asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will consult the relevant authorities and organisations, and then issue new guidelines for improved advance warning and clearer marking of all road works, including those undertaken for, and on behalf of, statutory authorities; and whether he will make a statement.

Warning signs at road works have been under constant discussion between the Department of Transport and all interested authorities and organisations for many years. Comprehensive instructions are contained in "Traffic Safety Measures for Road Works", first published in 1973. These instructions have been updated whenever necessary with advice notes, and a revised edition of the document will be published next year.

Does the Under-Secretary of State agree that there has never been a time more than the present when the dangers caused by inadequate signs and the amount of road works has been greater as a result of the snow, slush and ice that are causing such a menace on our roads and pavements? Is he aware that local authorities throughout the country are anxious to deal with these dangers which, among other things, are forcing elderly people to stay at home—and they are likely to be there over the Christmas period—because they dare not go out? In the spirit of the season, will he consult the relevant authorities on how local authorities can be helped to deal, without delay, with our pavements, roads and road works?

We steadily consult local authorities about road works and road signs. I realise that conditions on pavements get worse at this time of year when the snow and ice come. We shall certainly discuss with local authorities any ideas for improving traffic signs and road conditions round road works. We try to give authorities adequate grant to enable them to improve road conditions in their areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what checks are made of the gross weights of large vehicles and their axle weight distribution at points of entry into the United Kingdom; and whether such checks can be made on all like vehicles without disrupting traffic flows and delaying drivers.

My Department's staff carry out regular weight checks, supplemented by occasional enforcement "blitzes" at roll-on/roll-off ferry ports. There are now dynamic weighbridges, which impose minimum delay, at or close to all such ports. However, enforcement checks on every vehicle would be impracticable and would impose unacceptable congestion and delay.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that information. What proportion of heavy vehicles coming into ports of entry are found to be over the legal maximum weight? If schemes can be devised to judge the weights of vehicles by putting a metal 'strip across the road, will he encourage those new forms of test to be incorporated at all points of entry?

At present about one in five vehicles stopped at ports is found to be overloaded, but that is because the traffic examiners tend to pick the most suspicious-looking vehicles. I doubt whether one in five of all lorries is overloaded. We are installing equipment, known as the dynamic weighbridge, which enables us to stop and check more lorries than before.

Does the Minister's reply include points of entry into the United Kingdom across its land frontier? If, by reason of any local circumstances, the arrangements that he has described are not applicable, will he ensure that corresponding checks are carried out so that there is the same amount of surveillance?

I shall consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to see what arrangements apply within the land border of the United Kingdom, and I shall let the right hon. Gentleman know. Most of the arrangements that we enforce are at the ports, because they are the most convenient places to check incoming vehicles from other countries.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that much of the resistance to the increased lorry weights proposed by my right hon. Friend is because there is no constant check at ports? That resistance is growing in constituencies such as my own. Is he further aware that Germany has adopted methods of showing weights by gauges on the lorries? Would it not be a reasonable imposition on lorry operators, at the port of entry, to prove that their loads are adequately distributed? If it could be shown that every lorry load was within the law, l am sure that much of the resistance shown by people living near the port of Poole would disappear.

We keep having blitzes at ports in an effort to reassure people that we are stepping up enforcement. Technical advances are constantly being made. We shall bring in whatever new devices are available, as they become effective in practice. As a result of our present somewhat curious weight restrictions, some large vehicles, if they are to be legally loaded, are fully loaded. It is easier to overload above our present limits within the capacity of containers than it would be if we went up to the kind of weight limits for which containers are designed.

Does the Under-Secretary accept that the statement that he made this morning—that one in five of the lorries checked is overweight—will do nothing to reassure people that we have adequate means of enforcing lorry weights? Does he further accept that it will be necessary for the Government to take further steps to assure people that there are adequate means of enforcement before we increase lorry weights in this country?

The Government are anxious to enforce lorry weights. We stop and take action against many vehicles. One in five sounds alarming, but the check is done only on some vehicles. The traffic examiners, who are experienced in these matters, check lorries that look as though they are overloaded. Obviously many empty lorries are allowed to pass, as are lorries that are perfectly acceptable. A sign of the alertness of traffic examiners is their ability to spot the lorries that are labouring and down on their springs.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a further announcement on a Channel link.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the latest developments on the construction of the Channel tunnel.

My French colleagues and I are pursuing joint studies with the aim of reaching a decision of principle as early as possible next year. All options are open, including that of relying on the development of existing services.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a private project, if not underwritten by public funds, is just the sort of exciting venture to fuel public self-confidence in national recovery?

I agree that it is an attractive prospect, if it can be achieved in co-ordination with our French partners. Clearly, talks with the French must go ahead. This is an international project and co-ordination with the French has to be maintained. We hope for rapid progress. I share my hon. Friend's belief that if it is achieved it could be an exciting and important project.

What criteria are involved in the schemes that have been presented to my right hon. Friend? Will he reassure us that his civil servants are not ruling out schemes because they come from one or two individuals?

None of the schemes that have been presented to the Government have been ruled out. I had the opportunity to see the details of all the schemes that are being put forward by the promoters, including the proposition that the existing ferry systems should be developed. Nothing has been ruled out. There has been no change in our position on the criteria. Britain is looking to the private sector to finance the project and bear the commercial risk.

The Secretary of State is right to say that consultation has to take place between the French and the British, but will he undertake to inject some dynamism into the discussions? It appears that a long time is being taken before any decisions are reached.

We are anxious to make rapid progress. Talks are constantly taking place with the French at official level, and ministerial exchanges are also taking place. Both the French and ourselves recognise the need to reach a decision in principle on whether there should be a fixed link, and to do so as early as possible.

Will my right hon. Friend tell Mr. MacGregor and the British Steel Corporation that the last Channel tunnel project foundered because of political disagreement in this country, much of which had to do with Kent, and with the railway unions, which, I think, have now changed their minds? Does he realise that many of us believe that the tunnel will be of major assistance to British Rail? Will he continue to bear in mind that it is necessary, as far as possible, to get all-party agreement on the project so that it does not founder as the last one did?

All the considerations, including those mentioned by my hon. Friend, have to be borne in mind in reaching a decision in principle and choosing between the preferred options.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that legislation will be required before a Channel link can go ahead? Will he undertake to publish a White Paper as soon as possible, so that any benefit that might accrue to the country as a result of a Channel tunnel or link can be evaluated for the whole of the United Kingdom, not just the South-East of England?

I confirm that legislation would be needed for a fixed link, but it is too early to say what form it would take. It is too early also to confirm or give undertakings about the form of statement or presentation, but I note what the hon. Gentleman said.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many persons were killed and injured in road accidents in the most recent annual period for which figures are available.

For the 12 months ending June 1981 it is provisionally estimated that some 5,800 people were killed and 320,000 injured in road accidents.

I understand that that represents a steady improvement in road accident statistics. A substantial proportion of road deaths and accidents occur during the Christmas and new year period, often due to heavy drinking and driving. Will my hon. and learned Friend draw the nation's attention to dangers of this kind, which often involve innocent people being killed, maimed or injured?

We must not be complacent, because the numbers are still horrific, but in 1980 fewer people were killed than in any year since 1958, and traffic has trebled in that period.

Does the Under-Secretary recognise that the problems this Christmas will be particularly severe because of the awful weather and the dangers on the roads caused by ice? Will he take steps now to enable local authorities to cope with those conditions and not wait for the weather forecasters to produce an unexpected thaw?

We are worried about the problems of salting and gritting and keeping the roads in good condition. We hope to improve the arrangements for local authorities to look after our trunk and local authority roads. We have already issued a new standard of service, which we hope local authorities will achieve on trunk roads, and we have agreed with them a code of practice on how to achieve it. Within the limits of what is practicable—with the British weather, there are limits—I believe that local authorities will get out and salt and grit the roads as soon as they can when the weather is about to create dangerous conditions.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the new external financing limit announced for British Railways.

In respect of the 1981–82 EFL, I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 2 December to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones).—[Vol. 14, c. 153.] The 1982–83 EFL of £950 million is about the same in real terms as the £867 million originally set for 1981–82.

What representations has the Secretary of State had from British Rail about the need for massive investment in new rolling stock and track maintenance to provide a safe and reliable service? Has British Rail expressed its satisfaction with the amount that the right hon. Gentleman has just announced?

Naturally, British Rail and the Government are anxious to maintain an efficient, safe and modernised system. I discussed with British Rail its investment plans and hopes for the future. They are my hopes, too. As the hon. Gentleman knows, last night I announced my approval of the electrification of rail services between Colchester, Norwich and Harwich. I think that British Rail accepts—as I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept—that is is a demonstration of our commitment to the future of our railway system.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a widespread welcome for his announcement about the East Anglian electrification? Nevertheless, does he realise that the piecemeal method of doing it is not entirely satisfactory? For example, his refusal to sanction the Cambridge part of the arrangement means that British Rail's planning will have to continue to rely on a mixture of diesel and electric on East Anglian lines, which is not the most efficient forward planning. In view of the continuing disagreement between the NUR and ASLEF, is there anything that my right hon. Friend can do to try to bang together the heads of these two unions to see whether they can reach an agreement that will enable the Government to sanction a full-scale electrification programme?

Obviously we do not want industrial disputes on the railways, and I hope that these matters can be resolved in a sensible and realistic way.

Is the Secretary of State aware that by not increasing the EFL to a more realistic level he lays himself open to the accusation from hon. Members and people outside the House that he is doing a Beeching by financial stealth?

Rubbish.

Talk of that kind is a little on the wild side. I have made it clear that in the Government's view there should be no substantial cuts in the network. British Rail recognises, as do the nationalised industries and the public services and private industry, that it must work within the disciplines and economic constraints demanded of it. I am confident that British Rail will make good progress within these constraints.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the increase in the EFL that he announced is less than the increase in the public service obligation and therefore that the borrowing limits of British Rail for that year will be reduced? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this constitutes a restriction upon British Rail's ability to invest, bearing in mind that at least one-third of its investment programme, on its own estimate, will have to come from borrowing?

The need to borrow will be reduced. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was talking about the present year. The original EFL was set at £867 million, but, as a result of adjustments, which I have announced to the House, it was raised to £920 million for the current year. Within that, it is correct to say that the PSO grant has been increased, but that reduces the need to borrow within an adjusted EFL.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of the British Railways Board to discuss investment.

I meet the chairman frequently to discuss matters of mutual interest.

When the Minister next meets the chairman of the BRB, will he congratulate him and British Rail workers on the service that they have provided during the terrible weather that we have been experiencing? Does not that fact reflect the great importance of the British Rail network in managing to keep services going? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that British Rail is approaching crisis point because of the lack of investment? Will he assure the House that if British Rail expresses a need for money to maintain its ageing permanent way structures, such as the Ribblehead viaduct on the Settle-Carlisle line, he will treat each case sympathetically? British Rail appears to be moving towards the closure of this 86-mile major route network, which would be completely against the Minister's policy of no major closures. Will the right hon. Gentleman reinforce that now?

I have, I can and I will express my feelings, which are similar to those of the hon. Gentleman, to the chairman of British Rail and those involved about the work that they do in maintaining services in immmensely difficult conditions. We all recognise that. However, I counsel the hon. Gentlemdn against talking of crisis and using overdramatised language. In many areas the British Rail system operates to a very high level of performance. It does British Rail no service to be depicted constantly by those who claim to be its enthusiastic supporters as being on the verge of collapse and crisis. It has some highly efficient and effective systems, which are world beaters. If we heard more of that and less talk of crisis it would help the morale of British Rail.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he tell him that there is widespread support from the taxpayers for my right hon. Friend's policy of insisting that British Rail demonstrates a fair return to the taxpayer before money is invested in it? Will he suggest to the chairman that one way in which British Rail could help itself would be to lease to private enterprise its catering facilities, which it seems quite incapable of maintaining?

The organisation of the catering side is a matter for the British Rail management. As for the general understanding of the importance of the good use of taxpayers' money by the commercial railways and the management of the system, the British Railways Board is the first to be apprised of that and to understand fully the realities of it.

When the Secretary of State discusses rail investment with the chairman of British Rail, will he consider the parlous state of many of British Rail's engineering workshops in Derby and elsewhere? Given the shrinkage of the wagon fleet and the fact that we have a successful record in exporting what is essentially an old technology, if the right hon. Gentleman is concerned to sing the praises of British Rail ought we not to be investing in new technology for our exporting industries?

Certainly we want to develop new technology, and British Rail and our coach and equipment builders are the first to recognise the need for it.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether, following his statement of 1 December on lorries, people and the environment, he will take a new initiative in conjunction with local authorities to widen the system of designated routes for heavy vehicles.

We intend to issue further advice to local authorities so as to help them to make the most effective use of their powers to restrict heavy lorries to suitable routes.

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that representing as I do a rural and urban constituency where many people are troubled by heavy lorries at existing weights, let alone those that the Government and the House have sanctioned, I feel that it would enable people who are deeply concerned about the environment—farmers, as well as ordinary rural residents—to find these vehicles more acceptable if there were designated routes for heavy commercal vehicles? Heavy vehicles are using country lanes and roads that were not designed and constructed for the weights that they are carrying already, let alone the 40-tonne weight. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that this whole matter would be far more acceptable to people if he improved and speeded up the designation of heavy vehicle routes?

rose—

Order. Before the Minister replies, may I ask for shorter supplementary questions?

The Government accept that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory and that lorries are travelling on unsuitable roads and causing a nuisance. That is why we brought forward our proposal that there should be fewer, quieter and safer lorries. We propose to issue advice to local authorities on how they can use existing powers under the "Dykes" Act to designate more suitable lorry routes.

Before the Under-Secretary introduces any more long-overdue legislation, will he ensure that existing legislation is enforced, especially by county councils? The hon. and learned Gentleman has just referred to the "Dykes" Act. Will he draw the attention of the West Midlands county council to that legislation, which is almost a decade old, as that council refuses to implement it, to the considerable annoyance of my constituents in West Bromwich, who face considerable environmental pollution from heavy vehicles?

We wish local authorities to make more use of their powers under the "Dykes" Act, but we have to accept that they know their areas better than we do. There are difficulties in designating routes. It is no good just moving lorries from one person's front door to some one else's. There is also a need to get on with the roads programme to provide the proper routes for the lorries to use. It is a pity that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) spends so much of his time opposing the construction or improvement of roads such as the M40, ban which could provide exactly what we require—a proper lorry route avoiding a large number of villages and town all the way through the Midlands.

Mr. Dykes.

Author.

My hon. and learned Friend has been kind enough to refer to the 1973 Act. Will he give more positive encouragement to the use of the Act's powers? Looking at it from a standpoint different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), will he welcome more schemes, such as the Windsor cordon?

The short answer is "Yes". I congratulate my hon. Friend eight years later on having introduced the legislation in 1973. We wish that more progress could be made in its use. The Windsor cordon is probably the biggest example of what could be done. There was nearly another big lorry ban in North London. Unfortunately, the present GLC postponed it pending its large-scale inquiry into the future of the lorry in London.

May I invite the Minister, after Christmas, to travel round the south circular in my constituency—

On the Secretary of State for Employment's bike!

—so that he can see for himself that some of the routes used by heavy lorries are quite unsuitable? The honest citizens of Lewisham, who want to go about their business, face appalling difficulties and pollution and cannot even cross the road.

I know and have been round the south circular road. It is an experience that I keep to the minimum and, if I can avoid it, I shall not drive round it in the new year. Seriously, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are several areas in south London where the presence of heavy lorries merely exacerbates unsatisfactory road conditions and is offensive to local residents. We need a combination of discreet road improvements and programmes and we must designate proper lorry routes. In addition, we must decide what we can do to reduce the numbers of lorries and make them safer and quieter to improve existing conditions. The Government are dissatisfied with existing conditions and are trying to find a way to make progress.

What form will the advice take? Will it include advice on restricting the hours during which lorries can operate on certain routes, not least on the south circular? The south circular is, of course, a myth.

As we are still considering and drawing up the advice, I cannot give a precise answer. The best thing would be to give an indication of the range of powers available and the critieria that local authorities should apply when designating and enforcing lorry routes. I agree that the south circular is a myth. However, the Government are responsible only for the north circular. Welcome improvements are being made to that road so that heavy traffic can be taken out of the suburban back-streets of north London.

Why does the Under-Secretary always emphasise that British Rail must meet profit criteria on its routes when no such criteria are applied to the road network? The Minister has never said that the M1 or the M62 must make a profit. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that lorries do not meet their road costs and that the best way to reduce lorry traffic is not to make more motorways, but to shift traffic from the roads to the railways, thereby stopping the anti-rail bias towards freight transport that his Department seems to exhibit?

rose—

Order. May we please have shorter supplementary questions? Otherwise, we shall get ourselves into trouble.

We subject road schemes to the most rigorous economic analysis. Unless there are overwhelming environmental reasons for proceeding with an uneconomic scheme, we proceed only with those that will show a worthwhile economic return. There should be no conflict between rail and road. It is ludicrous that road enthusiasts should attack the railways and that railway enthusiasts should attack the roads. The networks serve different types of traffic and both contribute to the country's economic well-being.

As regards designated routes, when will my hon. and learned Friend be able to make an announcement about new bypasses? Small towns that are inadequately equipped to take designated routes—such as Axminster, where the main road is only 16½ ft wide—may then not need to put up with heavy traffic and heavy articulated lorries trundling through them.

My hon. Friend recently gave me an opportunity to see conditions in Axminister and stressed the town's need for a bypass. On Monday we announced this year's grant for local authorities. In that grant we concentrated on providing funds for bypasses. Fifty new schemes, costing over £1 million each, including 35 definite bypass schemes, were financed by the Government last Monday. After Christmas we shall produce a White Paper setting out the trunk road programme for the coming years. We hope to make worthwhile progress on bypass schemes. Axminister's problems are very much in our minds.

How is the Scottish response to the White Paper being collected and collated? Yesterday it was announced that we shall get £109 million of our money back from the EEC for the roads programme. What share of that money will go to Scotland and to the North, instead of being concentrated in the South, as Treasury leaks imply?

The Department is not responsible for roads in Scotland. They are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The arrangements that the Prime Minister negotiated for the refund of Britain's contribution have enabled large sums to be put into the trunk road programme. The money has enabled us to maintain a level of trunk road building that would otherwise have been impossible. Therefore, the EEC refund has contributed to our ability to build bypasses and to take lorries away from people's homes.

I am well aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for Scotland's roads, but I am asking the Minister how he is co-operating with the Secretary of State to discover the Scottish response to the White Paper "Lorries, People and the Environment."

The consultations on the White Paper on the Armitage report are nationwide, and the Scottish Office will be involved in considering the representations received from Scotland. The Government as a whole will consider all representations on the proposals in the course of the next two or three months.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to bring forward new proposals to improve rail commuter services in London and the South-East.

I hope that the British Railways Board, whose responsibility it is, will continue to improve its services.

Does the Minister accept that even the Monopolies and Mergers Commission recognised that if British Rail is to improve its services in London and the South-East, and to improve productivity, a substantial amount of public investment will be needed? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that he must get on and improve public investment as soon as possible? If he does not, there is a possibility that the dynamic weighbridge will go down in history as the only dynamic aspect of the Government's transport policy.

Some odd things are said about the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's comments about the commuter services in London and the South-East. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman should read its report. It shows that a great deal can be done within existing resources if productivity is improved and the present very high level of investment in London Transport is maintained. The Government are glad that improvements have been made in commuter services in recent years, and we are determined that such improvements should continue. That can be done within practicable and present levels of investment if some improvements in productivity are also made.

Does my hon. and learned Friend appreciate that British Rail could put forward a simple proposal to undertake a major review of how its trains are cleaned? Does he realise that my constituents find it unforgiveable that the trains that they use every day should be so filthy?

We are concerned to meet passengers' preferences. I agree that all the evidence is that passengers want cleaner trains that are punctual and reliable. Passengers do not want to pay greatly increased fares so that they can have ultra-modern rolling stock. Therefore, we have pointed out that we do not see the need for extra investment in order to produce ever glossier trains. We want better and cleaner use of the existing, reasonable level of stock.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has had any recent discussions with the chairman of British Steel and the chairman of British Railways on the respective merits of the rail-only tunnel and the road-rail/bridge-tunnel crossing of the English Channel; and whether any future meetings are planned.

I am in touch with all promoters of schemes for a fixed Channel link, as well as with Dover harbour board, representing port and shipping interests. Further meetings will take place as necessary.

Since the road-rail/tunnel-bridge would carry much more traffic and would create more jobs—not merely in the South-East—than the single rail-only tunnel project, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, provided the money can be raised for the more imaginative scheme, the Government will not be predjudiced against it?

As I have said in reply to earlier questions, the Government's mind is open on all the options and no scheme has been ruled out.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the road-rail/tunnel-bridge would not only be a considerable navigational danger in the most heavily-used waterway in the world, but would be an environmental disaster for the South, because of the number of heavy goods vehicles that it would attract?

All aspects of the project involve problems and challenges. All such considerations—including those that the hon. Gentleman implied—are being taken into account.

Given all the grandiose schemes that nationalised industries are putting forward, although those industries are losing thousands of millions of pounds, will my right hon. Friend ensure that no more Government money is invested in such a scheme and that, if the Government have money to spare, they will use it to improve our road system, which is a disgrace to a civilised country?

I made it clear earlier that we look to the private sector to finance the project and to bear the commercial risks. I hope that that meets my hon. Friend's point.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will travel on the advanced passenger train as part of his assessment of this grant-aided project.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total estimated capital cost of bringing the advanced passenger train fully into scheduled services on inter-city routes.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a further statement on the tilt mechanism of the advanced passenger train and the allocation of his Department's funding for its development.

I have already travelled on one of the advanced passenger train prototypes, which worked very well on my journey. I cannot say what the capital cost of further APTs would be until the board submits proposals for their construction. Approval of a fleet of APTs will depend on the success of the prototypes in commercial service. I and the board will also wish to be convinced that such a fleet would be good value for money and that the board's inter-city business could support the investment involved.

Is not investment in railway technology in Britain puny compared with that in France? We have spent on the APT less than one-twentieth of the amount that the French have spent on the line from Paris to Lyon, which incorporated no advanced technology. Will my right hon. Friend try to reverse the sad, age-old saga in Britain that we have the finest inventors in the world, but that we are hopeless at financing and marketing such projects?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's feeling, but it is not always clever just to spend more money. It is important to have the right and most innovative technology. The advanced passenger train is skilled and ingenious technology. As my hon. Friend knows, it runs better on curvy routes. Therefore one is not faced with the need, as was the case with the Paris to Lyon line, to build a completely new and very expensive track. Those considerations, as well as the money spent, must be kept in mind.

Is not the APT adapted technology as well as innovative, which is one of its great strengths? Although £37 million has been spent so far, it still represents value for money. Will the Minister confirm that during the two months before the disasters that overtook the APT in the severe weather last week it ran trouble-free on that route?

Yes. My trip was trouble-free, and the hon. Gentleman's word "adapted" is the appropriate word in this case.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the response he has had to his policy of reducing the level of public enterprise in transport and related services.

Our policy is to introduce more private capital into the transport system. We are making good progress and we shall ensure that it is maintained.

Will the Minister confirm that the independent consultants called in by British Transport Hotels Ltd. advised against going ahead, at least at this stage, with the sale of Gleneagles, the North British and the Caledonian hotels? Is it not a measure of the extreme doctrinaire attitude of the Government that they are not only hell-bent on selling successful public enterprises, but that they are failing to get the best possible deal on the market? They are guilty of cheating the public by acting against the public interest.

That deal was put together by British Rail. The Government do not know what advice it took, but we are sure that it took as much advice as it could before going ahead with the proposal. British Rail could benefit by getting private capital into the subsidiaries, which will unlock the resources that are now locked into them. The hotels will also benefit, because for many years they have been deprived of investment. They have been under the shadow of the main rail business and have not had access to as much capital as they would wish, because whenever there have been restraints the money has gone to the main railway business.

How much private capital has been invested in the introduction of long-distance, private coach services? Is it true that, as a result of that investment, coach fares have fallen dramatically? If so, will my hon. and learned Friend encourage more private capital to be put into State ventures?

We have encouraged that investment by the Transport Act 1980, which removed the old licensing restrictions. There has been a tremendous upsurge in inter-city travel and many private operators have introduced important inter-city routes. National Express also took advantage of many opportunities. It is an example of both private and public enterprise taking advantage of the liberalising of the transport system, which the Government wholly favour.

What is the Minister's reply to the suggestion that if further routes are allocated to Yeowarts in Whitehaven, more rural routes will be lost in my constituency?

I do not accept that there is a connection between the Yeowarts appeal and the loss of rural services in Cumbria, as is being claimed by some people in the hon. Gentleman's locality. I understand that Yeowarts has made new applications for Sunday and evening services, which were claimed to be unprofitable routes. I hope that it is not argued that Yeowarts was first creaming off profitable routes, to which there was resistance, and that it is now taking on unprofitable routes. The cross-subsidy case is important, but it can be grossly overstated. I do not accept the interpretation that is now being put on events in Cumbria.

Will my hon. and learned Friend do his best to encourage investment in such enterprises by their staff? When staff become involved in some forth of partnership deal, they give of their best.

The National Freight Company denationalisation is one of the best examples of that. It is interesting that when the Government legislate to enable them to denationalise such a company, the staff come forward with proposals that enable them to acquire a stake in it. It took the wind out of the sails of the doctrinaire Opposition, who were against the legislation.

As the Government are so keen on public authorities operating in a commercial manner, why are they compelling British Rail to sell its assets, when British Rail believes that that sale is against its commercial and business interests?

We have an agreement with the chairman of British Rail and the British Railways Board that early progress will be made to get private capital into British Rail hotels, Sealink and the property board. Obviously it obtains the best possible price for the stake that the private sector buys. It makes good sense for the railways and the subsidiaries, and it will open up new opportunities for the subsidiary businesses.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish his reply to the report of the Transport Committee on the Channel link

I have accepted an invitation to meet the Committee early in the new year.

I thank the Secretary of State for that rather fatuous reply. The House will wish to have a positive response from the Department to the Select Committee. Is the Secretary of State aware that there have been many proposals for a rail tunnel? It appears to be one of the few subjects upon which the Prime Minister can converse with the French President. When can we get an answer about the sort of tunnel that will be agreed?

The joint study cannot be completed before early next year. We hope for rapid progress, but we must co-ordinate with the pace and the needs of the French. It is an international project and we must work with our partners in carrying forward the studies.

In my right hon. Friend's reply to the Transport Select Committee, will he highlight the fact that the portal to portal costs will come entirely from private resources, but that public investment will be needed for the Cheriton development and for the terminal in London? Will my right hon. Friend also tell us what the French Government's attitude is to proceeding with the tunnel at an early date, because of the valuable advantages that it can bring to all parts of the United Kingdom in dealing with the EEC?

My hon. Friend's last point will depend upon the precise timing of my appearance, the position of our discussions with the French and the attitude of the French Government, but I shall try to do my best. The question of public or other investment outside the main scheme will differ with the various schemes, but I hope that all those matters will emerge both in my discussions with the Select Committee and in public debate.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current investment programme on roads and railways, respectively, in Scotland; and what are the estimated figures for 1982 to 1985.

Within the ceiling set by the Government, decisions on the investment programme for the railways, and priorities within the programme, are a matter for the British Railways Board. Responsibility for the road programme in Scotland lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Does the Minister recognise that the Scottish economy, more than most other parts of the United Kingdom economy, depends to an enormous extent on the quality of the transport system? Will the Government treat Scotland as a special case for rail investment, and will the Minister press that point upon the British Railways Board?

British Rail has a number of investment plans in Scotland. I do not believe that the board is neglecting Scotland in its future investment programme. We are anxious to maintain British Rail's investment at a reasonable, affordable level. We have not reduced its investment ceiling and we hope to provide adequately for its forthcoming projects in Scotland. The Government cannot step in and instruct the board to consider any part of the United Kingdom as a special case.

In the Government's discussions with Sir Peter Parker about rail investment, will the Minister make it clear that there is intense dissatisfaction in Scotland with the quality of the rolling stock for passenger travel there? Does he recognise that there have been many complaints that British Rail is not doing enough to generate freight traffic in Scotland and is, therefore, losing traffic because of its lack of initiative?

There are proposals to replace much of the old rolling stock in Scotland, partly by the Ayr electrification scheme and partly by the programme of replacement diesel multiple unit vehicles. No doubt British Rail will submit its proposals to the Government in due course. I shall draw the attention of the board to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the marketing of freight services in Scotland. Both the board and the Government are anxious that all marketing skills should be used to expand the railway freight business.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the progress of the preparatory work for the Blythe bridge to Uttoxeter section of the A564 Stoke to Derby link.

Yes. We expect to reach our decision on the remaining statutory proposals next month.

Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that he expects the construction of the road to begin in 12 months?

I very much hope so. If we continue to make the smooth progress with the scheme that we have made so far, my hon. Friend's hopes will be fulfilled. I know the vigour with which he has been pressing for the scheme during the past few years and how much he and his constituents await the day when construction begins.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further discussions have taken place on maximum lorry weights following his statement on 1 December.

The House debated the Government's proposals on 9 December. Draft amending regulations and a technical note on the effects of the weight increases proposed have been published and interested organisations have been invited to comment by 31 January. There will then be a further full debate on the Government's proposals for dealing with the problems of the environment and heavy lorries before any new regulations are brought into effect.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but would it not be nicer for him to give the nation a Christmas present by pledging that the Government have no intention of allowing the maximum weight to reach 40 tonnes?

In my earlier answer I made the Government's position clear. There will be a further full debate on the Government's proposals. That is the right way to proceed. The House debated the issue fully and came to the conclusion that there should be a period for consultation and debate.

Is the Minister confirming that, although the regulations as laid down in statute are subject to annulment, a decision will be taken before regulations are laid and come into effect?

I am setting out the position exactly as it was set out in the debate on 9 December and in my earlier answer. There will be a further full debate on the draft regulations, and following that decisions will be reached on the regulations that are appropriate. That is the position as I set it out earlier, and I am setting it out again now.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what proportion of the time of the Minister of State, Treasury, will be spent dealing with Civil Service functions of the Management and Personnel Office.

Whatever time is necessary to enable me to discharge my duty to answer in this House for these functions.

Is it not unsatisfactory that the Minister should be answering for a Department for which he has no responsibility? Should not the Prime Minister, as it is her Department, come to the House to answer Civil Service questions? How are the Civil Service affairs being run by the Department, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster being co-ordinated, properly run and answered for in the House?

It is not unusual for junior Ministers to speak on matters for which they do not have day-to-day responsibility. I speak with the full authority of both my right hon. and noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Civil Service.

During my hon. Friend's busy day, will he find time to discuss with the Civil Service Department alternatives to index-linked pensions, which are causing tremendous resentment in the private sector?

The Scott committee reported on that matter. It is an especially complicated issue, which the Government are considering. I hope that the Government's views will be made available to the House shortly.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if she will list the functions of the Management and Personnel Office and any other Civil Service functions for which the Minister of State, Treasury, is responsible on behalf of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear on 12 November, I answer in this House for Management and Personnel Office matters, for which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has day-to-day responsibility. Details of the MPO's functions are set out in the note placed in the Library by the Prime Minister. Otherwise, I am not responsible for Civil Service functions on behalf of my right hon. and noble Friend.

If the Minister has any responsibility for industrial relations within the Civil Service, will he have a word with the Lord Advocate about the stupid decision to prosecute a Civil Service trade union leader under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 for his activities during the Civil Service strike earlier this year? Does the Minister realise that the prosecution is having such a damaging effect on industrial relations within the Civil Service that most of Scotland's 50,000 civil servants staged walk-outs and demonstrations last week?

I have responsibility for industrial relations in the Civil Service, but I carry no responsibilty for prosecutions in Scotland or, indeed, in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Those are matters for the legal authorities.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether she will consider the redeployment of civil servants to cities of high unemployment, such as Leicester; and whether she will make a statement.

There are at present no plans to extend the Government's dispersal programme beyond what was announced on 26 July 1979. The programme, to which the Government remain fully committed, was the result of a considered review.

Is the Minister aware that Leicester, which until recently was sometimes called the most prosperous city in Europe, is now suffering from hideous unemployment, which in part of my constituency has reached more than 50 per cent.? Does he not see that it is necessary to advance the Government's programme of dispersal to help such areas as Leicester, which are in desperate need because of the dreadful Government policies, which have done nothing to curb unemployment?

Despite the costs of the dispersal programme the Government have continually reiterated their commitment to it, which was announced in July 1979. The major features of the programme are for Glasgow, East Kilbride, Sheffield, Bootle and Cardiff—all areas with higher unemployment than even Leicester.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not the redeployment of civil servants that is needed, but fewer civil servants so that there is more room for private enterprise to flourish? Will that not solve the country's problems more quickly than anything?

The new jobs that will be needed to reduce unemployment will come from private enterprise. My hon. Friend knows that we are making good progress in reducing the size of the Civil Service and in increasing its efficiency.

Will the Minister contrast the need for stockbrokers and estate agents with the need for civil servants to make payments to the increasing number of people in receipt of unemployment and supplementary benefit? Do not thousands of Civil Service jobs provide, as part of the Welfare State, an important service for those who do not have the money with which stockbrokers line their pockets?

If the hon. Gentleman is inviting me to say that civil servants carry out essential functions, often determined by decisions of the House or the Government, of course I gladly acknowledge that that is so.

Will my hon. Friend reconsider the whole policy of redeploying Civil Service jobs out of London, especially as my constituency has lost 1,100 manufacturing jobs at Hoover to Wales and Scotland in recent weeks? What about a little redeployment of Civil Service jobs to where they are needed in Perivale?

As my hon. Friend knows, we reviewed the previous Government's plans on dispersal. The decisions reached in 1979 were right. I appreciate that some of those who are moving from London are critical of the decision, but I reiterate again from the Dispatch Box that the Government will abide by their dispersal programme.

Does the Minister accept that the substantial number of civil servants employed in supplementary and unemployment benefit offices cannot be redeployed because they are necessary in all parts of the country? Will he give an estimate of the increase in turnover of work in supplementary and unemployment benefit offices this year compared with the previous year?

The hon. Gentleman should address the second part of his question to Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Security. To my knowledge, no one has suggested redeploying staff in benefit offices.

How will transferring civil servants from one city to another help such cities as Leicester where there are high levels of unemployment? Would it not be better if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) said, we ensured that those civil servants who are no longer required are directed and retrained so that they can go into manufacturing industry, which creates the wealth of the country?

Having made a firm commitment to dispersal, it is right that the Government should stand by their commitment and carry through their word.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.