asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to respond to the Transport Committee's report on the Channel link.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to respond to the Transport Committee's report on the Channel link.

I welcome the committee's report, but before responding to it I shall wish to study fully the various proposals that are being put to me by potential promoters. That will clearly take a little time. I hope to be able to reach decisions of principle before the end of this year.

Has the Secretary of State noticed that the Committee broadly endorsed the principle of a single track rail tunnel along the lines of that proposed by the two railway organisations? Does he feel that he ought to publish a White Paper, as the Select Committee recommended, so that the House may draw its conclusions on the thinking that will lead him to that decision in principle?

We shall consider that proposal. I shall deal with that question in my response to the report. Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the general endorsement not only of the principle of the Channel tunnel, but of the Government's policy towards it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that British Rail's proposals are broadly in line with those of the Select Committee, but on a much smaller scale than that accepted in 1975? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall his statement in the House on that occasion, that the the BR proposal was viable and was the right scheme to speed up the cross-Channel link? Will he act quickly and approve the scheme?

We have eight schemes to consider, including the British Rail scheme. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Select Committee's endorsement of the BR approach, but the Select Committee has gone nearer the 7 metre scheme than the 6 metre scheme. There is clearly nothing between us in principle on the Channel tunnel or on its importance for the railway industry.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that those of my constituents who were against the first Channel tunnel scheme are mainly in favour of the British Rail proposal, but all of them want an early decision?

I shall take that on board. If we can find a commercially viable scheme there is no reason why that scheme should not go ahead, but with private capital.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is still his policy to finance the project by genuine risk capital, and not with Government guarantees? Do future Government guarantees extend to minimum earnings on the tunnel, because the bankers to whom he is talking wanted that on the last Channel tunnel project?

As I have just said, I confirm that we believe that there is a commercially viable scheme here. There is no reason why that should not be supported by private risk capital. I remind the hon. Gentleman that on the last occasion the Labour Government cancelled the project because of a lack of public finance. We were not prepared to leave it there. We are currently considering the eight schemes, and will shortly consider a ninth. I shall then be in a much better position to answer him more fully.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the private risk capital for such a venture will not be guaranteed by the Government? Can he confirm also that the investment will not involve any diversion of British Rail funds that would otherwise be used for other more important British Rail investment projects?

Yes. We are talking about private risk capital, as I have made clear from the beginning. The second part of my hon. Friend's question relates to one of the matters that we shall bear in mind when considering these schemes.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on discussions between his Department and. the East Sussex county council about possible bypass routes to enable A259 traffic to avoid the towns of Hastings and St. Leonards.

There have been no recent discussions with the county council. Work on this scheme has been suspended, but it will be resumed when we can name a realistic date for its construction.

I know that my hon. and learned Friend is aware of the lamentable state of funding for trunk route projects in the part of the country that I represent, but may I draw his attention to some simple solutions to his problems? Will he consult the county council and utilise the spine road funded by the Hastings borough council, because that would supply at least half the route of a bypass round this busy town area?

The spine road suggestion by the county council is interesting. We are always happy to consult the council and to co-ordinate its plans with our own. I hope that there will be some ways in which we can help before we are able to resume work on the Bexhill and Hastings bypass.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now introduce legislation to make it compulsory to display on a vehicle a certificate stating that the necessary insurance has been paid; and if he will make a statement.

I see no need to impose this obligation, which presents considerable practical difficulties. Insurance certificates are checked when licences are renewed and the police have powers to require drivers to produce them at any time.

Is the Under-Secretary aware of the great difficulties and distress caused to innocent people by accidents caused by uninsured drivers? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not exaggerating the administrative problems involved? Would it not be simple to fix an insurance certificate to windscreens, just as tax certificates are fixed on windscreens at present?

I agree that a great deal of distress is caused when uninsured drivers are involved in accidents. The difficulty is that there is no standard form of insurance, and a disc would not indicate the conditions of the insurance cover. In addition, most insurance is not tied to one vehicle. The hon. Gentleman has put forward an attractive idea, but I repeat that it appears to involve considerable practical difficulties.

Is it not the case that between 7 and 8 per cent.—in some cases up to 10 per cent.—of drivers have no excise licence? When I first raised the matter 25 years ago I was told that such evasion was not prevalent. Now we are told that it is out of hand and cannot be dealt with. Would not drivers ignore an insurance disc, just as they ignore the excise licence?

We are having what we call blitz campaigns in co-operation with local police forces throughout the country. I am glad to say that they are producing good results. We are also closely examining our arrangements for enforcing vehicle excise duty, and I hope that we shall be able to produce better results with less use of manpower and at less administrative cost.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the M54 motorway to Telford.

Tenders for the first two contracts were invited on 10 February and 9 March. I hope to invite tenders for the remaining two over the next three months. Construction work under the first contract should start about June. We hope to open the road in late 1983.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer, which will give great comfort to many of my constituents who are looking to the road to help the investment that is necessary in the new town of Telford. Is it possible, even at this late stage, to consider the representations of some local contractors that they should be included in the contract list? There are some fairly large contractors in my constituency who would be able to provide many jobs if they were successful. They are asking whether they could be considered for the contracts.

I shall consider that point on the two contracts for which we still have to invite tenders. However, much as we like to help local employment, we must have a wide range of considerations in mind when deciding on the suitability of contractors to be invited to tender for such major projects. We will help if we can.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, whatever comfort may be brought to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley), considerable annoyance will be caused to my constituents because the road will go through my constituency? Is my hon. and learned Friend further aware that my constituents believe that the project is a scandalous waste of public money and that an extra £20 million is being needlessly spent? Is he aware also that the motorway will provide a new and natural boundary for the conurbation and will destroy much fine agricultural and scenic land? All in all, it is the most despicable decision that the Government have ever made.

My hon. Friend has pressed each of those points on me for as long as we have been considering the project. It was a difficult decision, and it was impossible to satisfy both my hon. Friends. The debate about the road had continued inconclusively since the early 1970s. Telford has the highest rate of unemployment in the West Midlands. Many industries went there because they were promised a new road, and they believe that their survival depends upon better communications. I believe that the motorway will be a valuable capital investment. Someone had to make a decision, and the time has come to get on with it.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to give his response to the findings of the rail electrification review.

I hope to be able to make a statement on railway electrification in the next month or two, after I have completed my consideration of the findings of the review and the British Railways Board's corporate plan.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the clear acceptance in the joint review of the advantages of main line electrification and the growing consensus and bipartisan view agreed by the TUC and the CBI, of the beneficial effects of rail electrification on industrial production for home and export markets? Will the right hon. Gentleman take on board the fact that we expect a positive response from the Government on this important piece of public investment?

Of course I take that on board. We have had the report only since Christmas and we are talking, on the largest option, of expenditure of between £750 million and £775 million. We are justified in taking some weeks to consider the matter, but I take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the statement of policy published by the British Railways Board this afternoon? Does he welcome it as a major contribution to the development of rail policy during the 1980s, and does he recognise the important part that electrification will play in achieving the targets set out by the board in that statement?

I have only just seen that document. It is being published by British Rail at 2.45 pm. The timing may not be altogether coincidental. Obviously, I shall need some time to study it. I commend to the House the accompanying statement by Sir Peter Parker. It is right to emphasise that the future of the railways can be a good one, but it must be a future that is earned by the railways. It is not something that the Government can provide.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it will be impossible to embark on the electrification of some of the lines recommended in the report until some of the major, costly and time-consuming resignalling schemes have been completed? What consideration is he giving to that investment aspect of the problem?

That is why we are dealing with the consideration altogether and not seeking to treat electrification as a separate issue. We are dealing with the investment needs of British Rail over the next four or five years.

Bearing in mind the excellent rate of return provided by rail electrification, will my right hon. Friend give careful consideration to Sir Peter Parker's call in the document published today for an easing of the annual self-financing limit of BR, by the injection of private capital in the way that Sir Peter requires?

We are concerned to develop any opportunities for genuine private investment in the railway system. I am sure that the Opposition will wish to endorse that.

Does the Secretary of State recall that when he last answered questions in the House I drew his attention to the unanimous conclusion of the working party that an early decision on electrification was essential if British industry was to benefit from it? We hope that the right hon. Gentleman's decision will be made within a month rather than a "month or two". Can he indicate whether he has consulted his right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Industry to ascertain from them how many jobs would be created in the regions and how many companies throughout the country would benefit from an early decision on electrification if the Government went for the biggest option?

We hope to make the decision in the next two months. I have made that clear. We estimate that about 2,000 new jobs would be created in the railway manufacturing industry if the electrification project went ahead. That impact and the effect on the private sector railway industry are matters that we shall have closely in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total investment in British Railways for 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980, respectively; and what is the projected investment for 1981.

The figures for 1977 to 1980 are £215 million, £245 million, £301 million and £337 million respectively. All figures are at outturn prices and exclude expenditure on continuous welded rail which was removed from the Railways Board's investment ceiling in February 1980. The current public expenditure White Paper shows the board's forecast for investment in 1981–82 as £382 million.

Does the Minister realise that the railway unions and railway workers generally—I have riot had a chance to see the plan that has apparently emerged today—are watching the situation with great care? They are aware of the possibility of line closures and of a definite deterioration in the right of way. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that action should be taken to ensure the safety of the public and also to ensure that the work force of British Rail is retained, without the fear that many of them will lose their jobs almost overnight?

The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions. His basic inquiry is about future employment in the industry. I am sure that he agrees that the highest productivity possible is essential if the railway industry is to have a future. That is crucial to the report that has been produced by British Rail today.

In relation to the projected expenditure, will my right hon. Friend indicate what consideration has been given to British Rail's investment in part of the infrastructure of the Channel link, particularly at terminals in London and outside Folkestone? Does he agree that the best way for this excellent project to proceed, to the benefit of employment in the construction industry, would be through some form of co-operation between British Rail and the European Channel Tunnel Group, which has put forward an excellent proposal for the Channel link?

I do not wish to discuss individual projects. These are before the Government at the moment What is basic is that there must be the closest co-operation between British Rail, SNCF and the private sector in terms of building the tunnel.

Is the Secretary of State aware that vital maintenance and repair work is being held up on British Rail by the lack of finance? A safety factor, therefore, comes into the consideration. It is time that the Government made up their mind about what sort of financial aid is to be available. The situation is urgent. Will the Minister make a statement?

I do not think that I can add to what I have said about the urgent consideration that is taking place on the finances of the railway industry generally. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of the industry, will confirm that the safety record of British Rail is extremely good. Last year, I believe, was the best on record.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that much of the rolling stock in use in Scotland is reaching the end of its practical life. Although the railway unions and British Rail in Scotland admit that there is no risk in the use of that stock and that passengers are not at risk, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has proposals for replacing that rolling stock.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The rolling stock requirements of British Rail in Scotland and elsewhere are part of the whole discussion on the future of the railway industry. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest estimated volume of traffic that will use the Humber bridge.

I understand that the traffic consultant to the Bridge Board has estimated that 4,000 vehicles a day will use the bridge on opening, rising to 14,000 in 10 years' time.

Assuming those figures to be correct, will my hon. and learned Friend say what will be the outstanding debt, including borrowing charges, on the bridge in the year 2000? Will he say when he expects this, the most beautiful of all white elephants, to have finally paid for itself?

The Bridge Board assures me that it thinks the bridge will eventually pay for itself. I cannot give an estimate of the total outstanding debt at the turn of the century. The bridge has cost £88 million so far, so it ought to look good and do some good for someone on the north side of the Humber.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that much of the extra traffic generated by the bridge is likely to pass through the city of Lincoln? We therefore welcome the Government's decision to build a bypass round the city and urge the Minister to make sure that the project is completed as quickly as possible.

I hope to be able to announce that we shall publish the draft orders—the detailed design for the new road—within the next few days.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he plans to have, and with what bodies, before decisions on progress on the proposed electrification of the Ayrshire lines are made.

The proposed electrification of the Ayrshire lines is a matter for Strathclyde regional council as part of its responsibility for local transport. It is in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about the scheme.

Is the Minister aware that because of the division of responsibility between the Strathclyde PTE, the Secretary of State for Scotland and British Rail, which has a responsibility, there is total confusion about this project? All are waltzing around in circles and no decision is being made. Will the Minister cut the Gordian knot and say how, by whom, and when a decision will be made, before the existing rolling stock falls apart?

British Rail agrees with the need for electrification. The responsibility for financing electrification lies with the Strathclyde PTE. The Government, I understand, have approved that as part of the capital allocation to Strathclyde district council. Consultations are taking place between Strathclyde regional council and the Secretary of State for Scotland on the details of financing, but the responsibility is that of the Strathclyde PTE.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the electrification programme south of Glasgow should be seen as a coherent whole, including the commuter lines in my constituency and elsewhere?

That is the responsibility of the PTE for the Strathclyde region. I hope that it will discharge its responsibility by looking at the overall transport needs of the area.

Order. This question relates to Ayrshire.

We have electricity on the Isle of Wight, too, Mr. Speaker. In all this prevarication about the future electrification of the railways, is it not important to come to a decision quickly before firms with the specialist knowledge to do the work go out of business? That is the view that I hear.

My right hon. Friend has confirmed that the Government will come to a decision in two months. This is one of the most critical decisions that the Government have to take for the future of the railways. The problem in Ayrshire is slightly different. It is a question of the Strathclyde PTE reaching conclusions on how to finance the electrification that is wanted.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how the public service obligation grant is calculated; and how it is allocated to each branch line.

The public service obligation grant is assessed as the forecast shortfall between total passenger revenue and the total costs attributable to the passenger business. The grant is paid towards the passenger railway as a whole. It is not allocated to particular services or branch lines.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the public service obligation grant is totally inadequate to avoid the closure of branch and rural lines? Will he explain how I can assure my constituents that the money provided to support the Bishop Auckland and Darlington line and other lines under threat in the North-East is spent for that purpose?

On the last question, the hon. Gentleman has been assured on a number of occasions. As for the inadequacy, as he claims, of the PSO grant, I remind him that the nation spends almost £2 million a day on direct passenger support. I do not regard that as inadequate.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is some anxiety in South Wales that the area is not getting its fair share of the PSO grant? As the situation has altered since the 1974 Act, will he consider opening the books a little to permit proper debate about the allocation?

I am in favour of having the maximum amount of information published and divided down. I have put this point to British Rail over a number of years. The Railways Board has developed its avoidable cost concept. We shall have to see how far that gives us information. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the PSO grant is the best way of assessing the social cost of the railways?

Yes. I think that it is the best way. To go back to the previous question, it is possible to make divisions in it to make it more comprehensible; in other words, not to have quite the same block grant method as at present. Any improvement that can be introduced to make British Rail and its units more accountable is something that we should pursue.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the effects on road maintenance of the proposed motorway and trunk road maintenance expenditure contained in the public expenditure White Paper—Cmnd. 8175.

Next year my Department plans to spend £118 million on maintaining trunk roads and motorways. This is the largest sum ever earmarked for this important service and is £16 million more than last year

Does the Secretary of State realise that many of those involved in road transport believe that insufficient money is being spent on motorway and trunk road maintenance? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that inflation reduces his increased figure by a large amount? Why has trunk road maintenance expenditure been reduced during the past two years from £61 million to £37 million? Is there not a possibility that the condition of the trunk roads is so bad that it may cause danger to traffic?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are spending more than has ever been spent before on maintaining trunk roads and motorways. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the national road maintenance condition survey for trunk roads which shows that there has not been the deterioration suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. Friend tell me when I was last able to travel along the M1 and the M6 without being held up by extensive roadworks? Will he tell me when I shall next be able to travel along the motorways without being held up? Why does he not spend the additional £20 million that he is squandering in my constituency on improving the M1?

The new motorway will help my hon. Friend's mobility problems. He must face the fact that we are seeking to reconstruct the M1 because it has reached the end of its design life. It is sensible to do so. No one could criticise us for seeking to preserve the valuable investment that we have put into that motorway.

Does not the Secretary of State appreciate that one day the Government will make a U-turn and promote economic growth and stimulate the economy? Is he aware that that will result in a greater movement of goods by road and rail? Would it not be a good idea to increase investment now, both in road maintenance and road building, to prepare for that eventuality?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard my reply. The Government are spending more than any other Government have ever spent upon maintaining trunk roads and motorways. Surely that is proof of the commitment for which he is asking.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest figure for the total mileage of double track railway line converted to single line over the past five years; and what are the main reasons for conversion.

I understand from the British Railways Board that 65 miles of double track railway line have been converted to single track during the past five years. The main reason is to reduce costs by bringing track capacity into line with traffic levels.

Does the Minister accept that moving from double to single track will interfere with the frequency of the service? Does he agree that a fast, efficient and reliable train service is the best way to promote an increase in passenger and freight transport? That would be best served by double track.

I do not have great technical expertise in these areas. Whether it delays the services depends on the volume of traffic that wants to move along the double or single track. The reductions are part of a sensible process to ensure that we are investing in facilities that actually match the traffic demand and avoid wasteful expendture on over-provision of track.

When my hon. and learned Friend considers the electrification of the Ayrshire lines, will he also consider electrifying the single track line to Stranraer as part of a coherent whole?

In the recent review of electrification proposals some account was taken of these local electrification schemes, which are primarily the responsibility of the Strathclyde PTE. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is anxious to hold discussions to ensure that the Strathclyde PTE can finance justifiable projects.

Does the Minister accept that the main criteria of both the single and double track service are that the service should be efficient and reasonably speedy so that it attracts and retains passengers? Has not investment in British Railways now reached a stage where the diesel multiple unit stock is no longer fast and efficient due to maintenance problems? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that because of the cost difficulties of maintaining the track British Railways are having to cut speeds so much in some areas that services cannot be maintained? Does he realise that, although we spend a great deal of money on Britsh Railways, rail transport is a good bargain and more money is needed to maintan services?

The Government have not reduced the investment ceiling for the British Railways Board. We have maintained it, and are continuing to discuss with British Railways their investment needs. There may be a need to renew the diesel multiple unit fleet, but British Railways have not completed their design for the new unit. Such problems must be overcome before we can talk in the terms adopted by the hon. Gentleman.

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that one way to increase the efficiency of both double and single track railways would be to move to radio-controlled signalling, which would cut manpower and costs and greatly improve the efficiency of the train service?

British Railways have carried out a great deal of research on that aspect. I am persuaded that it would be a valuable way to cut costs, especially for some of the smaller rural railways. Experiments are under way and there is, for instance, an installation of radio signalling on the Bedford-St. Pancras electrification scheme. I am sure that British Railways will explore that method to reduce costs and to maintain services.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to evaluate the effects of the decision to cut salting and winter maintenance of roads to ensure that people are not being killed or injured as a result.

There was no decision to cut salting this winter. My first concern is always the safety of those using our trunk roads and motorways but I am determined that we should get value for money from winter maintenance spending. I have, therefore, agreed with Sir Derek Rayner that these operations should be examined and I expect a report later this year on the scope for improving both safety and value for money.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government's decision to cut back overall maintenance which was conveyed to local authorities during September and October meant that local authorities had to make the cutback in that financial year? Is he further aware that it was too late to cut back in any area other than winter maintenance and gritting? Does he appreciate that West Yorkshire and other local authorities in the North found it difficult to make the savings, and had to cut back on the very areas that are being denied by the Secretary of State?

There has been an increase from £5½ million spent last winter to £6½ million spent this winter on maintenance. In other words, about the same level of expenditure has occurred in real terms. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we want to achieve the maximum efficiency in operations. That is why I have asked Sir Derek Rayner to consider the matter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that he should congratulate the men who, winter after winter, operate the clearing schemes on the Highland roads in Scotland? They keep open the roads in appalling conditions.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The men carry out an extremely difficult job which, as my hon. Friend said, they do extremely well.

Does the Secretary of State recall the correspondence from Cumbria county council about road maintenance and the severe cutbacks that the council experienced this winter? What does he intend to do about that matter?

I cannot add anything to my previous remarks. There has been no cut. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman checks with the Cumbria county council to see my reply.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends to introduce any new road signs.

Yes. The revised traffic signs regulations, which I hope to lay before the House by Easter, will introduce some new signs and road markings.

As it is the International Year of Disabled People, and as the Highway Code does not include any signs specifically for the disabled—for example, to warn motorists that they are approaching a crossing that is regularly used by the disabled—will my right hon. Friend include among the signs that he intends to promote one relating to the disabled?

We recognise, especially in this year, the needs of the disabled. The new signs will include a warning sign for a crossing point frequently used by the disabled. I hope that that will prove helpful.

Will the Secretary of State look at clause 2 of the Disabled Persons Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) to determine whether he can give some power to local authorities to adopt legal rights to prevent members of the public deliberately parking on double yellow lines in areas reserved for the disabled?

That is something that the Government have suggested.

When my right hon. Friend is considering the new road signs, will he bear in mind the areas where certain languages—for example, Gaelic and Welsh—are spoken? In order to prevent vandalism, will he ensure that the new signs appear in both English and the language of the area?

I shall take that point on board when considering the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made towards the completion of the Stocksbridge bypass and associated road works.

We intend to complete the detailed design work and publish draft orders later this year. We hope to be ready to start construction in 1982–83, but this will depend on resources being available.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the closure of the Manchester to Sheffield line via Woodhead will cause a spur from British Steel, Stocksbridge to Sheffield 12 miles long? Is he aware that neither British Rail nor the BSC intends to maintain it, and that, therefore, the only way that steel can be moved from British Steel, Stocksbridge is by road, with all the problems that that will involve? Will he consider asking British Rail to delay that closure until the bypass is completed?

With some ingenuity, the hon. Member has got back to the subject of the closure of the Woodhead tunnel line. As he knows, that is the responsibility of the British Railways Board. It is a freight-only line, and it is for British Rail to decide the future of that line, which is losing a lot of money when the traffic can be carried on other lines.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on new road construction in the last three years; and how much he anticipates will be spent in 1980–81 at constant prices.

Expenditure on trunk and local road construction in England at 1980 survey prices was £660 million in 1977–78, £650 million in 1978–79, and £695 million in 1979–80. In 1980–81 I expect that the outturn for motorway and trunk road construction on the same price base will be about £320 million. It is too early to make a reliable forecast of the outturn for local roads for which the provision was £324 million.

In view of the contribution that better roads can make to our industrial competitiveness, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that Government capital expenditure should be increased in this area more rapidly than has been the case?

At present we are maintaining spending on trunk road construction up to the cash limits, and as a result we are making good progress with our programme. There is not much slippage of major schemes. We are bearing in mind the need to maintain the Government's capital investment programmes, and we try to manage the road programme so that it makes its contribution.

Does the figure that the Under-Secretary has just announced indicate that there has been a massive underspend on trunk road construction in England during 1980–81? If so, how does he reconcile the figure of £324 million with the statement made by his right hon. Friend on 23 July last when he claimed that the Government's expenditure on English trunk roads was higher than during the last two years of the Labour Administration? The figure he has given suggests that trunk road construction during 1980–81 will be lower than at any time during the past 15 years.

It is not an underspend in the sense that we are spending up to near our cash limit. The problem is the result of a technical revaluation of the figures to get them back to volume terms. We intend to adjust the cash limit for 1981–82 to compensate for that. We are not underspending the cash that is available to the Department, and we are maintaining full progress on the trunk road programme.

Could there be a reallocation between capital projects on new local roads and money available for the maintenance of local, non-trunk roads? What progress is being made on designating routes for heavy vehicles in rural areas, because many small local country lanes and roads are being severely damaged by heavy vehicles?

It is for local authorities to decide how to allocate their spending between local road construction and maintenance. They are free to use the money that we give them, for example, by way of transport supplementary grant as they judge best for local priorities. I like to see local authorities extending the areas that are free from heavy lorry traffic. I do not know of any recent spectacular extensions in rural areas, but a large part of North London has recently been made free of heavy lorries. That shows what can be achieved when the road system is improved to provide alternative routes.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied 'with progress on the setting up of new rural small bus services under the provisions of the Transport Act 1980.

Yes, Sir. I am impressed by the efforts being made by local authorities, local bus operators and a range of voluntary organisations to improve transport services in rural areas.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in my constituency the Transport Act 1980 has allowed the setting up a small bus which travels in the Marston Green area twice a week, fitting in flexibly., in line with the Act? Will he join me in congratulating councillor Peter Kellie for arranging this rural bus service?

Yes, certainly. More generally, the Act makes it easier for independent operators to obtain licences. I hope that the opportunities provided by the Act are more fully grasped.

While the 1980 Act may have produced "Kellie's bus" the evidence shows that more and more rural services are closing down all over the country. In view of the Budget decision to raise petrol prices by 20p, and since people in rural areas will be denied any services, will the right hon. Gentleman carry out a survey to discover the facts about transport facilities for people in rural areas?

I shall certainly consider such a survey. However, the hon. Gentleman will realise that the decline in rural bus services has taked place over the past 25 years, under the old licensing system. We have introduced new opportunities. I am glad to be able to tell the House that there are signs in places such as Exeter, Somerset, Dorset, Leicestershire, the Grimsby area and Bexhill of new services developing. I am sure that that is what needs to be done.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent increase in petrol prices will make it increasingly difficult for elderly people in rural areas to get out? Will he set up a committee to consider the establishment of a national scheme for concessionary fares for elderly people?

I shall not set up a committee to do that, but clearly one of the purposes of the Act is to provide new opportunities for providing transport for the aged and for all the people who live in country areas. I remind my hon. Friend that a national concessionary scheme would have serious implications for public expenditure.

Was not the Minister indulging in a bout of hypocrisy when he replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) about the increased price of petrol and running down of rural bus services, particularly when the Tory Party, during the 1979 general election campaign, said over and again that it intended to remove all the past ills, set up rural bus services where none existed, and to improve bus services where they were weak? None of those things has been done. Why will not the Minister acknowledge that the Government must now reduce the prices of such items as petrol and increase subsidies in order to get these rural bus services on the move?

The hon. Gentleman's diagnosis is entirely incorrect. The Transport Act 1980 created new opportunities for licensing conditions. Whatever else may divide us, it is surely a matter of common sense not to put obstacles in the way of new bus services being set up.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations his Department has received from the North Northumberland coroner about proposals for a dual carriageway on the A1 in Northumberland.

The coroner has written to my Department to suggest that the A1 between Alnwick and Berwick-upon-Tweed should be improved to dual carriageway standard. This followed an accident at a site which will be bypassed by stage 2 of the Alnwick bypass which is in our main trunk roadbuilding programme for 1982–83.

Does the Minister realise that this is the second time that the North Northumberland coroner has made representations to his Department on that subject, and that there has been a series of fatal accidents on the A1 between Morpeth and Berwick? Does the Minister realise that the great weakness of the road, on which a lot of money has been spent on ill-advised works, is that it does not provide opportunities for safe overtaking? Will he ensure that the money spent on the A1 is used to make that road safer?

That is our intention. We use the moneys on improvements to eliminate danger spots and to allow proper overtaking opportunities for traffic. The second stage of the Alnwick bypass is important because it is a bad accident spot. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the European Commission today announced a fresh programme of payments to this country under supplementary measures proposals which includes express provision for improvements to the A1 north of Newcastle upon Tyne.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Railways to discuss the future financing of the railways.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will meet the chairman of British Railways to discuss investment programmes.

I meet the chairman regularly to discuss a wide range of topics. I expect to meet him again shortly.

In view of the advantages of electrification in terms of running costs, speed, environment and energy conservation, will the Government ensure that British Rail gets enough investment for an early go-ahead for the programme of electrification of lines, including lines in Scotland as far north as Stirling, Perth, Dundee and Aberdeen?

As I have already said, we are currently examining the whole question of electrification, and we would expect to reach conclusions in the next two months.

The right hon. Gentleman will surely have had time since 2.45 this afternoon to examine the document that British Rail has issued. Does he appreciate that the schemes outlined by British Rail make sense in terms of the public transport system? Can he hold out any hope that the bulk of the requirements set out in that document by BR will be met by the Government?

I think that I would like to be able to direct a little more concerted attention to the plan than that which I have been able to give it since 2.45 this afternoon. Clearly we shall examine it, but I hope that the ever bigger bids that BR makes do not obscure the immediate needs, which is what we should be concentrating upon. I hope that the message will also go out that this is a question not just for Government, but for the whole railway industry. The highest premium must be placed upon maximum efficiency and productivity.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in discussions with the Civil Service unions on establishing a formula for future regulation of salaries and wages within the Civil Service.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if in future negotiations on Civil Service pay, the drop in numbers of non-industrial civil servants will be a factor in determining the increase in pay.

My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President of the Council and I told the Civil Service unions on 23 February that the Government intend to review the present arrangements for determining the pay of non-industrial civil servants with the object of establishing as soon as practicable an agreed and ordered system. Further meetings have been held since then, and we have been able to assure the unions that the review will cover matters of concern to them such as independent fact finding, comparisons with outside terms and conditions, and arbitration, as well as all other relevant factors. Future arrangements for negotiating and determining non-industrial Civil Service pay will, of course, depend on the outcome of the review.

Since the Government have already increased the original offer to the Civil Service, does my hon. Friend recognise that it is important that this should be the final offer and that it should not be increased? Does he also recognise that the public do not appreciate strike action by civil servants? Will my right hon. and hon. Friends bring together the leaders of the unions and ask them to consider whether it is not in their interests, as well as those of the country, that they should have a new formula for next year and that they should accept that?

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the 7 per cent. offer is the most that can be found from the Civil Service cash limit this year, and that the Government will stand clearly upon that figure. The unions have been told that there is no more money this year. Settlements generally in outside industry have been falling into single figures, and it is only right that the Civil Service should play its part in this general restraint. I do not believe that there is public sympathy for the claim being made by the leaders of the Civil Service unions for a higher increase this year.

Has there been complete co-operation by civil servants in the Government's planned reduction in their numbers from 730,000 to 630,000 by 1984? Will my hon. Friend reaffirm that the pay of a civil servant ought to be based upon the skill and importance of the job and upon what the country can afford, and should in no way be measured by the numbers of people working in any particular Department?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the Civil Service has been co-operating with the Government in reducing the numbers, both by finding more efficient ways of tackling work and by giving up work which is no longer necessary. Of course, my hon. Friend is right to say the pay of the Civil Service, as of others, should be commensurate, not with the numbers in a Department but with the work being done.

May we have a categoric assurance of the Government's intention to return to an agreed system of pay for the Civil Service for the next pay round? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the arbitrary and unilateral abandonment of the PRU was a major factor in making many civil servants decide to support a strike? In view of the damage being caused by the disruption, and in view of the Chancellor's appeal on Monday, is there not an appalling lack of urgency in coming forward with firm and specific proposals for an alternative system? Will the Minister confirm that there is within Whitehall a dilatory working party which is dawdling along meeting only once a week?

It comes extraordinarily ill from the right hon. Gentleman, sitting as he does on the Labour Benches, to criticise us for suspending the pay agreement. In the past 10 years that agreement has been operated on five occasions—four times under Conservative Governments, and only once under Labour. So we on the Conservative side will accept no criticisms or strictures from the Opposition on that matter. I can confirm that it is our intention to return to an ordered and agreed system as soon as practicable. I hope that it will be possible for 1982. The sooner there is a return to normal working the sooner discussions on these matters can proceed and the faster the new agreement can be made. There can, however, be no certainty at this stage that it would be available for 1982.

Are the Government prepared to discuss with the Civil Service unions the negotiation of "no-strike" agreements in return for indexed pensions and for an agreed form of arbitration backed by the force of law?

I have seen the extremely interesting letter from my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Mr. Patten) and Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) in The Times to-day, with the suggestion that they made. Certainly the subject of "no-strike" agreements and any possible linking is not excluded from the discussions which can be held.

Does the Minister accept that in no sense are the civil servants indulging in a political strike? Is he aware that it is action by a large group of workers which is deeply and genuinely angry at the unilateral way in which the Government have acted as employer? Will he confirm that the unions would be prepared to go to arbitration tomorrow, and that it is the Government who are refusing to do that? Does it not come ill from Conservative Members to suggest "no-strike" action and other ways of overcoming problems when the solution is in the hands of the Government, who have unilaterally broken the agreement?

I do not believe that this is a political strike. As far as I am aware, no one from the Conservative side has suggested that it is. What a sorry day it would be for the country if the civil servants or any other group indulged in industrial action purely for political ends. I hope that that would be condemned on the Labour Benches as firmly as it would be on the Conservative Benches.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants receive pay which is below the national average wage.

About 356,000 or 67 per cent. of non-industrial civil servants are currently paid below the latest estimate of national average earnings for full-time adults of £120·80 per week for last November.

Does not that reply demonstrate the strength of the civil servants' case and the reason for their strong feelings about their wages? Is it not true that, in the wake of the miners' settlement, civil servants must take the view that the Government understand only the strength of industrial muscle which they now have to demonstrate in order to bring the Government to the negotiating table? What does the Minister feel about the example afforded to civil servants receiving less than the national average wage by the chairman of the National Westminster Bank who has been awarded a 31 per cent. increase? Will he condemn that increase in the private sector as well as condemning the civil servants' claim?

I shall instead point out to the hon. Gentleman that when his Government were in office a rather higher percentage of civil servants were receiving less than the average wage than are now doing so.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be entirely appropriate to raise the question of "no-strike" agreements when determining the Civil Service pay? Can he give a more urgent response than the one he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) and remember the damage that was done at the time of the Post Office dispute when £100 million of public revenue was lost as a result of this kind of action?

I said in an earlier answer that the question of "no-strike" agreements was not excluded. However, the Civil Service unions have not said that such a proposal would meet with their approval.

Has the Minister seen the letter which was sent from the present Prime Minister's office during the election, in which it was said that the Conservative Party could

"see no reason why the restored and revised research system should not continue to provide the basic data for pay settlement"

That commitment was subject to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Employment, who, after approving the use of pay research, said:

"Naturally, we cannot give blanket approval in advance to the way the new Pay Research Unit is working, nor an unqualified promise to implement its future recommendations. No responsible Government or Opposition can make commitments of that kind."