent, between 1976 and 1979. However, the evidence seems to suggest that people are not leaving their cars but that bus users are making more journeys by bus. The attitude expressed by the Opposition is a U-turn because they completely opposed the policy when in Government.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will carry out a new investigation of the jobs needing to be undertaken by the Civil Service based on an assumption that no organisation currently exists, and then staff the Civil Service accordingly.

No, Sir, but all Ministers in charge of Departments have been, and are, reviewing their functions and tasks together with the appropriate organisation and staffing required. These reviews contribute to the planned reduction of the Civil Service to 630,000 by April 1984. The Government intend to publish a White Paper describing the work that is being done.

As this review concerns what many people would consider to be the most overpaid, over-protected and under-productive group of workers in this country, paid for out of the pockets of industrial workers hit by recession, will my hon. Friend take advantage of any contemplated industrial action to prove that in certain departments a skeleton staff can do just as efficient a job as the current staff?

I do not accept my hon. Friend's description of the Civil Service. Discussions are in progress with the Civil Service unions about this year's pay settlement and future arrangements for determining the pay of non-industrial civil servants. It is deplorable that there should be talk of industrial action which would disrupt important public services when the Government have indicated their positive response, their intentions for future arrangements for settling pay, a subject to which I know civil servants attach considerable importance. There has been a responsible approach and I do not think that there is any justification for industrial action.

Will the Minister bear in mind that because of the staff cuts that have already been made—

Not enough.

The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) says "Not enough". Will the Minister bear in mind that, as a result of the cuts needy families—on the admission of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security—are not receiving the family income supplement to which they are entitled, and that at a time of peak and rising unemployment the Manpower Services Commission is considering closing down jobs centres or cutting back on the manning of those centres? Is it not time for the Government to admit what we all know in the House—namely, that the Government's manpower cuts are being achieved only at the cost of seriously damaging the quality of essential services?

I repudiate the charge that essential services are being damaged. It is right that the Government should seek to make the Civil Service more efficient and reduce some of the tasks that our predecessors laid upon it. We have succeeded in reducing the numbers by a net 37,000. That is a good achievement and we have further progress to make in the coming years.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent successful exercise to cut out a number of the more senior posts in the Civil Service? Could not a similar exercise be conducted lower down the line to cover the whole generality of the staff?

Departments are constantly considering the appropriate staffing and organisation to carry out their functions. They are reviewing the functions laid upon them by Parliament and in other ways to ensure that necessary tasks are being carried out.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what cash limit applies to the expenditure of the English and Welsh Parliamentary Boundary Commissions for 1980–81.

As my predecessor told the House of Commons on 25 June 1980, the cash limit for the English and Welsh Boundary Commissions for 1980–81 is £191,000.

Does not the latest estimate of the commissions' expenditure during the current year, which is £238,000, exceed the cash limit by more than 20 per cent? Is not that an example of the Government disregarding their own cash limits when it apparently suits their own party interests?

The work load of the boundary commissions has increased because of the progress that has been made by the Local Government Boundary Commission. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is a linkage between the two. The excess of spending over the cash limit on the part of the Boundary Commissions will be met under the same subhead by a saving on the costs of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure, so no Supplementary Estimates are involved.

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

There are at present no plans to disperse Government offices beyond those announced by my predecessor on 26 July 1979.

Is the Minister aware that the unemployment figures published yesterday indicate that the Northern region remains at the head of the unemployment league? Does he recall that when his Government came to power they immediately stopped the transfer of hundreds of jobs due to go to the region? Does he accept that the need for those jobs is greater than ever? If the Government are really concerned about the region, as they often say they are, does he agree that direct Government action on the transfer of Civil Service posts could lead to reduced unemployment immediately?

We believe that no further dispersals should take place because of the publc expenditure implications of such dispersals. That does not mean that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment—who was answering questions yesterday on unemployment in the North-East—and the Government are not taking the appropriate measures. We do not think that the dispersal of further Civil Service jobs would be in the interests of the nation as a whole.

Does my hon. Friend accept that before consideration of the transference of jobs, the procedures for reviewing pay should be clarified? If he accepts that, as he seemed to say earlier, why have the Government suspended pay research? Does not my hon. Friend's statement represent a significant shift in the Government's attitude in the face of determined and coherent wage—

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman sure that his supplementary question is related to this question, or is it related to question No. 55?

I thought, Mr. Speaker, that we were talking about priorities.

The question relates to the transfer of Civil Service posts to the Northern region.

Is the Minister aware that his reversal of the policy of the Labour Government is widening the gap between the deprived North and the affluent South? Will he bear in mind that well-qualified school leavers are denied the opportunity to enter the Civil Service because they have to come to London to join the career structure? This means more inefficiency, and unfairness to youngsters in the North.

It was right to go back upon the Labour Government's dispersal policy, which seemed to be animated much more by political considerations than considerations of efficiency. It should be fully understood that 80 per cent, of the Civil Service is located outside Greater London. Four out of five civil servants work outside London.

When Civil Service jobs are transferred to the Northern region or anywhere else and when civil servants refuse to move, will my hon. Friend confirm that they will be considered to have terminated their employment and that others wil be recruited locally?

The requirements upon individual civil servants depend upon the grade and class of civil servant. Some are required to move by the terms of their contract of employment and others are not. We shall abide by their contracts.

Does the Minister realise that the extra costs to which he referred earlier are entirely justified in regional policy terms and are minor compared with the massive public expenditure costs of unemployment in the regions? Will he bear in mind that there is bitterness in the Northern region, and in other regions which have lost jobs that were promised to them within the Civil Service, because, at a time when their traditional basic industries and newer manufacturing industries are being destroyed, they are being denied the opportunity of widening their employment base through employment in the Civil Service and public administration?

The right hon. Gentleman should know that there is pressure from the areas where dispersal is taking place for that dispersal to be cancelled. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear last year that we would maintain the pregrammes that we announced.