asked the Secretary of State for Transport when the diversion of heavy lorries from the M1 through the Norton suburb of Sheffield will cease.

:We hope to end the diverssion by the end of this year. The diversion has affected fewer than 10 vehicles a day.

:I recognise that the traffic had to be taken off the M1 because of subsidence under the motorway, but why on earth must heavy traffic be sent through a residential suburb of Sheffield? Why can it not be carried to the east of the city? Is the Minister aware that the routeing is causing considerable inconvenience and actual danger to residents in that part of Sheffield?

:I realise that the diversion is unpopular, as indeed are the diversions the other way through Nottingham. It is always unfortunate when the M1 has to be closed to heavy traffic. We choose the least damaging and inconvenient routes. I am delighted that the whole thing will come to an end by the end of the year, as I said.

:There are frequently diversions off the motorways because of bad weather or collisions, so will the Minister consider whether anti-vibration material, double-glazing and so on could become available as compensation to people on those routes?

:Order. That is a question for the Order Paper. [Interruption.] Order. I do not want any support like that.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with progress of the construction of the M25.

:Yes. Nearly two-thirds of the route is now open or under construction. Work on the rest is going ahead as fast as possible.

:Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the considerable increase in traffic in eastern Enfield as a result of the completion of the M25 up to the A10? Can he assure me that the A10-to-M7 section of the M25 will be completed on schedule? Can he further assure me that his Department will again examine the feasibility of linking the proposed north-south road to the M25 at the Honey Lane interchange?

:I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that work is progressing quite well on the adjoining section around the M11, and we hope to have it open by 1983. When that is finished, and when the whole of the north-east section is completed, I am sure that his constituents will notice a considerable improvement in traffic conditions. The Department and the GLC have both so far rejected the proposal that the north-south route should be connected to the M25, but we are always open to consider fresh arguments and evidence from my hon. Friend or his local authority.

:On the question of the M25 and motorways generally, will the hon. and learned Gentleman take into account the references of the Secretary of State for Employment—Unemployment—to people getting on their bikes to look for work? If the hon. Gentleman carries out the construction of the M25 to the letter, will he bear in mind that thousands of cyclists may want to use the motorway in their search for work, because they will not find it in this country?

:The cycling consultation document that we issued covered most points, but not quite that one. The Government are doing their best to make it convenient for those who bike to work.

:As it is now 47 years since, in 1934, Mr. Hore-Belisha, the then Minister of Transport, set up a committee to recommend the construction of an outer London orbital road, will my hon. and learned Friend, in the interests of my constituents and others in outer London who suffer from orbital traffic, see what can be done in time for the golden jubilee of that committee?

:In the two and a half years that we have been in office a great deal of progress has been made after perhaps far too much debate previously. Over two-thirds of the road is under construction or open and we hope to finish it by 1986.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for improving Midlands road links with both East Coast and South Coast ports; and if he will make a statement on any proposed timetable.

Our trunk road programme includes many proposals for the improvement of these roads which are among our highest priorities. Among the most important are the new link between M1 and A1 in Northamptonshire and the extension of the M40 from Oxford to Birmingham.

:I welcome my hon. and learned Friend's reaffirmation of the commitment to provide the Midlands with a reasonable network of communications, but will he accept that there is great disappointment that we have remained an underprivileged area in that respect? Can he give any hopes on the timetable?

:I agree that the Midlands area has perhaps lagged behind in new road construction. There is a great demand for many motorways. I think that there will be a big increase in activity in the Midlands in the next few years. We hope to publish the draft order for the M40 next month. I hope to publish the draft order for the A1-M1 link early next year. We also have some important decisions to make on the M42, which will affect my hon. Friend's constituency. I hope to make those shortly.

:As the Minister accepts that the West Midlands area is becoming an underprivileged area as a result of the Government's industrial policies, will he at least speed up the construction of these roads? Anyone who has attempted it will know how abysmal is the journey from the Midlands to the East Coast or in the opposite direction. Will he give the matter great priority?

:I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. There is strong feeling all over the West Midlands about the need for a better route to the East Coast ports. We have prepared a route across Northamptonshire and hope to publish the orders shortly. It will also bring great improvements to the roadlinks with Corby, another important priority for the Government.

:Is my hon and learned Friend aware that the omission of the Winchester bypass will be sadly noted in the context of links with the South Coast? Does he accept that some people believe that it is little short of scandalous that over the years a small number of influential people—Wykehamists of the present and past Cabinets, from both sides of the House—have prevented the construction of this road? Will my hon. and learned Friend give this matter the highest priority and thus provide better communications between the South Coast and the Midlands?

I accept that the present Winchester bypass is inadequate, dangerous and needs improving. My hon. Friend will know that he expresses controversial views. For that reason we accepted the inspector's recommendation and withdrew the motorway proposals. We are now hoping to consult as quickly as possible to get a much wider measure of public approval for improvements to the road. We shall proceed with the improvements as soon as we can get that wider measure of public approval.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the present Highway Code.

:Yes. The present version of the code was published as recently as 1978 after widespread consultation and debate. I am not aware of a need for major revision, but I am always willing to consider suggestions for improvement.

:Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is no proper advice in the Highway Code relating to the use of high-intensity rear red fog lamps? Is he aware of the growing practice of drivers to use these rear fog lamps not simply in foggy conditions, but in conditions of limited visibility caused by heavy rain and spray, and that this causes a pernicious and dangerous dazzle? Will he take steps to produce the necessary advice for motorists?

:I realise that many people share my hon. Friend's opinion that misuse of these rear fog lamps can cause dazzle and inconvenience. We are already consulting police authorities to get their reaction. Together with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, we shall consider whether regulations should be clarified to make it clear that fog lamps should be used only in serious circumstances of heavy fog and not in wet or other unsuitable conditions.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will indicate the progress that has been made in coach safety by roof strengthening, improving braking systems, strengthening seat mountings, providing additional escape hatches and introducing stricter testing systems; and if he will make a statement.

:New requirements for emergency exits came into force on 1 October 1981. Statutory testing of public service vehicles will be introduced on 1 January 1982. Regulations requiring higher standards for braking have recently been made and will apply from 1 October 1982. Progress with our European colleagues on proposals for coach roofs and seat mountings continues, but it is unlikely that the roof strength requirement can be adopted before the spring of 1982.

:I accept that some progress has at long last been made, but will the hon. and learned Gentleman nevertheless agree that progress has been lamentably slow and that this summer, again, there have been a large number of accidents involving coaches in various circumstances? While most of the problems can be traced to the personal factor, does he accept the need to try even harder to make vehicles at least as safe as possible?

:The hon. Gentleman, who takes a close interest in these matters, is always pressing for more rapid progress. I hope that he will find that the answer, when he studies it, shows that we are making rapid progress. I agree that there is still room for improvement. That is why this country has taken the lead within Europe in pressing especially for a stronger roof requirement.

:I recognise the need for safety standards, but will my hon. and learned Friend avoid the temptation to do for coaches what has been done for the railways and not impose safety conditions the fulfilment of which impose costs out of all proportion to the safety benefit yielded?

:We have to bear that factor in mind. It should be underlined that coach travel remains one of the safest means of transport that anyone can undertake. I do do not think that we are damaging the coach industry. The growth of express services and tour and excursion services since we removed licensing restrictions has done a great deal of good for the industry. We shall make sure that safety requirements do not cut across what has been achieved.

Privatisation

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is considering further privatisation and liberalisation of organisations within his Department's control.

I shall take every opportunity to introduce more private capital into the transport system and to liberalise it further. In this connection I was glad to be able to announce on Monday that agreement had now been reached for the sale of the National Freight Company to a consortium of managers and employees. I intend to press on urgently with my other planned disposals.

:I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the immense progress made with the management buy-out of National Freight, but is he aware that the opportunity of management buy-outs may exist in other areas under his control, particularly in various operations of British Rail? Will he do his best to bring these to fruition as soon as possible?

:I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I agree that this is a considerable advance which I am sure will command support on both sides of the House. I shall certainly continue the search for other areas where private capital in various forms may be introduced. There will be different arrangements in different areas. I am sure that progress must be made.

:Does the Secretary of State realise that many hon. Members, at least on the Opposition Benches, were disappointed that he chose to announce the arrangements for the sale of NFC at a press conference on Monday instead of making an announcement in the House? Does he realise also that the net return to the Treasury on the sale of this important transport organisation has been only £6.5 million? Over £32 million was invested in the organisation in the last financial year. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he and fellow members of the Government realise that there is a limit to the extent to which they can go on selling off valuable public assets to meet their current expenditure?

:I am surprised by the right hon. Gentleman's lack of welcome for what is being done. I do not think that he has understood the figuring. The Government were advised by a merchant bank of the highest integrity, Schroder Wagg, which recommended that the price of £53½ million should be accepted. Frankly, I prefer to take its advice to that of the right hon. Gentleman. As to subsidies given in the past, it is true that the National Freight Corporation was a fairly consistent loss-maker over the years. I believe that this is a good price. I am surprised that there has not been a warmer welcome from the right hon. Gentleman.

:I welcome the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend, but will he confirm that the funds for the proposed Channel tunnel will come from private sources? Will he make an announcement at an early date, preferably in the Queen's Speech, of the Government's intention to seek to proceed with the Channel tunnel as soon as possible? Not only will this be proper—

:Order. There is a question on the Order Paper on this very matter. It would not be fair to the hon. Member if the answer were given now.

:Will the Secretary of State try to be a real Secretary of State for Transport, rather than indulge in Tory ideological frolics? Will he recognise that privatisation measures can only be a diversion from the real task of transport, of maximising public resources and providing the proper Government resources for those public enterprises?

:I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's description. Normally, he puts these matters fairly. The purpose of transport is surely to transport customers and to provide a good service for the purposes for which the system is set up. The hon. Gentleman criticises competition and privatisation. The net effect of these, as they develop, is to produce more competitive and efficient services at lower prices, which benefits the transport system—railways, roads and coaches—and the people who use it. The hon. Gentleman is surely concerned with the interests of the public in this matter.

Later —

:On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When I was fortunate enough to catch your eye earlier in order to ask a relevant supplementary question to question No. 7 you intervened and reminded the House that there was a later question on that specific point. That later question has not been reached. Is it possible for the Secretary of State to answer my question?

:Among the other questions that he asked, the hon. Gentleman asked about the Channel tunnel and I said that there was a question on that subject on the Order Paper. There is such a question on the Order Paper, but we have not reached it. I am afraid that we cannot reach it now.

:Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a very good answer to question No. 20, and I shall write to my hon. Friend giving the gist of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is in a position to make a statement about capital investment in British Railways in the Greater Manchester area.

:Priorities for investment are a matter for the British Railways Board.

:Does the Under-Secretary accept that there is a great deal of bitterness in the Greater Manchester area over the lack of investment in its transport system compared with the investment in other conurbations? Will he consider urgently the question of allowing British Rail to get on with the electrification of the Preston-Bolton-Manchester line and the replacement of many of the out-of-date multiple units operating to the north of the city, and will he encourage British Rail to investigate the possibility of having a rail link from Manchester to its airport?

:As I said, priorities for investment are a matter for the British Railways Board, which determines where investment goes. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that British Rail and the passenger transport executive have many plans for investment in Manchester, including the airport link, the replacement of stock on the Manchester to Bury line and other matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised. If they are put to the Government within British Rail's investment plans we shall consider them. British Rail's own priorities seem to indicate that more will be going to this area.

:Is the Under-Secretary aware that capital expenditure on both road and rail in the city of Manchester, in particular, was held back for many years because of the possible opening of the Piccadilly-Victoria line? Will he take that long period into consideration when considering his priorities?

:Knowing the hon. Gentleman's experience, I am sure that there is something in what he says. The Pic-Vic line held up planning for some time when it seemed a real possibility. I have already given an answer about the rail priorities. We are pressing ahead with the Manchester outer ring road and have recently announced that we will widen Barton bridge and improve the approaches to it, which should get rid of the worst traffic jam that I am aware of in the Manchester area.

:: Is the Under-Secretary aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I spent a day in Manchester last week discussing with BR management the problems faced by British Rail in the area? We are aware of the keenness and enthusiasm of the management, but, unfortunately, BR in Manchester is a microcosm of the problems facing the railways nationally.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that signalling facilities on the north side of the city were installed at the beginning of the century? It is not good enough for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that such problems are related to British Rail management. They will be solved only if the Government make serious funding available and extend the external financing limits.

:I have no doubt that the investment propositions that require Government approval will come to the Government in due course. We do not have any for the Manchester area before us at present. I am aware that various proposals are in the pipeline and I have outlined what I know that BR and the PTE are deciding, but they must decide how to fit Manchester's investment into their investment plans.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the progress to date over the introduction of private capital into Sealink.

:The Railways Board is in the lead in working out how best to introduce private capital into Sealink UK Ltd. and the other subsidiaries which are to be privatised. I look forward to receiving the board's proposals in due course.

:I was under the impression that Sealink was to become a separate entity at the end of this month. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the position on Sealink's own investment programme? I particularly draw his attention to the situation at Yarmouth on the Isle of Wight, where only last Friday a stop was put on a contract of £1½ million. Does Sealink come under the total BR capital programme or is it separate entity and able to get on with investment on its own account?

:Sealink is still within the external financing limits under which British Rail operates. The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on one of the main cases for privatisation. It will enable Sealink to escape the inevitable restraints on public finance, which is a limited resource, and to mobilise the resources of the private sector. I hope that such progress has the hon. Gentleman's support, because I am sure that it will help Sealink to escape the existing restraints.

:In view of the grave crisis in British shipyards, what guarantee or hope can the Secretary of State offer us that any purchaser of Sealink will pursue its "Buy British" policy, which has been of such advantage to British yards, particularly Harland and Wolff in a very depressed area of the United Kingdom?

:All major companies in both the private and public sectors should seek to buy British whenever they can, consistent with proper commercial constraints.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will undertake a comprehensive review of the adequacy of the motorway network to meet the United Kingdom's transport requirements over the next 20 years.

:The network is kept continuously under review, and we have an extensive programme of work to maintain and improve it.

:Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that road congestion is expensive and damaging to industrial competitiveness? In view of the time that it takes to build motorways, is he satisfied that we will have an adequate network of motorways to avoid congestion over the next 20 years?

:Our road programme is designed to do that. We take careful account of the benefits that industry can acquire from transport bottlenecks being relieved. However, we have to operate within the constraints of what the national economy can afford.

:Can the Under-Secretary give an assurance that future motorway building will be based on more accurate traffic forecasts than in the past and that any future motorways will be built to a higher standard than the M5 and the M6, which are causing considerable concern and expense to the people of the West Midlands?

:Traffic forecasting always seems to me to be as much an art as a science and in the past errors have been made in both directions. We are removing the bottleneck at Watford on the M1, where a two-lane motorway was put in by accident, and we are also widening the M5 in Worcestershire. Traffic forecasting techniques keep being improved and we are anxious to make sure that we build roads that are no better and no worse than is necessary for the traffic that will use them.

:As the adequacy of the motorway network depends on proper maintenance, which clearly involves public expenditure, may I ask my hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look again at the possibility of toll roads as a means of financing road maintenance?

:As I think we have made clear, it would be extrememly foolish for us at the present time to exclude any possibility of getting new resources into the building and maintenance of our road system.

:Does the Under-Secretary realise that the M62 is carrying too great a traffic load and that the improvements from Sheffield to Manchester that have been suggested by the Government will not prove sufficient over the next few years? What consideration has he given to building of a new motorway from Sheffield to Manchester during the next few years?

:My predecessors found that the Peak forest interests had views on the question of a new motorway between Sheffield and Manchester. There are inevitable environmental restraints on what can be done on that route. We have improved the Manchester end at Denton, where we have opened a relief road, and there are proposals for the Sheffield end at Stocksbridge and Wortley, both of which are being pursued. But we cannot put a motorway across a national park in a way that would be acceptable to public opinion.

:As my hon. and learned Friend is considering transport requirements for the next 20 years, will he turn his mind to the next three weeks and consider whether he can do anything about the constant blockage of traffic on the Brentford flyover, about which he has written to me courteously? I spent half an hour trying to get over the flyover this morning. Will he ensure that rescue vehicles are available so that our present motorways are properly used?

:I know the problem to which my hon Friend refers. The vehicle that broke down was too big for the rescue vehicles. I assure him that we will get the biggest and best rescue vehicles that we can afford in order to keep his way clear and to ensure that delays on the M4 are kept to a minimum, given the present state of the road.

:The Under-Secretary seemed to give some credence to the view that tolls should be introduced on motorways. Has he considered how many tolls would be needed and what the imposition of tolls on motorways would cost?

:My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked for the subject to be reviewed again. We have no positive proposals at the moment, but, given the present state of the economy and the restraints within which we operate, it would be foolish to shut our minds to possible alternative means of financing the road improvements that we all agree we need.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has recently received from motoring and other organisations opposed to the compulsory wearing of seat belts.

:Since the passing of the Transport Act 1981 we have had very few representations on the issue of compulsion itself. The main interest now is in the scope of wearing and exemptions. My proposals on these will be issued as soon as possible and will then be subject to widespread consultation before the regulations are laid.

:In the light of Continental experience and the weight of representations made to the Department of Transport, will my right hon. Friend confirm that as much lead-in time as possible will be given before the implementation of any order? Will he say whether the fitting of seat belts will be a criterion for the granting of an MOT certificate?

:I take note of my hon. Friend's last point and will write to him. On the general point, I believe that this is the right approach, and it is a good idea. Experience from abroad suggests that it is the right way to tackle the matter. The present timetable is that I shall seek to make a statement fairly soon on the matter. Three months must then elapse before I can submit regulations to Parliament for approval. After that, I agree that there should and will be a running-in period to warn the public about the implications of legislation, whether they need medical certificates, if that issue arises, together with details of exemptions. I suspect, therefore, that the regulations will be in force next spring or summer, if one views the matter realistically.

:Will the Minister ensure that there is a clause in either the statement or the regulations that will allow people and their next-of-kin to claim against the Department of Transport if it is proved that people were killed because they were made to wear seat belts? We often read nowadays that people would not have lost their lives had they not been wearing seat belts. Should they not have the right to sue the Crown or the Department if it can be proved that lives were lost for that reason?

:I know that the hon. Member holds that view. I believe that there would be formidable legal complexities in establishing whose fault any damage or injury was. However, I note the hon. Gentleman's feelings on the matter.

:Have discussions taken place with the police to obtain their view on the possibility of enforcing this new law on the wearing of seat belts? In my view, its enforcement could involve great difficulties.

:Consultations and discussions have taken place and the view is that it is enforceable, although my hon. Friend touches on a point that came up in the debates, namely, that enforcing compliance lays additional heavy burdens on the police and the courts. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that consultations have taken place.

:The Secretary of State will be aware that I wrote to his predecessor and to him expressing my concern about the closure of Birmingham univerity's accident unit. Can he tell me whether he is satisfied that adequate academic experience will be available to monitor the seat belt legislation during the next three years?

:That matter does not arise directly on this question. It is a matter of university policy, and not one for the Department of Transport. However, I shall see that the hon. Gentleman's views are passed to the relevant quarters.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the number of road directional signs for small businesses and roadside facilities for road users close to trunk road bypasses and motorway intersections which have been posted; and if he will make a statement.

:Since I announced on 1 July the introduction of new signs directing motorists to local services in bypassed communities, some 13 signs have been installed. We would now like to see and consider the report of the joint working party on tourism signposting before deciding whether any other changes in traffic sign policy should be made.

:Although I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his reply, and also for the work that he has done in connection with bypass signing for small businesses, may I ask him to investigate the possibilities of producing a scheme to help existing non-tourist businesses that lie near motorway intersections on or just off trunk roads, whereby they could contribute to the cost of standard signs constructed to indicate their presence?

:Those are broadly the arrangements that we have introduced. Most of the 13 that I have announced are in the West Country. On the other hand, I do not believe that we can have such signs on motorways, because, with high speed traffic, signs by the motorway verge showing that services are coming up would probably not be heeded and would probably not help road safety. We are adopting a new, commonsensical and more flexible approach to the matter, and we are anxious to give motorists information about services where the services are available.

:On the subject of motorway signs, will my hon. and learned Friend consider erecting signs on the motorways leading to the Mersey tunnel to say that in due course they are to be made toll-free?

:I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about tolls on the Mersey tunnel and that most hon. Members whose constituencies are near toll crossings feel strongly about tolls. However, Governments have repeatedly said that tolls should be imposed on river crossings, where there is a tremendous bargain for the motorist, who is saved a long detour. The motorist also makes a modest contribution to the capital cost of providing the tunnel. With all the pressing demands at the moment for resources to be spent on transport, it is impossible for the Government to give high priority to removing the tolls on the Mersey, the Humber bridge, or anywhere else.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress made so far during the period of his Presidency of the Council of European Ministers of Transport.

:I intend to hold a meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers on 15 December next. Preparatory work is well advanced, and I expect a full agenda. In the past three months my predecessor and I have both held discussions with Commissioner Contogeorgis. I have also attended and addressed a session of the Transport Committee of the European Parliament.

:Will my right hon. Friend show the utmost determination to smash the cartel of national airlines that is keeping air fares artificially high throughout Europe, so that the inhabitants of Europe can travel at a reasonable cost from one part of the Continent to another, as happens in North America?

:Although that matter comes up in the Council of European Ministers of Transport it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, and, as I think my hon. Friend knows, he has taken a very robust view on the matter, which I fully share.

:At the meeting of the Transport Committee did the Secretary of State have an opportunity to discuss the efficiency and effectiveness of public transport in capital cities? If so, will he inform his colleagues that, despite the low subsidies for public transport in London, which have been a feature of this city for many years, the new lower fares are a welcome boost to travel in London?

:That is a brave attempt to link one issue with another. In fact, there is no opportunity to discuss such subjects in the Council of European Ministers of Transport. However, as the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue, may I say that I am not at all against low fares. However, I am against below-the-belt fares that are deliberately subsidised and the subsidy then having to be paid for by the ratepayers of Greater London, or any other metropolis. Often those ratepayers are elderly people, shopkeepers who are forced to close down, and those who are the most vulnerable and least able to hit back. That is a wicked approach.

:As President of the Council of European Ministers of Transport, will my right hon. Friend confirm that he must be particularly aware of the fact that the M20 goes towards Europe and that his Department has had to suspend the construction of what we call the missing link of that vital route? Will he consider the idea that perhaps the City of London could build that motorway for him? As there is little prospect of any major source of public funds for an expanded road building programme, or indeed a railway programme, will he encourage the Treasury to take a new line in seeking new forms of private finance for programmes of this kind, in addition to the consideration of toll roads?

:We are certainly open to, and looking for, new forms of finance, including private finance, for roads and the transport system generally. The section of motorway that my hon. Friend mentions involves a considerable drawing upon public funds. For the moment it has had to be put back, but it will certainly be revived as soon as we find the funds for it. My hon. Friend's general ideas are entirely congenial to me.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of British Railways concerning the financial position of the industry; and if he will make a statement.

:I meet the chairman regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest.

:Is the Secretary of State aware that the Railways Board needs an early decision on financial aid and investment levels, not just for this year but for the future, to enable it to place long-term contracts for the renewal of rolling stock, locomotives, modernisation of the track and signalling, and that if this is not done fairly soon operations on some sections of the line will come to a grinding halt? It is an urgent problem.

:I am certainly aware of the board's proper desire to maintain high levels of investment. Indeed, the investment ceiling still stands at £325 million, which was set by the Labour Government. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that investment must be influenced by business performance, and the Government are keen for the board to achieve economies as far as possible from operating costs and not from cutting into investments. Clearly, in view of the current pressures, nothing can be absolutely protected. I realise that investment is needed, but that investment will have to be found from the resources that can be made available. The reality is that investment funds do not grow on trees.

When my right hon. Friend discusses the financial position with the chairman of British Rail, will he remind him of the effect on that position of the 11 per cent. virtually "no-holds-barred" rail settlement, and the effect of that settlement on private industry? Will he also remind Sir Peter that a 1 per cent. addition to the rail pay bill means 5 per cent. less available for railway investment?

:: It must be accepted by my hon. Friend that the 1981 pay settlement is being financed by the postponement of the introduction of the 39-hour week and by the introduction of new productivity commitments, on which work is now progressing. This is the right way forward.

There is the broader question of resources and whether they go into immediate pay increases or into investment. That is the choice. All those who have the interests of the railway system, its passengers and its customers at heart will, I believe, see the advantages of more funds going into investment—which is bound to mean restraint and moderation—and increased productivity and reduction of restrictive practices.

:Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the income from fares is higher pro rata than that of practically any other railway system? Does he accept also that unless investment is forthcoming within the next few years, the projection of British Rail is the closure of 3,000 miles of railways? Does he further accept that the signalling system, which is now over 40 years old, must be renewed, and that this must call for investment? Instead of selling off North Sea oil and gas, it would be far better for the Government to renew their faith and use some of the income from that to invest in this very important national asset.

:I recognise the point that the hon. Member takes up. It is for the board to decide its priorities. On track and signalling, I have no proposals before me, but, as I have said, I meet the chairman to discuss these matters and it may well be that some will be put before me. The overall investment needs of British Rail must be found from within available resources. The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Johnson) put the matter very clearly. The more that is taken up in immediate consumption, the less there is available for very proper investment in the system.

:Reference has been made several times this afternoon to particular matters of investment being within the purview of the British Rail Board. However, does my right hon. Friend understand that there is a great deal of public anxiety about the quality of some of the decisions, and frustration in trying to get at the reasons behind them? One example is the closure of the Hereford and Worcester main line to through trains, apparently because British Rail is unable to maintain the track. How are the public to assess whether British Rail is actually unable to maintain the track or is using that as a lever, perhaps to prise more funds out of my right hon. Friend?

:My hon. Friend raises a specific matter which in the pattern by which nationalised industries such as British Rail are organised is for them to decide. British Rail has a substantial external financing limit. It is £920 million in the current year. There is the commitment to investment that I mentioned earlier. Within that, it must be for the board and management of British Rail to decide their priorities, but I am sure that the board and the chairman are aware of my hon. Friend's views. I shall certainly see that the points that he has made are passed on.

:Has the Secretary of State read the document sent to his predecessor in May of last year by the British Rail chairman on the subject of railway equipment, operational reliability and safety? Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that that document and the rail policy document published by British Rail in March of this year have indicated that 3,000 miles of track will have to be taken out of commission during the current decade unless there is a change in railway investment policy? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that his appointment to his present position will be very welcome indeed if it does no more than lead to an intelligent review of railway investment in Britain?

:I have read the documents and proposals put forward, and I have seen a mention of this general figure of 3,000 miles. These are matters that I shall wish to discuss with the chairman of British Rail and with the board. There are no specific proposals before me as to how the investment funds available should be allocated as between one priority and another. There are obviously some very important considerations, such as track maintenance and maintaining the tradition of very high standards of safety. I shall certainly bear these in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many replies he received to his consultation paper on cycling; and if he will make a statement.

:Nearly 300. A statement will be made later in the year.

:As an interim measure, will my hon. and learned Friend look at the Highway Code to see whether he is satisfied that sufficient emphasis is placed on the rights and duties of cyclists? One accepts that many are careless, but does he agree that under the present Highway Code there is a particular lack of reference to the rights of cyclists and to the responsibilities of motorists? To encourage cyclists more, would not this be a suitable step for him to take?

:That is a very strong theme running through the representations that we have received. We shall certainly look at suggestions for improving the Highway Code. The new children's Highway Code that is being produced by county road safety officers will include an important section on bicycles. We are carrying on with television advertising campaigns, trying to remind motorists of the duty to look out for bicycles and the particular problems associated with them on the road.

:Among the 300 replies received, was there one from the Secretary of State for Employment, who has recommended that the 3 million unemployed should get on their bicycles and cycle off to find jobs? Is it the policy of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Department to co-operate by having cut-price bicycles for the unemployed to find jobs somewhere else?

:The Opposition could do better than make the same joke twice in the space of half an hour in response to quite a relevant question. The Government's policy of encouraging bicycling, which is much better than the policy of any previous Government, is indirectly of great assistance to the British cycle industry, which needs assistance.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning his instruction to British Transport Hotels to sell Turnberry hotel to the private sector.

:None, other than the correspondence with the hon. Member himself earlier this year.

:Does the Secretary of State agree that it is peculiarly perverse of the Government to sell off the profitable parts of nationalised industries to their friends in private enterprise and then to attack those nationalised industries for not making a profit? Since I, as the local Member, have heard nothing but praise for Turnberry hotel—including some from my right hon. and hon. Friends—and since British Transport Hotels has invested very substantially in Turnberry over the last few years, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his ridiculous decision to sell it off?

:The only trouble with the hon. Member's thesis is that British Transport Hotels does not make a profit. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] No, it does not. It has made a loss. The reality is that if it is possible, when British Rail is under immense financial pressure, to raise funds from subsidiaries that are acting as a drain on its overall resources—not an addition to its overall resources at all—it makes sense to pursue this policy. That is what has been done so far. I was glad that there was the sale of the Gleneagles trio of hotels, and I was particularly glad that the National Union of Railwaymen was anxious to put money into that. I am sure that the union was right. This is the right way to go.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Turnberry makes a profit and that throughout Scotland there is a great deal of despondency because of this destruction by him? Is he also aware that the people of Scotland have now concluded that this decision has been taken not in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole and Scotland in particular, but because of the dogma of the Conservative Party and the Government?

:I see nothing dogmatic about suggesting that the railway industry and British Rail should concentrate on improving the railway system. That surely must be the right approach. There is nothing dogmatic about that. As to the question of the hotel subsidiaries as a whole, I am advised that Turnberry has not been making a profit. Certainly the whole subsidiary, the hotels group, does not make a profit. It is therefore acting as a drain rather than as an asset for the overall railways system. I cannot see why the hon. Member should wish this state of affairs to continue if he has the interests of the railways at heart.

:Will the Secretary of State recognise that the Turnberry hotel benefits from considerable investment from British Rail and has a potentially profitable future? Will he give an assurance that he will not do what the previous Secretary of State did, namely, exercise pressure to force a sale and then inform the House that the decision was not his, but that of British Rail alone? Will he give an assurance that if British Rail decides to sell it will be entirely its decision?

:There is a clear agreement with British Rail, the board and the chairman that private money will be brought into the subsidiaries. They recognise that that is the right way to escape the constraints on scarce public resources. That is the path that my predecessor pursued and that is the way forward that I shall pursue.

:Question No. 18, Mr. Moate.

:I shall not seek to ask my question, as I would rather hear the answer to question No. 20.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is yet in a position to make a statement on his decision on the Channel tunnel proposals.

:Last month's Anglo-French summit meeting commissioned joint studies by officials from both countries to determine whether a scheme could be developed which would be beneficial to both countries. Those studies will be pursued as quickly as the complexities of the issue allow, with the aim of an early decision in principle by both Governments.

:While I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I remind him that for the past 20 years my constituents have been in some doubt about whether a Channel tunnel would be built? Is my right hon. Friend aware that of the series of Ministers whose names have been connected with the project, my constituents and I hope that my right hon. Friend's name will be the one associated with starting the proceedings? I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), who was kind enough to allow this question to be put. Will my right hon. Friend remember that whether or not a Channel tunnel is built, we still need the M20 link?

:As regards my hon. Friend's last point, I gave a reply earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and I appreciate the feelings held on this subject. The Channel tunnel—perhaps I should say "link", as it may not be just a tunnel—has a long history. I approach the project with humility. I recognise that many people are enthusiastic that the project should go forward. The way discussions are going with the French suggests that they may need a little longer than the end of 1981 to reach decisions. My aim is to get on as fast as possible.

:Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the Government have no intention of putting financial guarantees into the project? Are the Government prepared to exercise any pressure on British Rail to guarantee freight throughputs and raise the possibility of the nationalised sector once more underpinning the private sector?

:Obviously, both sides of the Channel are involved. However, Britain is looking to the private sector to finance the project and to bear the commercial risks. That position was set out before and remains true. One of the different schemes put forward involves British Rail. All the schemes will be examined carefully both by us and by the French. We shall have to reach a view on which schemes the two sides agree upon and which ones satisfy the criteria. I cannot say more than that now about the different schemes or the members of the different consortia.

:Fortune and your benevolence, Mr. Speaker, shine upon me today. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that all the resources required for the Channel tunnel will come from the private sector? Does he feel that it would be appropriate to make a statement of intent, if not to announce the introduction of legislation in the Queen's Speech? Does he agree that not only would that give confidence to the French Government that we are not planning to go back on the scheme, as we did before, but would provide a useful capital project for employment purposes?

:I know that that is my hon. Friend's view. Before we come to the question of legislation, which will be needed, it is necessary for a clearer view to be established between the two sides on the type of scheme and therefore the form of legislation needed. I recognise my hon. Friend's enthusiasm, but we must take one step at a time. The first step is to reach agreement in principle on the basis of the talks that are in progress.

rose —

:Order. I propose to call one hon. Member from each side, although it is 3.30, because we were a little late in starting.

:I have asked my question on numerous occasions but I have been unable to get an answer. However the tunnel is built, how are we to protect it from terrorism? [Interruption.] This is not a laughing matter. If terrorists can put bombs in cars, they can put them in trains. Is there not a danger for the people of Britain? How can we possibly protect the tunnel against terrorists?

:The hon. Gentleman is on to a serious and important matter, which I recognise. It is relevant to all major transport and energy projects. Complex arteries are vulnerable to terrorism. The matter will have to be addressed in great detail in relation to any project of this or a similar type. All conceivable precautions must be taken. We shall have to address ourselves to the matter when we know the type of scheme involved. Then we shall have the answers.

:Does my right hon. Friend agree that a guarantee by British Rail of a minimum throughput would be the same as a Government guarantee?

:My hon. Friend is touching on an aspect of some of the conditions in one or more of the schemes to be put forward. We shall examine all the schemes. We are looking to the private sector to finance the project and to bear the commercial risks. That remains our position. We shall not look with enthusiasm at propositions that do not satisfy those conditions.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made with the implementation of the new policy of succession planning.

:The more formal scheme of succession planning for senior posts in the Home Civil Service introduced this spring will be fully implemented by 1983.

:May I ask why the succession planning document took such a long time to produce? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the future of the Civil Service rests on promotion being dependent on merit rather than on length of service? Will he give an assurance that the key factor that governs future Civil Service promotions within the open structure is ability to look after man and financial management?

:My hon. Friend's points are right and they must be taken into account in ensuring the proper quality for the top management of the Civil Service. The document was especially prepared for the Select Committee. The scheme had been prepared in my Department by July of last year.

:What plans has my hon. Friend for including in succession planning in the Civil Service some high-powered industrialists with recent experience of demanning, improved productivity and increased efficiency, as opposed to the increased empire building that has gone on for such a long time in some areas of our Civil Service?

:When we reach another question on the Order Paper I may be able to show that my hon. Friend's hypothesis that demanning is not proceeding within the Civil Service is untrue.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the number of non-industrial and industrial civil servants, respectively, on the latest date for which figures are available; and how these compare with numbers in April 1979.

:I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 31 July. Information is collected quarterly, and the October figures are not yet available but I expect them to show a significant further reduction.

:Are the Government on target for the planned reduction? More importantly, is there still a good prospect that the total number of civil servants will be reduced to 630,000 by Aril 1984?

:I assure my hon. Friend that we are on target and, indeed, a little ahead of it. We shall reach the figure of 630,000 by April 1984. When the October figures become available I hope that they will show a further reduction, exceeding 3,000.

:: Does not that claim give the lie to the crocodile tears that the Government are constantly pouring out over unemployment? Is it not true that the Government are forcing many people on to the dole as a deliberate act of policy?

Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that when senior civil servants reach retirement age they retire and do not go into lucrative positions in industry in which they can use the knowledge that they have gained in the public service for their financial gain?

Not unusually, the hon. Gentleman has got things wrong. We can reduce the number of staff because we are improving efficiency within the Civil Service. I pay tribute to the many civil servants—at all levels of the service—who contribute to that increased efficiency. In addition, we are deliberately reducing the tasks that the House and Government place on the Civil Service.

:Is not the contrast between the number of civil servants who have lost their jobs and the number of ordinary people who have been put out of work since that date unfortunate? Does my hon. Friend accept that if the graphs were projected the entire working population could be out of employment and yet there would still be 400,000 civil servants working?

:I would not accept that for one instant. Although my hon. Friend has distinguished connections with the art world, I am not sure whether he can be taken as an authority on the statistical projection of such future trends. We are on course to achieve the reductions in the size of the Civil Service that we promised at the last election and which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister over a year ago.

:When transferring work from the Civil Service to private firms, will the Government guarantee that the cost to the taxpayer will be no greater than before? Will the Minister publish the departmental and independent reports that examine and monitor that?

:Such matters are for the departmental Ministers concerned. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is the intention to ensure that no extra costs are incurred as a result of using private firms for particular services rather than having those services performed in house.

:: I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend to local authorities the power to operate as building societies and estate agencies and to impose certain duties upon them so to act; and for connected purposes.

The Bill has two major purposes. First, it provides all housing authorities in the country with powers to function as building societies to provide a comprehensive home loans service. Secondly, it provides local authorities with the power to run estate agency services. Both provisions would be of major benefit not only to local authorities but to every owner-occupier and potential owner-occupier in the country.

Ten-Minute Bills have a habit of not becoming law even when leave is given to introduce them. However, my view is that, even if the present Parliament does not pass this Bill's provisions into law, similar provisions will be incorporated into the Labour Government's housing measure which will be passed after we win the next general election.

I am now giving the present Parliament the opportunity to help owner-occupation and the present Government the opportunity not to allow their doctrinaire distaste for local government enterprise to stand in the way of help for the owner-occupier. Both the provisions in my Bill would bring great benefit and help to ease the nation's housing crisis. That crisis will soon be of 1945 proportions. Both tenant and owner-occupier have been provided with an equality of misery because of high interest rates and a diminishing supply of new accommodation.

There is no earthly reason why local councils should not be able to function, outside the present restrictions on public expenditure, as fully fledged building societies. Just as building societies borrow and then lend in the private market, so do local authorities. Giver the same powers as are vested in building societies in the 1962 Act, local councils could derive investment from the same or similar investors as the building societies and give home loans in exactly the same way.

For councils to borrow and lend in competition with building societies no extra public expenditure is required. However, there would be a major. difference. Local authorities would plan their lending policies with the added ingredient of community and social conscience, using the profits from the service—called surpluses by the building societies—to support lending to lower income groups, to break the deadlock of building society "redlining" and to assist in home loans to ensure that older houses in improvement and other inner city areas are purchased and improved.

If the building societies are as philanthropic and efficient as they often claim to be, they will welcome such challenging competition. Conservative Members will, of course, always vote in favour of increased competition.

My Bill will also allow local authority estate agency services to be provided. Such services are essential because the present position of estate agents is nothing short of scandalous. Anybody—professional, non-professional, honest or dishonest—can rent rooms, put up notice boards and set up in business as an estate agent. They are, perhaps, the best paid salesmen in Britain. What do they do for their money? They advertise a house for sale, they might give advice about the price that can be expected and, although they might not admit it publicly, they can often fix up a client with a mortgage. The successful estate agent is well tuned into the building society-solicitor old boy network. That is a strange way to ration mortgages but undoubtedly it is the rule rather than the exception.

The estate agent has a vested interest in pushing up house prices because he receives fees based on a percentage of the sale price. A local authority would charge just enough to cover all runnning expenses, with small profits to help with other home ownership or housing ventures such as providing advice to people seeking to buy, rent or improve a house. The savings to the vendor and purchaser could run into hundreds of pounds. A successfully managed municipal estate agency service would soon put the heat on. The private estate agent business could begin to decline just as the private landlord business has declined.

If my Bill became an Act, if one wanted to buy or rent a house the town hall would soon be the first place to start the search. The spinoff would be enormous. Would-be vendors could notify the town hall of their desire to sell. Access to the area's lists of houses for sale could be made available at every local council office. Computer facilities could provide instant information to potential purchasers in the same way that council computers provide information about public sector rented housing. Records of what is happening in the private sector would assist considerably when housing committees assess their area's needs and produce housing investment programmes.

Almost everybody would benefit from my Bill. The local community, the vendors and purchasers of houses, the councils, the taxpayers and the ratepayers would benefit. The only sufferers would be the inefficient building societies and the private estate agents with their vast profits. Estate agents and building societies have nothing to fear but competition. This is surely why every Tory Member who believes in competition will vote for the Bill and why every Labour Member who favours social enterprise will also be in the Lobby with his Tory counterpart.

The principle in law of access to local authority mortgages is already established under the Tories' 1980 Housing Act council house sales legislation. How hypocritical it would be if the Conservative Government and Conservative Members, having ensured in law access to local authority home loans for council tenants, denied it to all other would-be home owners who are battling against intolerably high mortgage interest rates.

:: I hope to show that the Bill is both ill-considered and unnecessary. It is ill-considered from a legal aspect and unnecessary because it will do nothing to improve the standard of service to the public. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) seeks to extend the power of local authorities to operate as building societies and estate agents. I remind the House that building societies operate under the Building Societies Act 1962, which carefully defines the area in which they should operate and what they are supposed to mean to the public. It provides that the purpose of building societies is to collect members' funds for loans to members and that the ownership of the societies is to be vested in the hands of the members. Therefore, in legal terms at least, it would be impossible for a local authority to act as a building society.

If local authorities had branch organisations or outposts and called them building societies, that would create confusion among the general public who have a clear idea of the function of building societies. They are secure places in which to place one's savings and are non-profit-making. As local authorities have been mentioned, I can say also that building societies are non-loss-making. The local authorities on which the hon. Gentleman seems to be so keen could turn a gold mine into a loss-maker.

The public are aware that, apart from being a safe place for their savings, building societies grant mortgage loans. Local authorities can also lend money for house purchase. Only two constraints are placed upon them. The first is central Government policy. In 1975 the Labour Government were anxious to reduce public expenditure and began to place restraints on the amount of lending that local authorities could make. Of course, that sensible policy has been wisely continued by the Government in their effort to contain public expenditure. The other constraint is the local authorities' decision about the deployment of their funds.

As to the matter of service to the public, we all must recognise that the business of taking deposits from the public is widely and adequately catered for both by the private sector, through the banks and building societies, and by the quasi-public sector through the trustee savings banks and the national savings banks. Building societies also give the public the added facility of remaining open on Saturdays. I wonder whether local authorities would be willing to do that.

I was shocked but not surprised by the derogatory attack that the hon. Gentleman chose to make on members of the estate agents' profession. Of course, some estate agents are not as honourable as one might wish, but the vast majority are honourable and provide a good service to the public. There is no obligation on any member of the public to use the services offered by estate agents. Many people advertise and sell their homes privately. If people use the facilities provided it must be because those facilities are much appreciated.

On the question of competition, I remind the hon. Gentleman that banks have now entered into mortgage lending and that that has considerably increased the competition in this field.

I turn to the adequacy of lending to meet demand. In 1981, the total gross lendings by building societies rose by 30 per cent. and lendings by banks for mortgages increased threefold. I maintain, therefore, that the demand is adequately met under the system. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the less fortunate in society, which is an important point. In 1975 the building societies began to respond to the previous Labour Administration's squeeze on home loans. At that time only 20 per cent. of the lending by building societies was available for houses built before 1919. They have now pushed that figure up to 28 per cent. Many building societies have developed links with local authorities to promote low-cost home ownership.

No one would deny that the private housing market is going through a difficult period. The economic recession, especially the high interest rates, has reduced demand. The level of activity is well below that which building societies, local authorities, estate agents and house builders wish to see. The problems will not be solved by permitting local authorities to operate as building societies or estate agents, regardless of the legal impracticalities of the proposal. Existing institutions in the private housing market have done a. good job over the years. Their record stands up well in comparison with that of local authorities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing his ill-considered motion. If he does not, I advise the House to vote against it.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 138.

Question accordingly negatived.

:On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today the Secretary of State for the Environment has been found guilty by the courts of acting outside the law in his attitude to the London borough of Hackney and seven other London boroughs. Ministers from the Department of the Environment are present in the Chamber. It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State has not found it possible to come to the House to explain his circumstances and to offer the House his resignation. I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

:I know nothing of the matter to which the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) has referred. It is not strictly a point of order. As Ministers from the Department of the Environment have heard it, I have no doubt that the news will reach the Secretary of State. I think that I had better leave the matter there.

:Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney-General recently issued his fiat to allow a group of ratepayers to proceed with a legal action against one of the authorities concerned in the issue to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) has referred. The ratepayers maintained that it was illegal for one of the councils concerned to fight the Secretary of State for the Environment in the courts. It seems appropriate that the Attorney-General should attend the House as soon as possible to explain how he put himself in these circumstances. It was pointed out to him at the time that he was doing something that was ludicrous and illegal.

:Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Whenever a Minister is rebuked by the courts for the way in which he has sought to exercise his discretion, has the Chair no power, in effect, to demand that the Minister concerned, who has affronted not only the courts but implicitly the House, should be called upon at the earliest opportunity to make a statement? The bona fides of not only the Government but the House are put in peril as a result of such action.

:Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that the Minister who has been named and found guilty in the High Court is not present in the Chamber, but there are Ministers from his Department on the Government Front Bench. Is it in order to ask the Ministers who are at present to ask the Secretary of State immediately to come to the House to apologise not merely to those who have found him guilty in the courts but to the House? It has been revealed that the Government's proposals on rates and the control of rates and expenditure are nothing more than a sham and a hastily cobbled hotch-potch. What the House requires from the Minister, tomorrow if not today, is a public apology for the disgraceful way in which the legislation has been cobbled together.

:The House will agree that I have given a good run on that question. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.