asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to make the use of dipped headlights compulsory in built-up areas.

No, Sir.

As there is evidence that dipped headlights are safer than sidelights in built-up areas, especially for pedestrians, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision?

When road lighting is inadequate, motorists should use dipped headlights. As a matter of practice, the Government want to introduce the minimum of new restrictions and not the maximum. It is best to rely on motorists' common sense.

Have there been any results from the work of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory on the photoelectric control of dipped headlights? There have been many objections that in most built-up areas the standard dipped headlight is far too bright.

I understand that no system has yet been developed that meets the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that even dipped headlights may dazzle, whether from oncoming or from following cars? Does he appreciate that that is especially dangerous in wet conditions? Is he aware that some of us think that a reduction in the use of headlights rather than more of it in well-lit areas would contribute to road safety?

That is why I suggest that it is best to leave these decisions to motorists' common sense. A considerable study in the 1960s showed that there was no great difference in road safety in areas where dipped headlights were used and in those where they were not.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange for the publication of a summary of the evidence given to the Armitage committee.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in his consideration of the recommendations of the Armitage committee report.

I am still considering the report of the Armitage inquiry and all the representations that have been put to me. The evidence submitted to the inquiry is available in my Department's library.

I accept that most organisations supported the concept of heavier lorries, but will my right hon. Friend ensure that, to accommodate heavier lorries, roads will be improved to an adequate standard—especially the A95?

I am not sure whether I can enter into a commitment for the A95. We are considering all the proposals that are set out in the report of the Armitage inquiry and not merely one or two of them. It is clear that roads will be one of the major issues.

Would not it be extremely dangerous to have any increase in lorry weight, especially when there is a severe cutback in expenditure on road maintenance and road building and when there is the danger of gas main explosions and severe collapses because of the use of heavy lorries? If there are to be economies in transporting goods, would not it be better to carry more goods on the railways?

We want to see the railways gain for themselves the maximum amount of freight. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we have maintained the level of road investment in motorways and trunk roads. The money that is being spent on the maintenance of motorways and trunk roads is greater than ever before.

When my right hon. Friend is considering the action that he will take on the Armitage committee 's report, will he realise that many small communities and towns, especially in the West Country, are massively concerned about heavy articulated transport passing through? Will he consider granting them extra powers to ban lorries that are over 32 tons, for example, from passing through villages and towns?

That is one of the issues that we shall want to consider in our consideration of the report of the Armitage inquiry. I know from the fact that my hon. Friend has contacted me on this issue that there is concern in villages in the West Country and especially in his constituency. That is why we want to place as much priority as we can on building bypasses. I realise that that cannot be done immediately in all instances, but that is one of the main aims in our road building programme.

Bearing in mind the extent of the objections to which my right hon. Friend has referred, particularly in rural communities, including my constituency of Newark, will he consider publishing the objections which have been received, as well as his conclusions on the report, with an indication at least of their quantity, if not necessarily of their quality?

I shall seek to examine that point. We shall try to publish the maximum information on the subject. It is very much the Government's aim and intent to obtain maximum information on the whole issue, including, as my hon. Friend wants, the views of those people who are opposed to the Armitage inquiry.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some drivers are taking long vehicles along narrow roads? They are a danger not only to pedestrians, but to domestic property. What is he prepared to do about that?

The hon. Gentleman is correct in a number of areas, but there is no way that we can cure the inadequacies of the road system overnight. One of the proposals of the Armitage inquiry is a limitation on size of the lorries. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman is concerned about length, that is taken care of. For all those reasons, I believe that it is wise for the Government to take their time in considering all the aspects of the Armitage inquiry.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will conduct an investigation into the different schemes of concessionary travel in the United Kingdom.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister afraid that such an investigation might reveal that some of the meanest local authorities in that respect are Tory-controlled? In view of the unfair anomalies and the wide discrepancies between different areas, will the Government consider funding a national scheme of concessionary or even free travel for all pensioners and also disabled people, especially as this is the International Year of Disabled People?

There is a balance in the matter. As a nation we are already spending about £120 million a year on concessionary fares. A half-fare scheme would raise the annual cost to £200 million. A free fare scheme would raise the cost to £300 million. Frankly, I must advise the hon. Gentleman that in the present circumstances that is not something which we can afford.

While I appreciate the natural reluctance of the Government to circumvent the powers given to local authorities to determine the cost of concessionary bus passes for the elderly, will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to make a direct appeal to the neighbouring local authorities where significant anomalies exist, in the hope that a more uniform system could be applied, which would be more equitable to those who cannot avoid cross-boundary travel?

We should be prepared to do anything we can to make possible a closer co-ordination of those schemes on a local basis. The responsibility lies with the local authorities. The vast majority of district authorities provide such schemes. I am prepared to consider my hon. Friend's proposal.

Is it not ludicrous for a progressive council such as the GLC——

The previous one.

The previous one and the present one, to give concessionary fares, and now impose higher rates to allow free or cheaper travel for all when the sick, the disabled and old age pensioners, who already have concessionary fares, are to be taxed to allow Members of Parliament and people earnings £10,000 or £20,000 a year to have cheap fares? That cannot be right.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have been strongly putting that case for the last few months. I agree that in London it would be wrong to have such indiscriminate subsidies. The fact is that the people who will pick up the bill are the ratepayers of London. Many will regret that when the bill comes through later this year.

Is not my right hon. Friend entirely right that the path to pursue is to make services available, particularly on a more informal basis, which helps in rural areas where there is no service at all, even if one has tokens? That must be the right path to tread.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Many local authorities will take the view that it is better to provide support for a service than to talk in terms of concessionary fares. That is why the policy which we are pursuing, and which the previous Government pursued, is right.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what current statutory provisions permit the sale of British Railways subsidiaries in whole or in part; whether his instruction or consent is required; and what conditions he has required for any sale now under consideration.

The British Railways Board has certain existing powers under section 14 of the Transport Act 1962 to dispose of assets without my consent. I can now tell the House that under these powers, the board plans to transfer to a new private sector company as going concerns the Gleneagles hotel and the Caledonian and North British hotels in Edinburgh. Two-thirds of the equity would be placed with private investors. The board wishes to acquire a one-third shareholding in the new company so that it will retain a continuing interest. A shareholding of this kind, however, requires my consent and on the material available to me, I am ready to consent to such an acquisition. I welcome this step for bringing private capital into the development of the board's subsidiaries. I hope the plan will be to the benefit of its customers, its staff and the tourist industry in Scotland.

That reply was substantially a separate statement. Will the Minister make it clear that the estimated five-year investment of £7½ million could be raised by mortgages or leases without the ideological requirement of private shareholding? Will he assure the House that this rushed deal was not the decision of the company or that the company was not pressurised by the Government? Is it true that the company's advisers have stated that a sale now will be at a discount price of £4 million and a loss of income of £1½ million a year to the company? That may be good for the Tory city gents or for the Tory Party conference, but it is bad for the taxpayer and the company concerned. It is worthy of investigation by the Public Accounts Committee of the House.

The hon. Gentleman should calm down a little. First and foremost I stress that the proposals have been produced by the board on the advice of British Rail Investments Ltd. and British Transport Hotels. The proposals are at the board's initiative because it sees clear advantages of this course for the hotel business. Therefore, there is no question of my having pushed the board. My role is confined to consent for the shares purchase which is taking place. Anyone who knows anything about British Transport Hotels will confirm this. The reason why this course has been taken is that, not just over the last two years, but over the last 25 years, hotels in the British Transport Hotels group have been starved of investment. This is a practical and constructive way of dealing with that situation. Given that the board supported the plan, I should have expected that the Opposition would do so also.

Is my right hon. Friend aware how warmly welcomed his decision will be in Scotland? However, has the Scottish Tourist Board been consulted? What has been the procedure of sale to ensure that the sale takes place to the best advantage of Scottish tourism?

I confirm that the plan will be an asset to Scottish tourism. One of the main objects of the exercise will be to bring badly-needed investment into the North British hotel. British Rail wants to see Scottish institutions taking part in that investment. I believe that the plan is to the benefit not only of Scottish tourism, but of those who work for the hotels.

Is the Minister aware that by giving his consent to the sale at this time he has deprived British Rail of at least £5 million, which is the asset value compared with the price? Will he confirm, as he said during the passage of the Bill, that all the money from the unfortunate sale will be reinvested in British Transport Hotels and will not be hived off when he makes grants to British Railways, as that would gainsay his argument that the money would go to British Rail? Can he give that categorical assurance and will he stand by it?

The proceeds of the sale will go to the owners—the British Railways Board. Part of the purpose of the sale is to enable the board to use the money to invest further in the hotel business.

It has no initiative in the matter.

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I repeat that the initiative comes from the British Railways Board. As I understand the figures provided for me by the board, the proceeds will be over £10 million, part of which will be used to pay for shares in the new company. The board will not only have a capital sum but a continuing one-third interest in the new company. It is a good deal for the board and for those working for British Railways.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received any proposals from British Railways regarding the closure of the passenger branch line in West Cumbria.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that if West Cumbria is successfully to attract industrial development money, it will have to reassure industrialists that the West coast branch line will not be closed? Will he consider introducing protected routes in areas of industrial decline?

I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means by protected routes, but no proposal concerning the line has been made to me. The hon. Gentleman knows my policy concerning such tires. I should have to grant permission for the line to be closed, and my decision would be made in line with my general policy of not wishing to see substantial closures in the system.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a statement on the findings of the railway electrification review.

asked the Secretary of State. for Transport when he expects a decision to be made on further railway electrification.

I hope to be able to make a statement on railway electrification in the next few weeks.

Order. Is the Minister answering question No. 14 with question No. 6?

Yes, Sir.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister also answering question No. 21?

No, I regret to say that he is not.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the nation waits anxiously for a statement on electrification, as do the workers and management of BICC where recently a further few hundred men were put on the scrap heap? As electrification of the main line makes good sense and will give us a far better transport system, will he make a statement urgently?

I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's request. Electrification will affect not only British Rail but the private construction industry. As I said, although I cannot be categorical I hope to make a statement by the end of the month.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that enthusiasts for electrification earnestly await the decision, although we recognise the Government's role as guardian of the taxpayer's interests? Does he agree that the task of those who support electrification, and of Sir Peter Parker, who needs and is worth every penny that he is paid, is made immeasurably harder by excessive wage claims, which tremendously damage the prospects of the Government coming to a favourable decision?

Our considerations include the commercial prospects of the inter-city and freight business. Productivity and the cost of labour must come into our examination.

Will the Secretary of State ensure that a statement is made by the end of the month? Is he aware that, like other hon. Members, I already have layoffs in one factory in my constituency, where the rate of unemployment is over 12 per cent., and electrification would help enormously?

I am conscious of the demands, bat we are talking of substantial sums. Even the small option would cost £282 million over 15 years and the large option would cost £750 million over 20 to 30 years, so it is reasonable that the Government should have time to consider their position, although I hope to make a statement in the next few weeks.

Has the Minister seen the report in The Times this morning that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at a Neddy meeting this very day, is to take a hard and rigid line against increases in public investment? Will he please not allow his statement to be influenced by the Chancellor's silly, stupid rigidity?

I have not seen that report, although I have read a number of reports in The Times and one in particular. I would not recognise the hon. Gentleman's description of the Chancellor. The Treasury and the Chancellor are involved in the examination. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait a few more weeks.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in the cash limit announced this week for British Telecom, apart from entirely disproving the representation of the Chancellor given by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), is a valuable precedent that my right hon. Friend can use in his arguments with his colleagues to support rail electrification?

I am always grateful for additional ammunition.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of delicensing of coach services on inter-city fares; and if he will make a statement.

The Transport Act 1980 came into effect in October last year. All road service licensing restrictions came off inter-city coaches, and the result has been an unprecedented growth in coach services. In many cases, fares have been halved. For example, a single fare now costs £2·50 between London and Birmingham, when it used to be £5·40, and £4·50 between London and Liverpool, when it used to be £9·20. Such reductions have been the direct result of free competition.

I thank my hon. Friend for those interesting figures, but how many people are now able to travel who previously could not do so because they could not afford train fares?

I can give a general answer. On some major inter-city routes the number of passengers has increased by over 150 per cent. National Express tells me that in 1980 it carried 8¼ million people and expects to carry 12 million in 1981, so that is the scale involved. In addition, there are the British Coachways private consortium and other operators. In other words, the improvement is the most dramatic that we have seen in coach travel since the war.

Is the Minister aware of the absurd consequence on the other side of the coin—the reduction in passenger receipts on HST British Rail, which on the South Wales to London route is 10 per cent. and which is largely due to the Government's delicensing? Did he expect such consequences, and, if so, will he compensate British Rail?

That is a classic operator argument. The policy is best described by saying:

"Provided the terms of competition are fair, if people choose to travel by coach rather than rail or air because lower fares are more important to them than speed, they should not be prevented from doing so."

What can my right hon. Friend do about local authorities that are not prepared to allow facilities in their bus stations for private coach operators?

I know that problems have been caused and obviously we should like to help as much as possible. If my hon. Friend gives me details of any individual cases, I shall take them up.

Is not one of the main reasons for the increase in the number of passengers using the so-called inter-city services operated by National Express and the other companies and for the greater than expected growth—about 4 million extra passengers next year—the massive number of demonstrations that have been taking place against the Government? On Sunday, I came down to London and passed more than 100 coaches which were full of demonstrators. That will continue for the next three years unless the Government are removed.

That is one of the hon. Gentleman's sillier interventions.

:asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will take steps to avert a cut of 60 million miles in the bus service mileage operated by the National Bus Company in 1981 involving 4,000 redundancies.

Over recent years the National Bus Company has faced a decline in demand on stage carriage services. It has, therefore, carried out a series of market analysis projects which are enabling it to reshape its services in line with current demand. It would be wrong for it to operate services where there is insufficient demand and local authorities do not consider that revenue support to it is the most cost-effective way of providing essential transport.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the combined effect of his transport supplementary grant regime and last year's legislation is that the biggest bus company will have to slash the number of passenger service miles operated? It will be the most massive cut that has ever taken place in a single year and will throw thousands of bus workers out of jobs. In addition, it will deprive hundreds of thousands of people of their bus services. The right hon. Gentleman has already acknowledged that inter-city coach services are expanding. Therefore, those cuts will affect rural areas and off-peak urban services. His policy will damage those areas that have no alternative to the bus.

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. I accepted the revenue support bids from the shire counties with only one exception. The National Bus Company operates in the shire counties. There can be no correlation between that and the transport supplementary grant.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the financial burden on the National Bus Company might be eased if we were to reconsider the interest that it pays on its historic debt, which runs at about £17 million per annum?

The National Bus Company feels strongly about that. Neither the Labour Government nor this Government have felt able to agree to such a request. We are unertaking an independent appraisal of the financial effect of the allocation of debt between particular subsidiaries. That appraisal resulted from a meeting with the National Bus Company and the unions involved. I hope to make a statement on that in due course.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that to allow private bus operators to offer cheap fares on the most popular routes prevents the public operator from subsidising less popular services from the receipts that he would have obtained? Is not the right hon. Gentleman's policy bound to result in the cutting of more and more services in rural areas and on less popular routes?

The hon. Gentleman does not understand the policy. On stage carriage services the traffic commissioner system—which has a 30-mile circumference—continues. Therefore, the premise on which the hon. Gentleman's case is based is false.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in the Government's policy of disposing of parts of nationalised industries which are within the responsibility of his Department.

The Transport Act 1980 gave powers to return the National Freight Company Ltd. entirely to the private sector and I intend to do so as soon as practicable. The current Transport Bill will enable me to dispose of a 49 per cent. stake in the British Transport Docks Board undertaking. The Bill also opens the way for the introduction of private capital into British Rail's subsidiary businesses. I have also announced today my agreement in principle to proposals from the British Railways Board which would place three of its Scottish hotels in a private sector company in which the board would retain a one-third shareholding.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does not he agree that the higher the proceeds from the sale of assets to the private sector, the more resources there will be available for investment? Would it not be better to maximise the proceeds by selling British Transport Hotels and Sealink lock, stock and barrel? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people will be disturbed by his statement today to the effect that British Rail intends to invest the money from the sale of the shares in its hotel company in other British Rail hotels? Might it not be better to use that money for investment in the renewal of rural lines, such as the Hull, Bridlington and Scarborough line?

That would not be a sensible course for British Rail to take. We have told British Rail that it has the discretion to put forward such proposals. British Rail has come to the conclusion—I stress that it is its conclusion—that it is to the benefit of the British Railways Board to sell the interest in the hotels. However, it wishes to maintain a continuing interest in the hotel business. I should have thought it reasonable to allow it to do so. Control in the business will pass and that is the most important factor.

Is not the nub of the matter that it is impossible to conceive of a more depressed market on which to launch the sale of a major asset than the state to which the Government have reduced the economy? Given the Secretary of State's earlier statement, will he give an assurance that neither he nor the board has received any advice to the effect that it would be against the public's financial interest to sell now? Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that unless he increases the external financing limit on British Rail by the amount gained from the sale, not a single new penny will be released for investment in British Transport Hotels or in any other part of British Rail?

We want to achieve something that is to the benefit of the British Railways Board. The proceeds will go to the board. It will then have discretion as to what they are used for. Some of the proceeds will clearly be used for the hotel business. I confirm that the British Railways Board took the advice of hotel valuers and acted upon it.

How far have British Rail's proposals gone as regards the disposal of Sealink? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his earlier decision to sell the operation as a whole and give permission to split up at least some parts of it, particularly the routes to the Isle of Wight?

The decision about Sealink is before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I can say nothing useful until a decision has been reached.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that his decision in respect of Scottish hotels will be welcomed by all in Scotland—[Interruption.]—with the exception of the lunatic Left? Does not he further agree that the development of the hotels by private capital might be of considerable benefit, not only to tourism, but in giving a proper impression to visiting business men of the facilities available in Scotland?

My hon. Friend is right. The decision is important for Scottish tourism. Given the increased development in the group, I look forward to the fact that the assets and attractions of Scottish tourism will be increased.

If the proceeds from the sales go to the British Railways Board, how can they be used to reduce its call on the National Loans Fund, as was claimed in the financial memorandum to the Transport Bill?

The funds will go to the British Railways Board and it will use its discretion as to how to make use of them. The proceeds will amount to over £10 million. British Rail will wish to maintain a continuing one-third interest in the hotel group that is then set up.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has made of methods of enforcement of legislation on the wearing of seat belts.

We have made no specific study, but I have some information on experience in other countries where compulsion has been introduced. The main conclusion which I draw from it is that there would have to be a continued enforcement effort by the police if such a law was passed in this country.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the compulsory wearing of seat belts is an issue which divides parties and indeed families throughout the country? Will he be kind enough to share his own views with the House today and confirm that if an amendment to the Transport Bill were carried in another place to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory there would be a free vote on the issue in this House?

Yes, of course. There will certainly be a free vote on this issue. There will be a free vote of the House and a free vote of Ministers, and the Government will respect the decision of Parliament.

Has the Minister noted those studies which have shown that in countries which have introduced compulsion the actual results by way of reduction of casualties have borne no relation to the theoretical projection which was made before the legislation was introduced?

That is the Adams thesis. It is something which I think that the House will wish to bear in mind when it considers any amendment that may be made in another place.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how much investment has taken place in British Railways suburban passenger rolling stock, track and equipment in 1979, 1980 and 1981 to the most recent practicable date; and if he will make a statement.

I understand from the British Railways Board that actual expenditure on new rolling stock for suburban rail services amounted to £27 million in 1979, £50 million in 1980 and will probably reach £43 million in 1981. Most track and equipment is used jointly by various services, and investment in these items for suburban services is not readily identifiable.

Has the Minister seen the current issue of Railnews in which the chairman of British Rail says that there will be no new rail investment in 1981 and that this is a most critical time for British Railways? With a projected decline in investment in 1981, is it not time that the Government took action to provide British Rail with large funds in order to inject new investment particularly for suburban rail services—the replacement of the diesel multiple unit fleet, for example—to attract new passengers to British Rail? With 2½ million people unemployed, is not it the Government's duty to attempt to reduce the dole queue by action of this kind?

The investment ceiling of £325 million is the same as it was under the Labour Government and has been maintained. As a nation, we are providing direct support, both nationally and locally, of more than £700 million. There is, therefore, absolutely no question about the Government's commitment to the railway industry. As I have already said, we are making important decisions concerning future investment in some areas of British Rail. I hope to be able to make a statement on that in due course.

Is the Minister aware that much of the rolling stock, at least in the Southern Region, is hopelessly out of date? Will he have talks with the British Railways Board to see whether something can be done about this urgently?

I am always willing to talk to the British Railways Board on specific matters. About 23 per cent. of British Rail investment goes to the London commuter services each year, but I shall of course discuss any specific points with the chairman of the board.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that Sir Peter Parker has informed him that, in his view, it is crucial that the rail investment limit should rise to £567 million per year? If the Secretary of State shortly reappoints Sir Peter Parker to his present position, may we take it from that that he has reached broad agreement with him on this point?

The implication of the right hon. Gentleman's question is that there is some connection between the reappointment of Sir Peter Parker and investment levels. That is not the case and it has certainly not been raised by Sir Peter Parker at any stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about progress towards a fixed penalty system for minor traffic offences.

The report of the working party on traffic law set up by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself was published on 20 May. The Government welcome the recommendation that the fixed penalty system should be extended to the less serious moving traffic offences. We have not, however, accepted the proposal that the carrying of driving licences should be compulsory. We have proposed instead that the fixed penalty procedure should be available to a driver only if he produces his licence.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many millions of motorists will welcome this second innovation in his short term of office and will welcome him as the motorist's friend, bringing simple justice for simple offences? Has he made any estimate of the amount of time and the burden on the courts that will be saved as a result of this simple and better system?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The estimate made by the working party is that the extension of the fixed penalty system to minor moving traffic offences would take about 600,000 cases out of the courts. I think that that is one of the great merits of what is proposed. The expected saving is between £3 million and £10 million per year.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's obduracy over Civil Service pay means that many people are unable to drive with a valid licence and that many thousands of people—those who are disabled, those who become disabled, who need to have a renewable one-year licence, and those wishing to begin driving again after being banned for a year or so—cannot obtain a licence? Is he aware that his system would be inoperable at the present time because of the Government's obduracy on Civil Service pay?

That takes us considerably further than the present question. I am, of course, well aware of the problems being caused by the industrial action taking place at the Swansea vehicle licensing centre. I think that that is a great pity, not only from the point of view of the public, which is pre-eminent, but also for the reputation of Swansea, which had been improving over the past two years.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the leader of the Greater London Council to discuss the co-ordination of a transport policy in London.

I have written to the leader of the GLC to suggest a meeting.

Does the Minister recall that last time Labour controlled County Hall its transport policies led to a fares increase of 130 per cent. and a rate increase of 235 per cent.? Will my right hon. Friend discuss damage control with the new leader of the GLC and will the Government recommend a PTA for Greater London as suggested by a Committee of this House?

The second part of my hon. Friend's question is clearly a matter to which we would have to give much closer thought than would come from a snap answer at the Dispatch Box today. The issue which causes most concern at the moment is that, if the GLC were to implement the kind of proposals that it put forward, it would cost the ratepayers about £90 million merely for the rest of this year. The cost to London ratepayers, both domestic and industrial, would be £200 million in a full year. I believe that the GLC would do well to think twice before introducing a policy costing that much money.

When the Minister meets the leader of the GLC, will he bear in mind that in the last election the alternative of a Labour low fare transport policy was posed against years of Tory high fare transport policy and the electorate voted for the Labour low fare policy, even when it was paid for by themselves as ratepayers? Will he bear in mind that the new leader of the GLC fought and won the election on that very manifesto?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman recalls, as he supported them, that the last Labour Government fought tooth and nail against exactly the policies that he now advocates.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of the recession on the transport of goods by (a) roads and (b) rail.

Freight transport is a service industry and both rail and road carryings have inevitably fallen because of lower economic activity. Rail freight traffic was about 11 per cent. lower in 1980 than in 1979, although some of this fall was due to the effects of the steel strike. Provisional figures for road, which was less affected by the strike, show a decline of 8 per cent. between 1979 and 1980.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should realise what their policies are doing, not only to industry and commerce, but to the transport system in this country? When he next goes to a Cabinet meeting, will he stand up and tell the Government that it is time that more money was put into the public purse so that the purchasing power of the nation will increase, more goods will be produced and a better transport system will result?

My colleagues would be a little surprised if I stood up to make a speech of that kind, but I am conscious of the demands of transport, and particularly of transport investment, which is the crucial issue. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support.

Is it not time that the Secretary of State redoubled his efforts to divert traffic from road to rail? Does he realise that if he were to pursue these policies more vigorously and to increase investment, particularly in British Rail Engineering, he would be safeguarding up to 5,000 jobs in the Northern region?

The only system one can have in the freight area is one of fair competition between road and rail. That is the policy of the Government. It was the policy of the previous Labour Government. Any policy that sought to direct freight would be bound to fail.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if she will institute a study of conditions of service of those civil servants employed by the Ministry of Defence.

No, as I do not believe one is required.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming majority of industrial and professional civil servants respect their special position and the special duty they have to Government, and believe that the Government's attitude to their pay is fair? Does my hon. Friend further agree that under the previous Labour Government the pay restrictions held back the pay of those working for the Ministry of Defence to a shameful degree, and that they have benefited to a lesser extent than most civil servants from pay increases since that time? Does he accept that other civil servants should bear that in mind in the making of a global settlement of Civil Service pay?

The House would do well to note that the vast majority of industrial civil servants—and, indeed the vast majority of all civil servants—are working normally and keeping the work of their Departments and the Government going. In the Ministry of Defence, only a very small minority of people are taking disruptive action, and I hope that they will soon totally desist.

Does the Minister feel that he needs to initiate a study of the whole Civil Service? How much longer is the dispute to be allowed to drag on, particularly when the unions are crying out for a reasonable settlement, and, due to the Government's obstinacy, moderates are being turned into——

Order. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating other questions that are on the Order Paper and will, I hope, shortly be answered.

If it is unacceptable for our Armed Forces to go on strike, is it not equally unacceptable for civil servants, employed by the Ministry of Defence and capable of reducing our defences, also to go on strike? Should not a no-strike agreement be negotiated with them before very much longer?

There is a clear distinction between civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence and members of the Armed Forces, and many different conditions apply to their work. I have already made clear to the House that I can see the desirability in principle of no-strike agreements. The Government are ready to discuss with the unions the possibility of achieving no-strike agreements.

Does the Minister recollect that, after the sacking of the Ministry of Defence cleaners at Bath, the contract cleaners who were taken on were subsequently accused of defrauding both the national insurance authorities and the Inland Revenue? Will he tell the House why the outcome of the Government's investigation into that allegation has never been revealed—in particular, not to this House—and why the company has never been prosecuted? Does it not seem an odd sense of justice that people have rightly been prosecuted for drawing social security benefits while working for contract cleaners in Birmingham, whereas the company which has been working for the Ministry of Defence in Bath has not been prosecuted for defrauding two Government Departments?

As I told the right hon. Gentleman on the last occasion he asked this question, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether she is satisfied that women and members of ethnic minorities have equal opportunities of entry to and promotion within the Civil Service.

The Civil Service has a long standing policy that there must be no discrimination, either before or after entry, against any person on account of race, ethnic origin, sex or marital status. The policy is widely known throughout the service and I am determined that it shall be rigorously applied.

Does the Minister agree that, without monitoring, he cannot enforce the equal opportunities policy, because he does not know whether it is being carried out? Given that he has the co-operation of at least some of the trade unions in following these policies, has he not a responsibility to set a good example to other employers?

I do not accept the basis of the hon. Gentleman's question. The Government are not convinced that censuses and the like are the most appropriate and effective ways of following matters through, using scarce resources and doing everything possible to ensure that discrimination is not taking place.

Is the Minister able to assure the House that his Department is using the newspapers representing the ethnic minority groups for the purpose of advertising vacancies?

I am unable to answer that question without notice. I do not know whether ethnic group newspapers are being used. If the hon. Gentleman would care to table a question I shall ensure that it is answered.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if she will make a statement on the current Civil Service dispute.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether she will make a statement about the Civil Service pay dispute.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if she will report the latest position on the Civil Service pay dispute.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in talks with the Civil Service unions concerning future machinery for the conduct of pay negotiations.

Discussions with the Civil Service unions to see whether a basis can be found on which the present dispute can be brought to an end are continuing. The Government hope that they can be brought to an early and successful conclusion. I am sure that the House will understand if I do not go into any detail about the discussions at this stage.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the tactics of the unions have alienated rather than gained public support? Is he aware that most people recognise that it is the unions that have gone on strike or are taking industrial action, not the Government? Will he therefore accept a brief message from my constituents which would sum up the position, namely, "Don't give 'em the money, Barney"?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that message from his constituency. It is not an entirely novel comment, but at least it is the first time that it has been used in the House on an occasion of this kind. I believe that the House would probably wish to express its concern about reports that militants within the Civil Service are proposing extended action. I hope that they will desist.

rose——

Order. I propose to call first the three other hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

In view of the 18 per cent. increase for Members of Parliament—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Six per cent."]—how can the Minister possibly expect lower paid civil servants to settle for 7 per cent., which, with inflation still at 12 per cent. because of the failure of the Government's economic policies, is a reduction in real terms? Will the Government stop being so intransigent and stubborn and make a fairer offer to the civil servants that will help bring an end to the dispute, which is causing a great deal of inconvenience to the general public?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that in the instance of the pay of Members of Parliament there is 6 per cent. new money on the table, compared with 7 per cent. new money on the table for civil servants.

Are the Government prepared to negotiate genuinely, to reach an honourable settlement and to avoid a further escalation of industrial action and a worsening of industrial relations? Bearing in mind the origins of the dispute—the unilateral tearing up by the Government of a pay agreement and the right of arbitration—and the deep and genuine anger among hundreds of thousands of civil servants, will the Government now give an assurance that they will negotiate properly and show a degree of flexibility so as to avoid the escalation and a severe worsening of industrial relations that will be the result of the Government's obduracy?

The hon. Gentleman makes part of the case deployed by the union leaders. As I said earlier, genuine discussions are going on with the unions at present. I do not propose to say anything here today which could jeopardise the results of those discussions.

Does the hon. Gentleman concede that two-thirds of the civil servants involved receive less than two-thirds of average earnings? In those circumstances, does he think it reasonable to ask those men and women to accept a vicious cut in their standard of living by taking a 7 per cent. wage increase when we all know that inflation is about twice that rate? If the hon. Gentleman believes that his case is justified, why does he not refer it to arbitration?

I do not accept that two-thirds of those involved in the action are earning what the hon. Gentleman claims. I have said before in the House that two-thirds of civil servants receive less than average earnings.

rose—

In the interests of fair play, I will call one more hon. Member from each side of the House.

Will my hon. Friend draw to the attention of the striking air traffic controllers that RAF people working alongside them at West Drayton and other places earn about two-thirds of the wages of air traffic controllers and are not allowed to strike?

I do not want to say anything that could be interpreted as intervening in the discussions that are taking place, but I am certain that the point made by my hon. Friend will be noted by those concerned.

Is it not clear, three months into the dispute, that it was absurd for the Government to enter negotiations with a position of such rigidity that the only options available to the Civil service unions were to capitulate—which their members would not permit—or to fight the Government? Since next Monday's escalation to affect the Departments of Employment and Health and Social Security and the intensification of action at airports will result in a more direct impact on the public, will the Government accept at this late stage that arbitration offers an honourable way out for both sides, and a way out that has been accepted by the unions? If the Government are so convinced of the validity of their case, why are they afraid to argue it before an impartial body?

The Government have made it clear from the start that the 6 per cent. cash limit for Civil Service pay will not be breached. I am sorry that in referring to the possible extension of action to affect social security and unemployment benefits the right hon. Gentleman did not ask those concerned not to take such action, which will cause considerable hardship to people in great need.