asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has yet received proposals for the electrification of the St. Pancras-Sheffield railway line north of Bedford.

Not yet, but I look forward to receiving the British Railways Board's 10-year programme of electrification schemes.

Will the right hon. Gentleman have a chat with Sir Peter Parker, who has certain problems on his hands, and remind him that on this line there have been problems for 10 years? There are many cities on the line—Leicester, Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham. Everybody feels bitter. Ninety per cent. of the trains on that line are late, the rolling stock—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Question."] I have asked the Minister if he will speak to the chairman of British Rail. That is the question. This rudeness is not helpful.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I speak to the chairman of British Rail from time to time. Until we receive the full programme of electrification, which we expect in a month or so, it is not possible to determine priorities for individual routes. I note what the hon. Gentleman said.

I am a regular user of the same line. On reflection, does my right hon. Friend agree that money spent on further electrification beyond Bedford would be an utter waste as the people who operate the trains refuse to modernise their approach to their duties and the way they run the trains? Would not further modernisation be a waste of taxpayers' money?

The Government's position has always been that investment should be related to productivity. If there is no productivity, it is difficult to see how investment can be justified.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the British Railways Board has not even put forward its plans for electrification of the line? Is he aware that, as soon as electrification is authorised, it will make good sense to the travelling public and to the unemployed in the area served by the line?

The overall programme has not yet been put forward on the terms set out by the Government last summer.

Is there any point in considering any future investment in the railways? It will merely give Mr. Raymond Buckton further opportunities to create havoc and—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question, not put forward an argument.

Is is undeniable that the present wretched strike is doing great damage and raising difficult issues about the future finances of, and investment in, the railways. I repeat to my hon. Friend the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr)—that investment and productivity go together. We cannot expect one without the other.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what are the total numbers of deaths and serious injuries to motor cyclists on roads since 1970.

In the 11½ years up to June 1981, it is estimated that 10,800 motor cyclists were killed and 198,000 seriously injured in road accidents in Great Britain.

Does the Minister agree that that is an awful total? Is he not concerned that these accidents have occurred during a period when the British market has been dominated by Japanese imports? Is he aware that according to many experts those parents who allow their son or daughter to buy a motor cycle are encouraging them to take up a more dangerous pursuit than to be a Spitfire pilot in 1940? Will he seek urgent consultations with Japanese exporters, as the French have done, to sort out the hyprocrisy whereby motor cycles are imported into this country that are not allowed on Japanese roads?

I regret that the British have allowed their motor cycle industry to be dominated by the Japanese. However, I do not believe that: this factor is directly related to present road safety problems. I had the support of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) on the Transport Bill in 1981 when the Government proposed a package of measures to try to curb the appalling number of road accidents. We are making good progress in putting those provisions into effect. We hope to have the whole package under way during 1982.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that this alarming increase in casualties cloaks a great increase in the number of motor cyclists on the road? In terms of casualties per motor cycle mile, the safety figures are improving.

In terms of casualty figures per mile travelled the figures are improving, but they are still very bad compared with all other vehicles. It is 30 times more dangerous to be a motor cyclist on the road than it is to drive any other form of vehicle. That underlines the urgent need for the Government's package of motor cycle safety measures to be brought into effect.

hes asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of total trunk road and motorway construction and maintenance expenditure in 1981–82.

£610 million.

Is the Minister not concerned about the considerable underspend on this vital work? What is to happen to the £52 million for 1981-82? It will presumably revert to the Treasury. Is that not particularly galling to the Minister, bearing in mind that trunk road schemes amounting to £4,000 million are outstanding? Does he not recognise that the principal reason for opposition to proposals for heavier lorries is that there are not adequate bypasses?

I regret that there is an underspend. It has been caused by the very keen contract prices that have been received compared with our estimates and further compounded by the bad weather, which has been delaying road construction. We are nevertheless delivering the roads programme that we promised at less cost to the taxpayer. The spend that we have achieved is 25 per cent. more in cash terms than in the previous year. This serves to underline the Government's efforts to continue to deliver the roads programme to time in future years and to build the roads that the country needs.

Is it not a tragedy that no figure appears in the current year's expenditure for completion of the M3 near Winchester? Does my hon. and learned Friend recognise that this road is vital for the whole of Hampshire? In giving it priority, I hope that he will not be distracted by the antics of a crowd of upper-class hooligans at Winchester?

The people I would describe as objectors to the scheme were delaying progress on the Popham to Bar End section by issuing a High Court writ challenging the orders made by the Government. I am glad to inform my hon. Friend that I hear that yesterday the writ was withdrawn by the objectors. We hope, therefore, to start construction of that scheme during this year. We are re-examining anxiously the controversial section of the bypass around Winchester. Our consulting engineers are making good progress. I believe that they are achieving a wide measure of agreement. I hope that we shall soon be back on course in replacing a dangerous stretch of road.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek to amend the law in order to clarify the rights of local authorities other than the Greater London Council to limit fares and sustain transport services.

No. I am not convinced that legislation is necessary.

Does the Secretary of State recall that the advice from the Government, including that of the Solicitor-General, when the Lords judgment was debated in the House was that the judgment affected only the Greater London Council? Is not the damage caused by the Conservatives of Bromley in bringing the action likely to affect many other areas? If the Government's advice that the Lords judgment affects only the GLC is sound, will the Secretary of State repeat it now and write to metropolitan authorities throughout the country to explain that that is the case?

I shall be meeting the Association of Metropolitan Authorities tomorrow. If there are problems that trouble its members, they will no doubt be raised. The association has not yet raised with me the question of legislation. What concerns the association and, indeed, people throughout the country is the need to achieve a sensible balance between the burden on ratepayers and the level of fares. It is only when one departs from common sense that difficulties arise.

I accept the need for balance. However, will the Secretary of State advise district councils, particularly in places such as Merseyside, where five district councils are trying to work out their budgets for the coming year and do not know what level of rate they should levy, how to find their way out of this quandary?

That is a matter for metropolitan and transport authorities to work out in making their budgets. Representatives of the association will be seeing me tomorrow. If there are problems, these will be raised. I have not so far been pressed on the need for legislation. The need, as I have already stated, is to achieve a balance between the ratepayer and the fare payer.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent problems of the GLC show that the methods of providing public transport support are not satisfactory? Does he further agree that the time has perhaps come for a thorough investigation into methods of sustaining public transport to avoid the sort of embarrassing situation in which both he and GLC ratepayers found themselves in recent months?

There is another question on the Order Paper relating to the GLC. I shall deal with this matter at that time.

Why is the Minister so grossly discourteous to his own Prime Minister on the issue? Does he not realise that during the passage of the 1969 legislation the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) totally approved of the principles outlined by the then Government that the GLC should be allowed to subsidise London Transport? Does he realise that the right hon. Lady's honour is at stake?

It is the reputation of the memory of the hon. Gentleman that is at stake. The Government have always made it clear that a reasonable level of subsidy is acceptable. That is reflected in our transport supplementary grant. We have also made it clear that propositions that would lead to a tripling of the rates and a tenfold increase in the rate element for public transport in any authority is absurd and unfair. It penalises those least able to protect themselves.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that, since the recent judgment, the law is clear? Does he recall a reference in the judgment to local authorities owing a fiduciary duty to their ratepayers? Is he aware that this has confused many local authorities? If my right hon. Friend agrees that there is confusion, does he think that early legislation might resolve the matter?

The Lords judgment related particularly to legislation affecting the GLC. There is another question on the Order Paper on that matter. The fiduciary duty has always existed and remains. If the metropolitan counties now have difficulty interpreting it, they will no doubt raise the matter tomorrow at our meeting. The question of legislation affecting metropolitan counties outside the GLC has not been raised.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what priorities he is giving to the various policies on cycling set out in his statement of 26 January.

The statement describes a range of measures to improve conditions for cyclists. All are important, but we shall give particular priority to encouraging the provision of better and safer routes.

Will the Minister confirm that when county councils make specific reference to cycle proposals in their transport policy programmes the Government will guarantee extra money for that purpose? Will he give some priority—he has indicated that he may do so—to cycle construction standards and to training, especially for children? Is he aware that so far all that we have had from the Government are fine words and no action? As cycling produces so many benefits to the community, when will we see some practical results?

We have given financial support to many experiments in Britain and we have produced the first cycling policy. We have asked counties to include cycling plans in their submissions for grant in their transport policy programmes. Although we cannot guarantee to meet every one, because there is a limit to local government expenditure on transport, we are encouraging them to put cycling plans in, because we wish to help. We have made provision for improving the standard of cycle construction and protecting the consumer. We already support the RoSPA cycle training proficiency scheme for schoolchildren. We are helping the society to improve that scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is now prepared to seek to amend the Transport (London) Act 1969.

As I told the House on 18 January, I am not prepared to legislate to let the GLC go back to its unbalanced policies which placed such huge burdens on ratepayers. I am prepared to introduce legislation on travel concessions for the elderly.

When will the Secretary of State introduce travel concessions for the elderly? In the light of yesterday's clear-cut decision by the House in favour of new legislation, is the right hon. Gentleman seriously saying that he will disregard the view of the House? Does he take pleasure in causing chaos to London Transport and distress to many Londoners?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is "Soon". As to causing chaos, one has only to look back over the past seven or eight months to see the failure of the experiment attempted by those at County Hall. I voted against the Bill proposed by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) because I did not wish Londoners to be exposed to the crucifying levels of rates with which they were being threatened. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on getting approval for it, but we shall have to see what progress the Bill makes on Second Reading.

Does the Secretary of State wish to see London exposed to even heavier traffic, heavier lorries, machines that cannot give change, odd amounts on the buses and the chaos that existed before we had a more sensible pricing system on our buses and tubes, which was one of the most sensible ideas that the GLC introduced, or does he have a policy that will bring people back to public transport and get traffic off the roads?

If the hon. Gentleman studied the matter with care he would see that successive Governments, including the Labour Government, concluded that indiscriminate subsidies of the sort that were being practised in the second half of last year are not necessarily the best answer and may not help the traffic problem. They damage business in central London, because of high rates, and create the sort of imbalance and difficulties that London travellers face today and which the Government are leaning over backwards to try to help the GLC to resolve. The GLC has brought the difficulties upon itself.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of my constituents are genuinely confused about the current difficulties and the responsibility for them? Does he agree that that confusion may be marginally reduced if the Labour majority on the GLC can agree on what it wishes to do?

It would be valuable if the GLC could now agree a budget, as it is entitled to do within the law and as it has been advised carefully, so that London Transport can settle down to a period of stability. It has a substantial subsidy of about £250 million. London takes by far the largest proportion of Britain's support for transport. On that basis it is possible to develop an efficient, low-cost system of transport in Greater London. I am sure that is the right way forward rather than attempting to go through the chaotic experiences of recent months.

The Secretary of State was probably as surprised as anyone by the House of Lords decision. The Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) will restore the law to what everyone thought it was. Taking account of the will of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that on Second Reading he will allow a free vote and will not connive with his Whips to avoid the decision of the House being repeated, which was that the GLC should have the powers that it believed it had and under which it believed it was operating legally?

I can give no guarantees about the progress of legislation in the House.

As the GLC reduced public transport fares by 25 per cent. less than five months ago—an act found subsequently to be illegal—will my right hon.

The problems created by the so-called bold experiment that led to the threatened large increase in fares had to be put right. The experiment was described by some as successful, but it is evident that it was running into severe difficulties even before the Lords judgment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Like what?"' The House of Lords declared that what was being pursued was illegal. It is necessary for the 1982 London Transport budget to be approved by the GLC so that some progress and stability can be achieved. It is regrettable that it involves a 100 per cent. increase in fares, but it is necessary to get London Transport back on track after the chaos of recent months.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the doubling will not bring the accounts completely into balance? The chairman of London Transport, when talking about traffic balance, said that after 21 March the cost will be 12p per mile for tube and bus passengers and that it would be cheaper for two people to travel in a private car. Is that the balance that the Secretary of State wishes to see in London Transport, or will he legislate in some other way so that, like every other city in the world, we can have a properly balanced system?

The balance must take into account from where the money comes. The hon. Gentleman cannot condone a policy that involves a tenfold increase in the transport element of rates for this year and a twentyfold increase next year. That would involve another £200 million or £300 million to be paid by London ratepayers. A fairer balance must be struck.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has yet received a proposal from British Railways for the electrification of the GlasgowKilmarnock-Carlisle railway line.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that it is widely reported the British Rail's proposals will not include the electrification of this line? Will he draw attention to the importance of the line in providing a direct link from the south to Prestwick, an alternative to the Motherwell line and a direct service for the people of Auchinleck, Cunmock and Kilmarnock, and ask British Rail to include it in the electrification programme?

I should be surprised if it were included, because it was not included in the larger option in the joint review carried out by British Rail and the Government last year. There are other lines to which I would expect British Rail to give higher priority. Some services are run by Strathclyde regional council, but even that council is giving higher priority to the line to Ayr. I admire the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm, but I cannot hold out the hope that this line will have a high priority.

Will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the majority of the railway line runs through my constituency, that it is a most important link between London and Glasgow and that it also carries the boat train to Stranraer? Will he provoke British Rail into giving the line high priority and ensure that the inter-city train stops at a station in my constituency?

I wish that I could say that the discovery of the constituency through which the line runs would affect the statement that I have just made, but we are waiting for British Rail's programme on electrification. The Government and the board wish to consider the future of the railways and to plan for that. We can then decide the priorities in the Strathclyde region.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress towards bypassing all historic towns.

Over half of the historic towns on trunk roads which could benefit from a bypass now have one, and schemes are planned for almost all the rest. In my review of the trunk road programme, which will be published next week, I am giving priority to the need to make room for a number of other urgent bypasses. As for local roads, I gave priority to bypasses in the recent transport supplementary grant allocation and I intend to continue doing so.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Before he produces the report next week, will he look at the sums again to see whether a marked advance in the bypass programme should take place, especially in view of the Armitage report and its implications for historic towns and the environment?

The bypass scheme is now very large. The traffic and local schemes now under construction will relieve about 100 towns and villages, with another 120 benefiting from schemes starting in the next two years. I am considering whether the programme can be speeded up.

Does that include the northern part of the bypass round York, which is subject to the TSG allocation?

I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman about that matter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was Sir Robert Peel's manifesto that made Tamworth historic? In the light of his inspector's inability and utter failure to deliver his report on the Tamworth section of the M42 following a public inquiry two years ago, does my right hon. Friend agree that this is now the Tamworth fiasco? Will he obtain an undertaking from the inspector that his Department will receive his report by 31 March?

I am as concerned as my hon. Friend about the delay. We will do everything possible to expedite the matter.

When are the bypass schemes that the Secretary of State has just announced estimated to finish? Until they are finished, will he delay the introduction of heavier lorries on British roads?

I announced a programme of bypasses. I said that 120 communities would benefit from schemes starting in the next two years. A total of 150 bypasses are included in the trunk road programme. It is a rolling and continuing programme. Many communities and villages will be relieved as motorways are completed. It is necessary to deal with the whole of freight transportation, including freight by rail. At the moment there are difficulties with such transport. It is necessary to treat all those factors as a whole. They must advance together on all fronts.

Has my right hon. Friend observed that those who are opposing his proposals for heavier lorries are showing photographs of a large TIR lorry passing a church with its spire on the ground in Brookland in my constituency? Does he appreciate that I have been pressing him for a number of years for a bypass to avoid that bad corner? The photograph hints that lorries have knocked the spire off the church. That is not true. Will my right hon. Friend press on with the bypass for Brookland?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing to my attention the locality of the photograph to which he refers. I shall investigate further the point that he raised. I have said enough about the general bypass programme to show the House that it is substantial. I am looking at it to see whether it can be speeded up even more.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Railways to discuss further modernisation of the rail network; and if he will make a statement.

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

Does my right hon. Friend take the view that if disruption continues on the railways, future modernisation and investment are bound to be at risk? Will he bear in mind the competing needs of the road network for more public funds? Will he also bear in mind the need for more bypasses to be provided in my constituency, to name but one area?

To take one area—the bypass in my hon. Friend's constituency—I am aware of the discussions about the possibility of our paying a 100 per cent. grant for the Leighton—Linslade bypass. I hope that we shall be able to do so. However, I can make no promises. With regard to the broader question of resources, it is correct that deep damage is being caused by the wretched rail strike. There will be a clear necessity to press ahead with a great many measures to overcome the losses on the railways.

May I bring the Secretary of State back to the question on the Order Paper? Is he not aware that any investment and modernisation of British Rail will have to come out of the external financing limit, which he has increased by a rate that is substantially less than the rate of inflation anticipated by the Treasury? Is he also aware that that entire increase in the EFL for next year will be wiped out by the borrowings of recent weeks? As his Government encouraged British Rail to go ahead with that borrowing in recent weeks, will he at the least make sure that British Rail is not penalised by an unreaslistic level of EFL next year, which will mean that there will be no modernisation, no investment, and little maintenance of the railway network?

The value of the EFL for next year has been maintained in real terms. The real need is for all concerned, including those in the other railway unions, to urge the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen to end its destructive strike and to recognise, along with those other unions, that increased pay, productivity and investment go hand in hand. That is where the future of the railways lies. That is the way that we were going, although not at a speed that everyone wanted, before this wretched strike. There is no doubt that the longer the strike continues, the more it will jeopardise the jobs of many people on the railways and the future of many projects.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be extremely unfair on the majority of railwaymen in the National Union of Railwaymen, on the British Railways Board and on the travelling public if ASLEF's tactics were to result in the long term in the jobs of NUR and of most of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association members being put at risk? There is some doubt about this matter. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the British Railways Board, ASLEF, NUR and TSSA all signed the same document, and that all except ASLEF are willing to abide by what they signed? Is that not the reality? Has my right hon. Friend any reason to believe either that the four signatories were not sober or that they were not aware of what they were signing?

As the inquiry is meeting now, it is wrong for me to comment on the merits of the dispute. There is no doubt that the strike is causing deep damage both in the short and longer term. As the future of the railways depends on its customers, and as the customers are at present in an awkward plight, particularly the long-suffering commuters, all that spells "bad" for the railways. The sooner that all concerned press ASLEF to lift its silly strike, the better.

rose—

Order. I propose to call two more Back Benchers before I call Front Bench Members.

I shall revert to the question on the Order Paper. How can the Secretary of State say that an increase in the EFL of only £30 million maintains the value of that limit in real terms? If he wants to make a constructive intervention in the current dispute—he has obviously been using this question to make an intervention in the dispute—why does he not tell the British Railways Board to stick to the law, because every successive piece of transport legislation requires it to adhere to the existing machinery of negotiation? By going outside that machinery of negotiation the British Railways Board is breaking the law.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also make a constructive intervention. The most constructive intervention that he could make—I believe that he realises this—is to urge ASLEF to end its damaging strike, which is benefiting no one on the railways, no one in the unions, none of the railways' customers, and no part of the future of British Rail. He should urge ASLEF to recognise that increased pay and increased productivity must go together. That must be where the future of the railways lies.

When he next meets the chairman of British Rail, will my right hon. Friend tell him that many people have managed to do well without the services of British Rail over the last few weeks, a position that is likely to continue after the strike is over? Will he impress upon him that many people, certainly in the area that I represent, are fed up to the back teeth with being led by the nose by a small group of people in ASLEF who are apparently determined to destroy the livelihoods of people in my constituency?

I recognise that there is strong feeling and that many commuters have been extremely long—suffering and have gone through difficult times. However, my hon. Friend's question also reminds the House that the future of the railways depends on its customers. If the failure to increase productivity and to maintain the progress that was beginning to develop last year continues, customers will go away, which will damage the railway system. It is the customers whom the railways are designed to serve.

Will the Secretary of State respond to the point that I put to him by letter earlier this week, drawing his attention to how highly damaging it was to the already slim prospects of resolving the current rail dispute for him to leave uncorrected the newspaper reports that suggest that the Government are considering a further curtailment of British Rail investment in the light of the dispute? Will he tell those of his hon. Friends who suggest that railway investment is being curtailed as a result of the dispute that they are grossly misrepresenting the facts and that the Government had curtailed railway investment long before the dispute? Will he tell them that the dispute is now proceeding on an issue that has been put before an inquiry in which a union is properly contending that a major nationalised industry has failed to carry out its obligations within the railways' negotiating machinery?

There is a perfectly realistic message, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will convey to those who are causing disruption on the railways. It is that if they pursue that disruption, and if they believe that higher pay can be achieved without productivity, or that new investment and equipment can be provided without de—manning and new work practices, they will cause untold damage. ASLEF would be wise to desist from its disruption.

But the right hon. Gentleman has gone into the merits.

I hope that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) will make quite clear the view that I hope he shares with me that the ASLEF disruption being imposed on the railways and other railway workers is deeply damaging to the future of our railway system, and that ASLEF should desist.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received figures for road accidents for the nearest convenient period which includes Christmas 1981; and how these figures compare with previous years.

I regret to say that the information will not be available for several months.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that helpful reply. Based on previous figures, is the trend rising or falling?

The trend has been falling for many years. We hope that that will continue. There is no case for being complacent, which is why the Government are taking steps on motor cycle safety, drink and drive and the totting-up laws.

Why is it that all Government Departments, especially Transport, take months and months to provide information that should be available within a few days? The Department of Transport has computers, electronic aids and staff, yet cannot provide information on what happened last week. Will the Minister ask his staff to give effect to the words of a famous man, and get their fingers out?

I cannot always claim that my Department reacts with great speed, but in the case in question the delay is being caused by police and local authorities, which must analyse a large number of national figures.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had so far from industry supporting the Government's White Paper on "Lorries, People and the Environment."

The CBI, the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, and many other employers and trade associations have supported our White Paper, with its comprehensive approach to the lorry problem, which meets both environmental and economic needs. Companies in the food, chemical, building materials, motor and other industries have also welcomed our proposals.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, provided Armitage's recommendations are carried out, the introduction of 40-tonne lorries will bring environmental benefits to Britain, as well as cost benefits to the consumer? Does he further agree that if we do not allow a heavier lorry in Britain it will be a serious blow to the British truck industry, which needs a domestic market to develop such a vehicle if it is ever to compete successfully overseas?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is not often that an issue arises when three valuable objectives can be advanced at once, namely, improvements in the environment, improvement in industrial competitiveness and improvement in the prospect for jobs. It will also provide export opportunities. When such an opportunity arises, we would be unwise to turn it down.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the representations in the world from various organisations will not convince the British public that they can trust the freight transport industry? Does he agree that for a long time that industry has let down the public by allowing lorries into places where they should not go, damaging the environment beyond repair and beyond endurance? Does he not realise that before he gets the support of the House for a 40-tonne lorry, the road transport industry must do a great deal more to convince the public that it will behave better in future?

The hon. Gentleman is looking at the issue from too narrow a basis. The reality is that road freight in Britain is considerable, and is bound to increase with economic growth—whether or not the railways succeed in winning back more freight. It is necessary to pursue a comprehensive approach that harmonises the environment with extensive road freight. The Government's White Paper shows the way forward, and pro-environmentalists who oppose it are on the wrong side of the argument.

rose—

Order. This subject arises again on question 13.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future financing of British Railways.

The external financing limit for 1982–83 has been set at £950 million, which is the same level in real terms as the external financing limit originally set for 1981–82.

What action will the Minister take to bring a just settlement to the dispute on the railways by bringing British Rail and the railway unions together? In view of the disastrous effect of the Government's financial and industrial policies on British industry generally, will the hon. and learned Gentleman agree not to use this dispute as an excuse to privatise sections of the railway industry?

We do not believe that Government intervention would be helpful at the present time. We hope that ACAS and Lord McCarthy will succeed in bringing together all the parties to achieve a sensible settlement. The Government have a long-standing agreement with British Rail to introduce private capital into its hotels and Sealink. That was agreed with Sir Peter Parker two years ago. I am sure that we shall soon see that agreement being fulfilled.

Will my hon. and learned Friend make it quite clear that the Government will not increase the EFL to cover the losses caused by the strike, and that, if money is needed for investment in the railways, far from introducing private capital, the Government will now encourage the British Railways Board to sell off its non-railway assets lock, stock and barrel, and without the condition, that the hotels should continue to operate an NUR closed shop?

The Government will have to consider the long-term financial problems that the strike is causing. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we wish to look to the long-term future once some common sense is achieved. On the question of non-railway assets, it would be of great benefit to the hotels business and Sealink if they were free of public sector constraints and had access to private capital. On that basis, the Government and the board are pursuing the policy of privatisation which, I hope, will soon reach a successful conclusion.

Mr. Robert Hughes.

Is the Minister aware that the continual insistence—

Order. I called the hon. Gentleman in the hope that he would ask the next question on the Order Paper. Is he asking a supplementary question on No. 12

With permission, Mr. Speaker, my question arises on question 12. Is not the Government's insistence on linking investment with industrial relations in the railway industry making it difficult to gain the trust of the unions on future plans?

Public investment must achieve a real return and a real economic benefit. An essential part of that is to improve the productivity and performance of the railways. That goes hand in hand with common sense. If the railways fail to achieve higher productivity, that makes it difficult for the Government to contemplate beginning vast programmes of electrification or investment.

Does my hon. and learned Friend believe that future financing should be made conditional upon British Rail and the unions reducing manning levels to realistic figures?

We must examine the financial needs of the railways in the light of all circumstances, including trading conditions, business performance and productivity. We have done that with flexibility and realism during the past two or three years. In the long run, the health of the railways depends on getting rid of overmanning, restrictive working practices and operating the railways as a modern railway should be operated. The two go inextricably hand in hand.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consult local authorities on aspects of his White Paper on "Lorries, People and the Environment" other than the draft construction and use regulations.

My Department is consulting the local authority associations on a number of aspects of the White Paper. These include lorry controls, the effects of lorry weights on bridges, techniques for assessing the environmental effect of lorries, and the improvement of enforcement procedures.

Is it not true that the consultations that the Minister is having with local authorities on the construction and use regulations are under a time limit? Es it not true also that local authorities believe that that is all that the Government are concerned about before they bring these proposals back? Will the Minister make it clear that the right consultations with local authorities on all aspects of the Government's White Paper will be completed before he brings the draft construction and use regulations back to the House for approval or otherwise?

The situation is not quite as the hon. Gentleman says. I have already had discussions—for instance with the ACC—on a wide range of issues, as well as on the construction and use aspects. These are all matters on which I am consulting, and on which the Government intend to bring forward and develop constructive policies on the lines set out in the White Paper.

rose—

Order. I shall call one hon. Member from the Government Benches to hold the balance.

Although I wish to associate myself with the earlier remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury), does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government proposals contained in the White Paper would be much more acceptable to the overwhelming majority of people who are concerned about the environment if the proposals went along with an increase in and speeding up of the designation of commercial routes for heavy vehicles so that rural and country routes and lanes, which at present are used by the existing weight of vehicle and for which the loads were not designed, would be protected and that the Government would therefore get much more support for what is good for British—

Order.

I agree with the general thrust of my hon. Friend's question and statement. It is clear that designating routes so that lorries do not go on roads for which they were never designed or built must be part of a better environmental future. We are discussing with local authorities as a matter of urgency how to carry out the designation of lorry routes, but my hon. Friend should realise that passing lorries down one route inevitably creates problems for the people who live there. One person's problem is another person's gain. That is the difficulty.

Order. Questions and answers have been inordinately long this afternoon. That cuts out people who have the right to expect their questions to be called. I shall allow two minutes extra at 3.30 pm

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether the Government have any further plans for the dispersal of Civil Service jobs to Scotland.

There are at present no plans to extend the Government's dispersal programme beyond what was announced on 26 July 1979.

Is it not a damning indictment of the Government's policies that one of the few growth areas in the Civil Service in Scotland recently has been the employment of more professional snoopers for the harassment of the unemployed and other people receiving benefit, when the Government should be creating more employment in Scotland, for example, by shifting the entire Department of Energy from London to the west of Scotland to compensate for the public asset-stripping of the British National Oil Corporation, which the Labour Government founded and which has its headquarters in Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question seems to have little to do with his original question, and I repudiate his suggestions.

On the question of the dispersal of civil servants throughout the regions, does the Minister agree that an important element in the recruitment of civil servants in the regions is their pay? In their current pay negotiations, do the Government intend to vary the pay offer according to the regional location of the employees? Bearing that in mind, when does the hon. Gentleman expect the negotiations to be concluded, and when will he come to the House with news of those negotiations?

Negotiations about this year's pay claim have started with the Civil Service and an offer will be made by the Government fairly soon. It would not be right to make any further comments at this stage.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what are the responsibilities of the second permanent secretary in the Management and Personnel Office.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 12 November, the second permanent secretary, Mr. John Cassels, assists the permanent secretary, Sir Robert Armstrong, in the business of the Management and Personnel Office, and details of the MPO's functions were set out in the note placed in the Library on that day.

Does the Minister agree that at least three permanent secretaries are now responsible for the Civil Service, and that two Departments are responsible for the Civil Service where there was one Department before? Does he agree that that is not a very efficient way to run the Civil Service and that it is not a good way to secure progressive personnel policies? Will he see whether a better and more efficient system can be found?

The hon. Gentleman made that observation in the debate on the transfer of function orders on 20 January. It was wrong then, and it is wrong today.

Will the Minister explain what has happened to the action document that he promised, outlining the function and role of the new Management and Personnel Office? Is not the document already six weeks behind time, and is not the delay a recognition of the fact that, instead of resolving the old shortcomings of the Civil Service Department, the Government have created an administrative nightmare and now find it impossible to draw meaningful lines of demarcation between the Cabinet Office and the Treasury?

The preparation of the action document by my right hon. and noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy is well in hand, and it will be made available to the Select Committee and others as soon as it is ready.

Who is responsible within my hon. Friend's Department for checking the amount of time off that is permitted to civil servants to follow trade union activities? Are press reports correct that it costs £14 million? What steps will be taken to ensure that expenses of this kind are not incurred on behalf of taxpayers?

All Ministers in charge of Departments take responsibility for the work of their Departments. Perhaps I should remind my hon. Friend that the facilities agreement under which time off is given to civil servants to be involved in industrial relations matters was made in 1974. It has been and is under review by the Government. It is also important to note that there are legal requirements for such time off to be given. Clearly it is important that the Government, as an employer, meet their legal requirements.

Is it not clear that the recent changes in the Civil Service are designed to discipline it rather than to improve it

No. That suggestion has no foundation.

Order. We now return to Transport Questions.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can it be right that my question 56, which was tabled to the Minister for the Civil Service, can be transferred to another Department without the Member being informed

Is is customary to inform hon. Members, but will the hon. Member allow questions to continue and raise the matter with me later, because, in any case, the question on the Order Paper is addressed to the Secretary of State for Industry. I do not know what has happened.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will now make a statement about the route of the A27 trunk road between Havant and Chichester.

I have today announced the decision of my right hon. Friends, following a public inquiry, to proceed with the Department's published proposals for a new route for the A27 between Havant and Chichester, subject to further consultations on a number of modifications proposed by the inspector.

I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I am also grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for what he has said. I congratulate and thank my hon. and learned Friend for the judgment that he has made and for his willingness to respond to public opinion, to reject the recommendation of the inspector's report on the matter and to choose the route which, as a result, will be built much sooner, save many lives, and will not encroach into the countryside to the north.

I thank my hon. Friend for supporting what was not an easy decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to introduce regulations on the compulsory wearing of seat belts.

I laid a statement of my proposals before Parliament on 8 December. I am required to allow at least three months from that date to elapse before I lay the regulations themselves. I expect therefore to lay them as soon as practicable after 8 March.

When preparing the regulations, will my right hon. Friend consider the need to ensure standardisation of seat belts? Difficulties are caused to drivers by the wide variety of release mechanisms and strap adjustments on the market.

Release mechanisms are more or less standard on vehicles built since 1973, but I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's request. There are mechanisms on the market which can be adjusted up and down for different sized drivers. Moreover, the anchorage points by the shoulder can be relocated lower or higher depending on the driver's size.

Given the practice in most other Western European countries, is the right hon. Gentleman giving due weight to the unanimous opinion of taxi drivers that they should be exempt from the need to wear seat belts owing to the nature of their duties?

The official consultation period has now ended, but I am carefully considering representations. including those from taxi drivers.

As each week's delay results in the loss of about 15 lives, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the regulations are introduced as soon as the law allows?

I am bound by the law. The debate on the regulations is expected in March or April and, if they are approved, it will be followed by a running-in period, which is vital. The regulations will then be brought into force in the summer.

As there is irrefutable evidence from throughout the world that lives have been lost because people have been compelled to wear seat belts, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the regulations enable the next of kin of a person who loses his or her life through wearing a seat belt to obtain compensation from the Department of Transport? Surely that must be regarded as a fair and reasonable request, whether or not one is in favour of wearing seat belts.

These matters have been fully debated and answered in Parliament.

My right hon. Friend must answer "Yes".

These matters have been fully debated and Parliament decided that I should be required to act. I shall bring forward regulations. We shall carefully consider all requests for exemption, but the broader point raised by the hon. Gentleman was taken into account when Parliament reached its majority decision. Hon. Members had the opportunity to express their views at that time