asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish orders for the extension of the M40 motorway from Oxford to Birmingham.

Later this year.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this road forms a vital part of the export route from the industrial Midlands to the South Coast and that because of the present inadequate road system many Midlands companies are paying unnecessarily high transport costs? Will he ensure that the M40 is extended to Birmingham as soon as possible?

I agree with my hon. Friend that present routes between the West Midlands and Southampton are inadequate, and the new road could also provide some relief for the M1 which is congested. I assure my hon. Friend that we are pressing on with the road as quickly as possible. We will publish the draft orders later this year and the scheme is progressing with real seriousness.

Will the Under-Secretary bear it in mind that, although many of us have no objection to the proposed link, where the road goes through my constituency it is not of motorway standard, that it already poses many safety problems in Hammersmith and the neighbouring constituency of Ealing, Acton and massive problems of pollution by noise and vibration for those who live alongside the road? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that any increase of traffic will be safely conducted through that non-motorway section and, above all, will his Department give some help to those who live beside the non-motorway section?

I realise that there are problems where the A40 goes into London. We have a steady programme of improvements planned for the road, and we hope to have them completed by the time the M40 is opened. I appreciate the problem and we will do our best to help.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends to review the possibility of making compulsory by law the wearing of seat belts by occupants of the passenger seat of private motor cars.

I have no plans to extend the compulsory wearing of seat belts beyond the proposals relating to children contained in the Transport Bill.

I make an almost invariable voluntary practice of wearing a seat belt, but does my right hon. Friend appreciate that he has behind him a considerable number of hon. Friends who wish him well personally but who are implacably opposed to the further extension of compulsion in this area and will seek to oppose it in any way they can?

I understand that feeling. It has always been the case, and as far as the Government are concerned it always will be, that compulsion is a matter for a free vote in the House. My advice, as Secretary of State for Transport, is that people should wear seat belts. They save lives and injuries, but my personal view on compulsion is the same as that of my hon. Friend.

In the light of the article in The Sunday Times at the weekend, which drew attention to the dangers facing young children, following tests with seat belts, may we expect a further statement from the Secretary of State?

I saw the article in The Sunday Times and we have told the paper that we will examine the evidence that it set out. There are a number of issues that The Sunday Times has not considered, particularly the findings of the Child Accident Prevention Committee, but we all want the same thing—safety for children. I will examine the results of the investigations of The Sunday Times and I will let the House know the result of that inquiry.

If the House showed on a free vote that it favoured legislation on the compulsory wearing of seat belts, would my right hon. Friend be prepared to introduce it?

Yes, of course. I have always made it clear that we will abide by the will of Parliament. That remains the position. The issue that I wanted to emphasise is that there is a division across parties and hon. Members hold different views on the issue. It is sensible to arrange matters so that the issue is decided by a free vote.

We all agree that this is a matter for a free vote and that the House has expressed its support for seat belts on a free vote. Bearing in mind what The Sunday Times said about an amendment, which the Secretary of State supported, for seat belts for children in front seats, will the right hon. Gentleman consider, after looking at the evidence, changing the Bill in another place so that it meets those circumstances and allowing a free vote when the Bill returns to this House?

If the hon. Gentleman is talking about children and seat belts, the Government will be proposing a new clause on that issue in another place. We have made that clear and the amendment passed in this House is not the last word on that matter. As I said in my original answer, we have no plans to introduce a new clause or amendment to require the compulsory wearing of seat belts generally.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the introduction of private capital into the public transport industry.

The Transport Act 1980 provided powers to return the National Freight Co. Ltd. entirely to the private sector. The current Transport Bill provides for the introduction of private capital into both the British Transport Docks Board and British Rail's subsidiary businesses. There are therefore plans for the introduction of private capital or the introduction of new competition affecting all the transport industries for which I am responsible.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that of all the public sector industries for which the Government are responsible, British Rail has been the subject of the greatest constructive dialogue between management and the Government for the introduction of private capital, which can only benefit both the public and British Rail employees?

I agree with my hon. Friend's last remark. The introduction of private investment will benefit the subsidiary companies of British Rail, particularly companies such as British Transport Hotels. That is why the British Railways Board agrees to this way forward.

Can we assume that the right hon. Gentleman has no plans to hive off, or to introduce private capital into, British Rail workshops, which do extremely good work on an organised basis? Any plans to hive off or introduce private capital into that sector of British Rail would cause much trouble.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, no decision has been taken on the matter. The Transport Bill now going to the House of Lords gives the Government powers over the subsidiary companies of British Rail, and that would include British Rail Engineering. However, the hon. Gentleman is right when he says that there are no plans in this respect at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made since he took office in increasing the issue of permits and the size of quotas for British hauliers in the European Economic Community.

We have made strong representations to the three countries, France, Italy and West Germany, which impose inadequate quotas. Since 1979, our quotas in those countries have been increased by 21 per cent., 50 per cent. and 112 per cent. respectively. In addition, European Community and ECMT multilateral quotas have been raised by 18 per cent., and 25 per cent. Despite this progress, we must continue to press for further increases.

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on his reply. Will he not agree that the British transport haulage industry is probably the most efficient in Western Europe, and that any further steps he can take to open up competition in the Western European market can only benefit the domestic haulage industry?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is unfortunate that the road haulage industry is still restricted within the Community by the national quotas imposed by some of our partners. Quotas are hardly conducive to the development of a free trading area and proper trade among Member countries.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I have been in touch with him frequently about a road haulier in my constituency who is finding it difficult to get the necessary permits to travel to Italy, while many other road hauliers have permits in excess of their requirements? In view of the high level of unemployment in my constituency, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider the matter seriously and see that something is done in this regard.

I recall the case that the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) brought to my attention. There are many such cases. The unfortunate policies of Italy and Germany, in particular, leave the British Government with the difficult task of dividing the permits among British hauliers. I often hear rumours that some of the holders of permits have spare permits, but I have been unable to substantiate those rumours—or to lay my hands on the permits, if I may put it that way. We agree the rules with the trade association, and we try to be as fair as possible in distributing the permits.

Is the Minister aware that many hauliers who have business on the Continent and would like to obtain permits cannot do so because all the existing permits for this year have been used up? Does he know of the case of Mr. Orgies in my constituency, who has 20 trips arranged for transport to France but cannot get the permits? There must be many spare permits that are not being used.

The road haulage industry is going through a difficult time at present, and many hauliers are exasperated when they get business abroad which would help to overcome their problems but then cannot get the permits to make the necessary journeys. That is why my right hon. Friend and I take every opportunity to stress to our opposite numbers in Western Europe that a most unfair and discriminatory system has been imposed upon our hauliers. However, it is difficult to make any progress, and the German and Italian Governments, in particular, remain difficult.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made regarding the implementation of the British Railways corporate plan.

The basic conclusion of the plan is that the board can achieve sufficient improvements in productivity to enable them to finance substantially more investment in future without needing external finance beyond current levels. I have always made clear my view that productivity improvements should be used to increase the board's internal resources available for investment, and I look forward to seeing signs of progress in this direction. Implementation of the plan is for the railways board.

Does not the plan make it clear that 1981 is the year when decisions have to be taken? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when we can expect a statement increasing the financial limits of British Rail, enabling it to carry out that precious investment?

That matter is now being considered by the Government. I intend to make a statement to the House in that respect as soon as possible.

Can my right hon. Friend tell us more about improvements in productivity, because gains in that respect are essential to the successful implementation of the plan?

The corporate plan sets out a programme of improvements in productivity. I hope that both sides of the House agree that the attainment of better productivity is crucial to the future of the railways. In freight, in particular, improvements can be made. I hope that these improvements are made, because about two-thirds of the railway costs are those of wages and salaries.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence is available that high subsidies for bus services attract people from cars to buses.

All the available evidence is that high subsidies have little or no effect other than encouraging some extra trips by existing passengers. Reducing the fares by 10 per cent. achieves only some 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. extra travel.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that, although subsidies may be justified as a lifeline to threatened services, using subsidies to try to enforce travelling habits on the public is both extremely expensive and ultimately futile?

There is much in what my hon. Friend says. South Yorkshire has taken this policy further than any other authority. If we applied the policy adopted by South Yorkshire to the other metropolitan counties and to the Greater London Council, the cost would be over £500 million a year. I hope that, in the coming elections, the public will understand that.

Does the Secretary of State accept that if 2 per cent. of the car-driving population caught the bus, 180,000 fewer cars would be on the road, representing a saving of about £45 million? Is he aware that research in South Yorkshire shows that, with a high subsidy and low fares, 34 per cent. of people travel to work by bus, which is twice the national average and gives a good electoral bonus for the coming elections, as we shall find out next week?

"Hear, hear."'

It is interesting to hear the reaction of hon. Members opposite. The figures for South Yorkshire show that, at enormous cost and expense to the ratepayers both domestic and industrial, there has been only a 6 per cent. increase in passengers. If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) now supports the policy adopted in South Yorkshire, why did the Labour Government oppose it throughout their term of office? Not only the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) but every Labour Minister of Transport opposed South Yorkshire to the death.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the vast majority of retired people want to see the introduction of a fairer concessionary fare scheme throughout the country? What will he do to help local authorities over that hurdle?

Local and central government are spending about £145 million a year on concessionary fares. It is reasonable that that should be a matter for local choice. That is where the decision should be taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the amount to be spent on maintenance of trunk roads, other than motorways, in 1981–82; and how this figure compares with that for 1978–79 in real terms.

We plan to spend £48·2 million on the maintenance of non-motorway trunk roads during 1981–82, compared with £62·5 million during 1978–79. Both figures are at November 1980 prices.

Is it not time the Government realised that cutbacks in road maintenance are shortsighted and highly detrimental to a good infrastructure, which in turn is the basis of a successful economy? Is it not time that the hon. and learned Gentleman tried to convince the monetarist zealots who surround him of these basic facts?

We have not made cuts in maintenance. The hon. Gentleman has skilfully asked a selective question. If motorways are added to the trunk road maintenance figures, one will see that maintenance expenditure has been increased this year to its highest level ever. Total expenditure on trunk roads and motorways is 23 per cent. higher than in the year which the hon. Gentleman has selected for comparison.

Nevertheless, will my hon. and learned Friend welcome evidence from the Opposition of some commitment to better roads, which is sometimes overlain with other considerations? Will he also reaffirm that Greater London perhaps faces the greatest road system problem? Will he also reaffirm his commitment riot just to the M25 but to improvement of roads throughout London generally?

The Select Committee certainly pointed out the inadequacy of the London road network, and that inadequacy is obvious to anyone who uses the roads in and around the metropolis. There is an extremely low proportion of trunk roads within London and most of those roads are the responsibility of the GLC and the boroughs. If Labour wins the GLC election, it is highly unlikely that there will be any money left out of transport expenditure to make any further improvements to the London road system.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail his fare pricing policy.

We are always ready to talk to the chairman of the Railways Board on any matter, but the board has sole responsibility for fares.

I accept what my hon. and learned Friend says. In view of the present high cost of energy, does he agree that this is the best opportunity for British Rail to attract passenger traffic? Bearing in mind the success of the recent BR old-age pensioner scheme, will he discuss with the chairman the possibilities of looking at off-peak commuter fares as well as overseas package holidays, which I believe could make a lot of money for British Rail?

To be fair, British Rail has an adventurous fare policy. Its railcard policy covers many groups which might not otherwise have used the trains considerably. The board's recent scheme for the disabled is an example. I also agree with my hon. Friend that there is scope for encouraging off-peak travelling on commuter services, and I am sure that British Rail is interested in that.

Will the Minister tell the chairman of British Rail that there can be no possible justification for refusing reduced fares under the big city saver scheme to a city such as Stoke-on-Trent with a population of 250,000, especially when the same scheme applies to towns such as Macclesfield with much smaller populations?

I shall draw the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the chairman, but British Railmust market its services, and it arranges its fares to bring onto the system passengers who might otherwise not travel with a view to maximising its revenue. If it were to give up revenue at the present time, it would only add to its financial problems. That would have an ill-effect on other rail passengers as well as the taxpayer.

Does the Minister agree that many of these concessionary schemes and railcards are deservedly popular? It is therefore unfortunate that in order to get at a minority British Rail should withdraw those facilities for the four days preceding the England-Scotland match from stations not only in Scotland but in England as well, including Berwick-upon-Tweed.

I am sure that British Rail appreciates that many ordinary travellers and football supporters will be inconvenienced by those arrangements. However, I am sure the whole House agrees that British Rail and its employees have faced appalling problems in the past from the England-Scotland match, and something fairly drastic was required this year.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the severance scheme in the ports of London and Liverpool.

By this morning, 957 registered dock workers in the port of London, and 1,132 in the port of Liverpool, had applied for severance under the special arrangements.

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. Will he confirm that the scheme comes to an end at the end of this month? Will he further confirm that, despite the public's concern about the amount of money involved, securing these severances is vital for the future of those ports?

I confirm both those points. The scheme comes to an end tomorrow at midnight. There has been an encouraging response to this offer. Severances are crucial for the future of both ports.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that this individualistic scheme has disregarded possible redundancy and efficiency schemes in other ports? Would it not be a good idea if the scheme was scrapped at the earliest possible opportunity so that normal industrial negotiations can proceed?

The scheme comes to an end at midnight tomorrow. In that respect, I imagine that I have the support of the hon. Gentleman. We introduced a special scheme because of the special problems faced by both London and Liverpool. The response to the scheme has been encouraging, and is a good omen for the ports industry.

Do not the figures totally vindicate my right hon. Friend's decision to introduce this special scheme, and totally demolish the argument put forward by the Opposition, who voted against it? When my right hon Friend introduced the scheme, he emphasised the critical nature of the financial position in the ports of London and Liverpool. Can he now say whether there will be any early change in the position, particularly in the port of London with regard to the maintenance of the Royals?

As my hon. Friend has said, the figures entirely vindicate our position as well as the legislation that we proposed. The next step will be for Ministers next month to consider the results of the scheme, along with other information.

Was not the basis of the Opposition's objections the fact that the scheme gave preference to those two ports at a time when other ports faced the same difficulties and are justifiably asking the Government for some assistance?

Obviously, I understand the request which has been made. However, no other ports are faced with the problem on the same scale as London and Liverpool, which is why we took this action in respect of those two ports.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the level of interest in car-sharing schemes.

The level of public interest in car-sharing and car-pooling schemes is encouraging, although I believe that there is still considerable scope for increased use of such arrangements. I hope that more people will take advantage of the opportunities presented by the Transport Act 1980.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the amount of co-operation he has received from the insurance companies? I understand that in the past they have not been enthusiastic about the introduction of this scheme.

The insurance companies have co-operated fully with the scheme. There is no problem in that regard. That message should also go out to those who wish to take part in car-pooling arrangements.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this scheme is largely a will-o'-the-wisp compared with the necessity for better publicly supported bus services throughout the country? If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are so enthusiastic about car-sharing, why do so many Tory Members arrive at the House sitting on their own in the corner of a big motor car and why do Ministers have one car apiece?

I do not know. The hon. Gentleman will have to carry out a survey outside the entrance of the House of Commons to see whether there is any difference, but I suspect not. Most of the big cars that I have seen have been owned by Opposition Members. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the aim of car-sharing is sensible. It was something which the Labour Government supported.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be better to encourage people to buy bicycles? Does he recall telling the House on two occasions that the Green Paper on cycling would be published "soon"? However, "soon" is now 12 months ago. By the same token, does he recall promising to send me £1 to join the all-party friends of cycling group, and I have not yet received it?

On the second point, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for my delay. It is very difficult to get money out of me. I am glad to tell him that I have the letter and the money for him in my room, as I understood only too well that he would be here today. With regard to the cycling policy document, I hope that that document will be published in the middle of next month.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he plans to meet the chairman of British Railways to discuss services in the London area.

We have received recently the board's plan for its London and South-East services that my right hon. Friend commissioned from the chairman. This sets out a number of policy options. We shall be discussing this plan with the chairman very soon, with a view to consulting more widely on it.

Will the Minister also discuss with the chairman of British Rail the possibility of integrating British Rail commuter services in the London area with London Transport services? Does he agree that the examples of other cities in the world, particularly Paris, suggest that there are major benefits in such integration?

There certainly is more scope for integration of fares and other policies between British Rail and London Transport. I know that the management of British Rail is interested in that and is trying to make progress with it. Many comparisons can be made with Paris, but they do not all lead in the same direction. In this case, I am sure that both British Rail and London Transport are anxious to make pregress in integrating their services.

How much of the public service obligation grant is spent by British Rail on subsidies for its London services?

The total PSO grant is more than £2 million a day—well over £600 million per year. It is difficult to put a precise figure on the amounts spent in London and the South-East. My right hon. Friend recently suggested that there might be a separate board for London and the South-East under the main British Rail board. That would help us to identify a separate management unit and perhaps also to fix a definite sum of money within the PSO for commuter services.

Is the Minister aware of the deep concern among commuters who live around the London area about the shortcomings of the services that they use to get into London and back home again as a result of the financial difficulties of British Rail? Is he prepared to state clearly here and now that the Government will give British Rail all the financial support that it needs to provide a decent and adequate level of commuter services for those people?

We have not the slightest doubt about the level of dissatisfaction felt by commuters about many of their services. But the reasons are many. The recent Monopolies and Mergers Commission report that we commissioned identified a large number of areas in which action was needed and which I am glad to say British Rail is pursuing. We have not cut the investment level of British Rail. A high proportion of that investment goes into commuter services. We have increased the public service obligation by £23 million for next year. So even in these difficult times, the financial side is not the major cause of difficulty.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the information available to him on which to judge the benefits that might be obtained from the construction of bypasses.

Yes.

I hope that we can all be encouraged by that answer. Is my hon. and learned Friend really satisfied that the Department is able to present to inquiries into proposed bypass schemes such as that impending for Brighton and Hove up-to-date evidence of the "before and after" effect on items such as noises and fumes?

The most elaborate analysis is now carried out on the effects of proposed bypasses on fuel savings, time savings, accident costs and so on, as well as evidence about environmental effects and other matters. Our public inquiry system is now quite exhaustive and I am sure that the forthcoming Brighton bypass inquiry, which particularly affects my hon. Friend, will be a very full one, giving a complete picture on the matters to 'which he refers.

Will the Minister remind some of his Cabinet colleagues of the devastating effect that the proposed cuts in Government statistical services will have on the availability of this type of information?

Absolutely no cut is being made in the availability of information on which we make the cost-benefit analysis of road schemes. As much of the work involves road surveys, I am glad to say that we are likely to automate our road survey information collection system in order to get efficient statistics at minimum administrative cost.

When my hon. and learned Friend, who I know has considered the matter at great length, considers the possible bypassing of Rainham village by the A13, will he take into account the exhaustive, as he says—and no doubt exhausting—statistics available to him and ensure that he comes to the right conclusion?

I hope that my office will be contacting my hon. Friend again in the very near future so that we may have yet another of our talks about improvements to the A13 in the vicinity of Rainham. I am aware of his concern and I can tell him that we shall be making a decision soon.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any further plans for privatisation and liberalisation of any organisation in the transport sector.

So far as the introduction of private capital is concerned, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). So far as liberalisation is concerned, the Transport Act 1980 provided for the removal of many controls over passenger transport operations. I am encouraged by the response to this deregulation.

I thank my right hon. Friend and welcome his encouragement. Will he comment, however, on how successful the liberalisation of the traffic commissioners, which was part of the Transport Act 1980, has been and whether he has received any evidence that it is now working in terms of coach services?

In terms of coach services particularly, the Act has led to an unprecedented increase in services. On many major inter-city routes, such as London-Birmingham, London-Manchester and London-Liverpool, there has been an increase in passengers of about 150 per cent. At the same time, prices have actually come down, in some cases by about half, as a result of competition and deregulation.

Does the Minister recall that at the last Transport Question Time one of the advantages that he claimed for the liberalisation brought about by these measures was that rural services were improving and he cited South Humberside as an example? Is he aware that in the last two weeks the reduction or withdrawal of more than 14 rural services has been announced in that area, with no services at weekends, reduced services early in the morning and late at night, and with services having been replaced by a private operator operating about one a day?

The information that I have about services that have been abandoned by the National Bus Company is that independents have taken over at lower fares in areas such as Exeter, Somerset, Devon, Dorset and Leicestershire. I cannot speak with authority on the hon. Gentleman's own area, but the signs are very encouraging and suggest that independents are now coming forward.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the difficulties that his Department is encountering with regard to further privatisation is that many of those employed in the various sectors within his responsibility have index-linked pensions and potential purchasers do not want to take on that responsibility?

I do not think that that has been a problem in our plans to bring private capital into these industries. Certainly in the National Freight Company, where that was one of the fears, I think that we have found ways to overcome that. Indeed, many of the staff are now very enthusiastic about their entry into the private sector.

Will the Secretary of State forget the profit motive and provide a service for the people in the community? Will he admit that he and the Under-Secretary have tried private services in the county of Nottinghamshire, that those services have failed, and that there is nothing to replace them because of the Government's own policy?

I do not think that anyone quite follows the point that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make. I shall explain to him what is actually being done. He seems to believe that all passenger transport is now run on a commercial basis. I must tell him that at present more than £½ billion per year is going into the bus services—that includes concessionary fares—from ratepayers and taxpayers.

That is nothing.

If the hon. Gentleman says that that is nothing, that further confirms that the Labour Party is standing for more and higher rates in the forthcoming elections.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the desirability of extending the electrification of the British railway system.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of British Railways on the implementation of the electrification programme.

I have received many representations in favour of extending the electrification of the British railway system. The chairman of British Rail and I have discussed the question of electrification on a number of occasions and I hope to be able to make a statement soon.

Has the Minister had any advice against the electrification proposals? Does he agree that electrification would be a valuable and timely investment, not only for the railways but for the country as a whole, as well as being a useful base for a growing export industry?

The bulk of the representations that we have received are in favour of electrification, but there is a considerable amount of money involved and clearly it is reasonable that the Government should take some little time to look at all the various schemes that have been put forward.

Will the Secretary of State accept that there is no time to waste, and that investment in early electrification of the railways is vital to the whole of British industry? Will he accept that electrification would be a massive boost to a wide range of British industry, and that it is the only way in which the Government can prevent unemployment from touching 3 million or even 3½million in the coming year?

We want to make a decision as soon as possible. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says in that respect. The largest option before us would cost about £750 million. It is reasonable, therefore, that the Government should take some time to study the details, while at the same time remembering the hon. Gentleman's point about the considerable advantage that electrification would bring to much of the private sector industry supplying the equipment.

Will my right hon. Friend say how long the electrification of the railways would take? I understand that it would take a number of years. Therefore, the short-term effect on employment one way or another would not be very great.

It would depend on the option that was chosen, but it would take between 15 and 20 years. We have estimated that it would involve about 2,000 new jobs.

Does the Minister understand that there is a great deal of wide support throughout each side of British industry for option 5 of the proposals that he has before him? Does he realise that, when both the TUC and the CBI are unanimous on proceeding with the maximum level of rail electrification, he should consider aligning himself with them?

We recognise the considerable support of the CBI, the TUC and many other bodies that are in favour of electrification. We shall seek to make a decision on the question as soon as possible. We are thinking in terms of perhaps a couple of months. But it is reasonable that the Government should examine carefully all the forecasts that have been made concerning electrification before coming to a final decision. It is an important decision, not only for the railways but for industry generally.

Is the Secretary of State able to say whether it will be possible for private sector funding to be made available for the electrification work?

British Rail is currently exploring the prospects with its financial advisers. Clearly, the Government would be willing to consider proposals in this respect.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made during the last year in reducing peaks in rush hour travel.

Only the local authorities and the public transport operators can say what improvements, if any, have been made in rush hour travel. We continue to encourage them to reduce all forms of congestion, and to make it easier for the motorist to contribute through car sharing.

Will the Minister take a new initiative in this area—which has potentially great scope for saving both the energy and the capital investment that is needed in road and rail transport—especially in regard to the staggering of office hours in the public sector?

The Government and the Civil Service now have well-established procedures for staggering hours, and we encourage employers to look at the possibilities wherever possible. Ultimately, individual employers have to decide whether their businesses can adapt to flexible working hours, bearing in mind the costs imposed upon them and the need to keep some core time. Wherever it can be done it makes a valuable contribution to reducing congestion.

Is the Minister aware that the biggest single contribution that the Government have made to reducing rush hour travel has been by putting another million people on the dole? Is he aware that Greater Manchester transport attributes an 8 per cent. loss of revenue to this fact? Before the Prime Minister puts another million people on the dole, should not the hon. and learned Gentleman, as a Transport Minister, warn her of those consequences?

To attempt to attribute all of Greater Manchester's transport problems to unemployment would be somewhat misguided. The demand for passenger transport rises and falls from time to time, as demand for other goods and services in the economy varies. The best run services are those which adapt their capacity to demand in the quickest and most flexible way. Enormous costs are involved if one disregards demand in planning public transport, in big cities in particular.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his plans for increased investment in British Railways.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what response he intends to make to the British Railways document, "Rail Policy", a statement of their policies and potential for the 1980s.

The investment ceiling currently stands at £325 million. I believe that this is adequate to meet the present needs of the railway businesses. As for the future, I am concentrating on the board's corporate plan for 1981 to 1985, which argues the case for increased investment based on improvements in productivity. I hope to make a statement about this in due course.

Does the Minister agree that there its a wide consensus, both inside this House and outside, that it is in the national interest that there should be, as speedily as possible, substantial investment in British Railways? Does he recall that, in answer to a question a few moments ago, he said that it would take him two months to make a statement? He said the same thing a month ago—that it would be two months. Will he now give us a specific date when he will make a forthright and imaginative statement on the investment programme of British Railways over the next decade?

I cannot give a specific date, nor do I know whether the hon. Gentleman would regard the statement as forthright and imaginative. We want to make a statement on the matter as soon as we conceivably can. We have already increased the external finance limit for British Rail this year to £920 million. We have also increased the PSO. Very considerable funds are going into British Rail, and the hon. Gentleman would do well to understand that.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what consideration he has given—I have put this question to him before—to the investment required by British Rail to support the building of the Channel tunnel.? Does he agree that British Rail would be responsible for the facilities of London termini, or at least one terminal, and for other costs outside the portal to portal expense, which would fall to private contractors? Is he giving favourable consideration to British Rail's request for investment in this valuable project, which can be of vital importance to this country?

There is a question later on the Order Paper about the Channel tunnel. Clearly, any project about the Channel tunnel must be concerned with the future of British Rail and be important for British Rail.

Is the Minister aware that there is a very strong suspicion in trade union circles and other places that one of the reasons, perhaps the major reason, why he will not announce this very important decision on investment—which is absolutely necessary in terms of jobs on the railways, and outside, bearing in mind the extra investment—is to do with the current wage negotiations? Will he promise that investment will not be hindered or based upon the settlement reached by the respective trade unions involved?

The decision has not been held up because there are wage negotiations taking place. But a reasonable wage settlement—not just this year but in future years as well—must be a matter of the greatest importance for the Government and the railway industry. It is absolutely crucial for the railway industry to achieve maximum productivity and efficiency.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would be right to have further investment in the railways on one condition—that the money does not go into the payment of inflated wages? Will he clear that point with the unions concerned?

My hon. Friend's point is that the money should not go into the payment of inflated wages. I agree with him, and I am sure that the chairman of British Rail would also agree with him. The future of the railways is not just a matter for the Government; it is also a matter for the railway industry. I believe that a considerable number of Labour Members also understand that point. I hope that the message can go out from both sides.

Does the Minister agree that the case for extra investment in British Rail can stand on its own merits without screwing down the wages of workers in the industry? Will he accept that a consensus has grown up that this positive public investment will not suck in imports but will provide extra jobs in Britain? When will the expression of that consensus get through to the Cabinet?

There is no question of screwing down pay. It is reasonable for the chairman of British Rail and I to say that important issues are at stake that will affect the future of British Rail. The future level of investment is one of them. However, productivity and the cost of labour are also important issues. This is a matter not only for Government but for the industry.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether she is satisfied with the advice available to enable her to identify ways of carrying out work more simply and efficiently.

I get a good deal of good advice from my officials and as a result of work in Departments on improving efficiency and economy, including work done with the help of Sir Derek Rayner.

That is another encouraging answer. In an organisation such as the Civil Service, which is run by civil servants who have virtually no outside management experience, is it not valuable to have independent advice, particularly on using the latest methods and machinery for matters such as information storage, retrieval and transmission?

I assure my hon. Friend that good advice is welcomed from all quarters. From time to time advice is sought from consultants and outside experts. We are conscious of the need for greater efficiency, which can be achieved by the increased use of new technology. Cost-effective applications of technology are always being sought. We have 500 microcomputers and 350 word processors within the Civil Service. The number of such machines is increasing.

Does the Minister agree that efficiency is assisted by good industrial relations? If so, will he accept that by tearing up the pay agreement with the Civil Service the Government have not assisted efficiency?

Order. The hon. Gentleman has anticipated the next question.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made towards the formulation of an agreed mechanism for settling pay in the Civil Service.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service when next she expects to meet representatives of the Civil Service unions to discuss comparability.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in resolving the issues involved in the Civil Service dispute.

My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President of the Council and I met representatives of the Council of Civil Service Unions on Thursday 23 April. We told the unions that the Government were prepared to set up an independent inquiry on future pay arrangements for the Civil Service. We also told them that the Government would enter pay negotiations in 1982 without a predetermined cash limit. On the level of pay increase for 1981, we reaffirmed that 7 per cent. was the most that could be afforded from within cash limits this year. We believe that these proposals offer a reasonable basis for an end to the present dispute, and we have made it clear to the union side that we are ready to continue with talks.

How can the Government expect to have the respect and the confidence of civil servants in view of the Government's breathtaking ineptitude and arrogance when dealing with them in the past few months? If the hon. Gentleman is so confident of his case why does he not publish the findings of the Pay Research Unit, or subject the disagreement to arbitration? Why should civil servants trust the Government any longer?

I absolutely reject the hon. Gentleman's absurd charges. Is he not aware that 2 million workers in the public services have already settled this year for pay increases within the 6 per cent. cash limit?

rose—

Order. I propose to call first the two hon. Members whose questions are being answered with question 45.

Does not the Minister realise that civil servants who dislike strikes support the industrial action because the Government broke an election promise that was made on 10 April 1979 by the Prime Minister? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if he fails to meet the unions with concrete proposals and if he fails to put forward some offer—other than that of 7 per cent.—he and his colleagues will bear responsibility for the difficulties that will face the country?

I repudiate the charge that we have broken our election pledge. Before the election we made the position clear. My right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for Employment, made a formal statement on behalf of the Conservative Party about pay research. He welcomed the return of pay research, which the Labour Government had suspended for a considerable period. My right hon. Friend went on to say:

"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."

Do the Government still stand by article 8 of the International Labour Organisation's convention No. 151, which they signed in March last year? By signing it, the Government committed themselves to adopting conciliation or arbitration procedures in the event of a dispute with public service workers. If the Government still stand by the convention, which they signed only 13 months ago, why do they not invoke the conciliation and arbitration procedures, in view of the increasingly serious dispute with their own workers?

I looked at the terms of the ILO convention, particularly as Tony Christopher of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation said that the Government had broken their commitment to it. My judgment, and the advice that I have been given, is that we are not breaking the convention.

Given my hon. Friend's reply, will he re-read the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's report on public sector pay as a matter of urgency? It drew attention to the inflationary dangers of reaching a settlement one year in exchange for promises of something better the next year? Will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to the report and give no such undertaking?

My colleagues and I are well aware of the comments made about a year ago by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. The proposals that we made to the Council of Civil Service Unions last week were completely in harmony with the Select Committee's report.

My hon. Friend is aware that the Shipley computer centre is one of the focal points of the eight-week dispute. Many of my constituents who are still at work would accept 7 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question"]—and are determined to ensure that the militants who are trying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question"]—to keep—

Order. Hon. Members are right to tell the hon. Member to ask a question. The hon. Member must ask a question.

Is my hon. Friend aware that 450 union members are still out on strike? Is he further aware that only 20 of them turned up at a mass rally on the half-day national strike? Those involved are anxious to get back to work. Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that his formula is acceptable to them?

I am aware that many of the civil servants involved in the dispute are profoundly disturbed by the action being taken, particularly when it threatens the defence of the country or causes hardship to those who are innocent and who are not involved in the dispute. The proposals that we have made form a basis upon which talks can proceed. A reasonable settlement could be made. I hope that those talks will recommence as soon as possible.

How are pay settlements in other industries relevant to the civil servants' claim?

There is an interrelationship with the settlements in the private sector and the other parts of the public sector to which I referred. It would be a betrayal of the 2 million within the public service who have already settled without industrial action in accordance with the 6 per cent. cash limits if we went back on our clearly announced policy.

rose—

I propose to call one more hon. Member from either side.

Why have the Government proposed that next year's settlement should not be covered by cash limits?

I have not said that. I repeat what I said. The Government are prepared to enter pay negotiations in 1982 without a predetermined cash limit. Cash limits as a weapon, or mechanism, for the Treasury will remain, but the charge against the Government this year is that there is no possibility of negotiation because of the predetermined cash limit.

Will the Minister come clean, address himself to the question on the Order Paper, and state frankly that no progress has been made towards agreeing a mechanism to settle the civil servants' pay claims? Is the Minister aware that the nation has experienced eight weeks of industrial action by Britain's civil servants during which the Government have done little or nothing? The House has had two ministerial statements in which nothing was said and there has been one meeting with the unions in which nothing was achieved. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] In that situation, the Government stance seems like that of a latter-day Mr. Micawber, waiting for something to turn up.

Order. We must have questions, even from the Front Bench.

Forgive me, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister direct his mind to some form of arbitration, because the British public's tolerance is not infinite?

As my noble Friend and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have said, the 6 per cent. cash limit for this year's settlement must stand. I do not believe that there is a demand by the nation as a whole that it should be breached. Our proposals in the first meeting with the unions, and last week, would form the basis for an honourable and fair resolution of the dispute. I hope that the Civil Service unions will seriously consider what we have said, return to talks with the Government and find an honourable way to solve the dispute.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of all those answers, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.