asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any representations from London Transport concerning the current legislation affecting London Transport fares.

My right hon. Friend has discussed the whole position with both London Transport management and unions. It is now two months since he asked the GLC to prepare urgently a balanced plan for meeting London's transport needs more effectively and cheaply within the substantial resources available. When this has been done he will be able to consider whether the implementation of such a strategy requires any clarification in the law.

Is it not a fact, however, that London Transport has made the strongest possible representations to the Secretary of State because, as a result of the Law Lords' decision, it is unable to exercise its present management functions? In particular, London Transport does not know whether it would be legal to make capital investment at present. Therefore, is it not utterly frustrated and desperate for legislation?

There is a misunderstanding. As I made clear in the recent debate on London Transport, its position is secure. Considerable resources are available to the GLC, and it is up to the GLC to produce the balanced plan to which I have referred. Large fare increases or large service cuts are not necessary.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some hon. Members are becoming fed up and impatient with the GLC's failure to react to the Secretary of State's invitiation? Will my hon. Friend assure us that if action is not taken soon by the GLC, my right hon. Friend will step in and take action himself?

I fully understand my hon. Friend's comments. There is widespread support for removing responsibility for London Transport from the GLC.

Where?

We have been examining urgently a number of ideas. My hon. Friend will know that we are awaiting the report of the Select Committee on Transport, which is expected soon. My right hon. Friend is determined to have a better deal for London, and will act as necessary.

May I remedy this misunderstanding? Is it not clear that by sitting around and doing nothing while London Transport sinks into chaos the Secretary of State for Transport is failing to carry out the job for which he is paid?

The right hon. Gentleman must appreciate the responsibility that rests on the GLC. My right hon. Friend wrote again to the leader of the GLC on 10 May reminding him of the need to produce for London this realistic and balanced transport plan that takes account of the substantial resources that are likely to be available, and to provide better bus and tube services by targeting resources more effectively. My right hon. Friend said that he would be glad to hear from the leader of the GLC about how work on the plan was proceeding. Now it is up to the GLC to respond.

When did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last meet the leader of the GL C to discuss London Transport, and when will something be done about the overmanning and inefficiency that lead to high fares which London people find quite unacceptable?

My hon. Friend will forgive me if I cannot reply exactly to the first part of his question, but thy, last meeting took place about six or seven weeks ago. I emphasise to my hon. Friend the importance of the correspondence that my right hon. Friend has had with the leader of the GLC. All the matters to which he has referred with regard to the conduct of transport in the city are matters for London Transport, on which we are urging it to discharge its responsibility fully.

Will the Under-Secretary confirm that London Transport has estimated that the fare increases it has been forced to make will result in a 17 per cent. drop in bus passengers and a 12 per cent. drop in tube passengers, and that that points to London Transport being forced to operate only a skeleton transport service for a largely stay-at-home London population?

Fares are too high, but that is the fault of the GLC for the crazy circumstances that it has produced. The reports of loss of patronage and services from the GLC are exaggerated, because it is mainly bringing scheduled services into line with those needed.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many recent representations have been made to him expressing concern over the use of lead in petrol.

The Department received 82 letters in the first four months of 1982.

The Minister will appreciate that I am somewhat surprised at the small number of letters received, but I am sure that she is aware that there is immense public concern over this issue. Is she able to give an assurance that her Department will support: the complete removal of lead from petrol if the three surveys commissioned by the Medical Research Council, at the Government's request, support the view that even low lead levels in petrol are dangerous to children?

I understand and fully appreciate the concern about lead in petrol, but we must take account of the fact that by 1985 we shall have reduced by two-thirds the current level of lead in petrol. That is the greatest reduction that there has ever been, and no other European country is going further than that.

Is it not a fact that in the United States an option is available? Consumers there can use leaded or unleaded petrol, and the cost argument does not seem to carry the same weight with the American authorities as it does with this Government? Are not the Government held captive by the representations of the oil companies?

No. The position is different in the United States, as I think the hon. Gentleman is aware. First, for many years the American Government have sought to deal with pollutants other than just lead in petrol. About half the petrol sold in the United States is lead free, and the average amount of lead in their petrol is 0·13g per litre. In dealing with other forms of pullutant, the United States car manufacturers have completely changed their exhaust systems in a different way from our manufacturers, and that is why this is much more complicated than hon. Members sometimes suggest.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on the Armitage committee report proposal on heavy lorries.

I hope to do so shortly.

An essential element of the Armitage report was the speeding up of bypass construction and the creation of new bypasses. In written replies to me the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that there will be no such speeding up in Scotland and no new bypasses in the Scottish programme. If the Secretary of State for Transport is foolish enough to allow these juggernauts on to the roads of England, will he ensure that they stop at the border?

The overall commitment to more bypasses has substantially increased——

Not in Scotland.

and during the next two years more than 220 new communities will be bypassed with projects now about to start. I believe that that is part of the Armitage approach, as are steps to ensure that vehicles are improved, and that there is improved control over where they go, to keep them away from villages and high streets, and improved enforcement. Those changes are widely needed and they will be welcomed by those who suffer from the effects of heavy goods vehicles.

Does not my right hon. Friend sometimes feel that those who have studied Armitage least are most vociferous in their objections to the overall proposals? Will he take every opportunity to stress that there is an overall package in Armitage that has substantial environmental advantages for our people as well as the oft-quoted disadvantage of heavier lorries?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is entirely correct. The Government and the Armitage report propose that a serious problem—that of the impact of heavy goods vehicles on the environment—which has got worse over the years, should now be gripped and tackled comprehensively by improving the vehicles, improving the control over where they go, improving enforcement and by other measures. I am sure that that is needed. It should have been done before, and I believe that it is overdue.

Is the Minister satisfied that, along with the move towards heavy lorries, if that is inevitable, safety standards will be maintained? Has he concerned himself with braking standards for these larger vehicles; with under-run guards side and rear; and with the fact that it will be far more difficult for a young driver of 21 to move straight to 38-tonne and 40-tonne vehicles?

I am concerned with all the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. As to the heavier payload on existing containers, I know the hon. Gentleman realises that we are not talking about, nor would we tolerate, larger trailer containers. We are talking about a larger payload on the existing trailers, but with improved braking and standards for side and under-run guards. I believe that that is very necessary.

Why should it be necessary, in terms of competition, for the United Kingdom to have heavier lorries or heavier axle loadings than West Germany?

In practice, axle loadings throughout Western Europe are similar. Indeed, in many countries they are higher than here. If there is to be a heavier payload on existing trailers—we certainly shall not tolerate larger ones—it is better spread over five axles than over four.

Notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) said about the important recommendations in the Armitage report, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in their written submissions to him the local government organisations have not changed their view despite the publication of his White Paper? Will he also confirm that their view is that the British road system is already pathetically inadequate to cope with the existing number of heavy lorries and that his proposals to increase lorry weights will seriously worsen an already bad situation?

The local authorities have developed their views and recognise the urgent need to tackle the heavy lorry problem, not to duck it as the hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting and which I believe would be wholly wrong. Heavy goods vehicles damage roads and bridges, but there will be no question of additional damage in any heavier payload or any heavier maximum weight. Nevertheless, the damage from heavy goods vehicles already exists, and that must be tackled vigorously.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria he uses to assess the efficiency and productivity of passenger transport executives in major conurbations; and how London Transport compares in these respects.

Detailed comparisons of relative LT performance would require large-scale analysis, but I understand that in 1980 LT bus costs, for example, were 40 per cent. higher than those of the passenger transport executives, and its vehicle miles per staff employed were far and away the lowest compared with PTEs, municipal operators and the National Bus Company.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is all too easy to talk about cheaper fares and increased grants without too much thought about where the cash will come from? Will he ensure that in any conclusions he reaches on London Transport the highest priority is given to the control of costs and an improvement in efficiency, otherwise public subsidies will be no better than in a bottomless bucket?

Fares in London are certainly too high, but my hon. Friend is correct. There is ample scope for the GLC to get fares down and to increase efficiency, given the very large subsidy that it already receives, and has received in the past, and given the enormous opportunities, one of which I have indicated in my answer, for cutting costs and increasing efficiency. Having recently visited various European cities to see their transport systems, I am absolutely convinced that the GLC has plenty of opportunity to cut costs, increase efficiency and reduce fares if only it takes that opportunity.

We understand from press statements that the Secretary of State is considering the possibility of, in effect, renationalising London Transport and taking it away from the GLC. In those circumstances, does he intend to fund and subsidise London Transport in the future entirely from the taxpayer so that, unique among all the conurbations, the ratepayers of London would no longer make a contribution to keeping fares down?

A number of proposals have been made, including ones by the chairman of London Transport, for a reorganisation of the relationship between the GLC and LT and possibly a divorce between the two. I have indicated that the Government are also considering those proposals and the possibilities of a new transport structure. However, the first requirement is that, instead of merely asking for the law to be restored and rates again to go up, the GLC should get on with the opportunities available to it. If it does not, as was said earlier, more fundamental changes will have to be considered.

Do not these figures demonstrate that the GLC is incapable of running London Transport? Is it not essential not merely to take London Transport away from the GLC, but to abolish that ridiculous body?

My hon. Friend tempts me on to wider questions. The issue of whether there should be a separate transport authority, possibly both rate and tax-funded, or whether it should continue to be part of the GLC, is now on the table. The Select Committee on Transport is looking at this, and I look forward with the greatest interest to its proposals.

Get rid of the GLC. That is the answer.

If the Secretary of State feels strongly about the efficiency of the London Transport Executive, as compared with other transport authorities, will he fairly acknowledge that on the test of passenger journeys made per mile, operated, on the latest figures available. London Transport is more efficient than any metropolitan county? Is this not a much more appropriate way of examining the efficiency of authorities than the sort of yardstick quoted by his hon. Friends?

One has to examine the passenger cost per mile, which is £1·97 in London compared with £1·42 in the other PTEs and £1·26 in the other municipal bus companies. One has to examine low bus miles per staff employed. A number of indicators need to be examined, but whichever way the right hon. Gentleman turns them—upside down or sideways—he will find that, basically, London Transport is relatively inefficient and that there is substantial room for improvement.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will study the efficiency of motorway repair arrangements with the aim of reducing the length of motorway lane not in use and the associated accidents.

We are constantly reviewing repair techniques and methods of traffic management during motorway maintenance work to minimise the risks and delays to road users and to obtain the best possible value for money.

I welcome the steps that the Minister is taking, but does she realise that the road transport industry, while accepting the need for repairs and for the safety of those involved in the repair work, feels genuine concern about some of the costs and accidents that may arise from our complex repair system?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's facts, but it is important that we take those steps by lengthening the coning and the crossover—measures that bring safety. The hon. Gentleman is right, in that the cost of accidents is one of the heavy costs that would otherwise have to be borne.

Is my hon. Friend aware that problems arise not only on motorways? On Monday 2 May, al the junction of the A20 and the A222, hundreds of cars and thousands of people were held up by a dozen or so cones. They reduced the traffic from two lanes to one, although there was no need for them, and they could have been removed and replaced in a matter of two minutes. Will my hon. Friend hold a full investigation into the case, and in particular into why Sidcup police station did nothing? Will she treat this as a typical example of the unnecessary delays that occur?

I shall look into the incident that my right hon. Friend has described, but of which I did not have notice. There are obviously occasions when something stupid happens, as in the incident described by my right hon. Friend. I shall make sure that all steps are taken to reduce human error, whether it is the failure to indicate use of the hard shoulder, or something else.

Is my hon. Friend aware that drivers between London and Leicestershire gloomily contemplate one long stretch of roadworks as they drive along the M1? Will my hon. Friend particularly consider the occasional occurrence when long stretches of road are coned off although no work is going on, no plant or materials are stored and there is no indication of any intended activity?

There are probably two reasons for the frustration that every motorist feels, as I do, on driving up the M1. First, we are extending the two-lane section to three-lanes, and the work on that is proceeding on target. Secondly, lanes appear to be, but are not, coned off unnecessarily. Often when no work seems to be going on on the motorway the carriageway is drying out after repairs. It would be a waste of taxpayers' money if we were prematurely to allow traffic back on to it. It would simply mean further repairs to those sections well in advance of when they should be necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on new road construction in the past three years at constant prices.

At average 1980–81 prices, motorway and trunk road capital expenditure in England was £440 million in 1979–80, £407 million in 1980–81 and £452 million in 1981–82. The corresponding figures for local roads are £414 million, £429 million and £343 million. In both cases the 1981–82 figures are estimates.

As it is the Government's aim to improve the competitiveness of British industry, and as a better road system would contribute to that, does my hon. Friend not think that we should be spending far more on new road construction than we have in recent years?

In 1981–82 we carried out far more work than was anticipated, because of the lower tendering prices, and in 1980–81 we opened 75 miles of motorway and 97 miles of new trunk roads. In the past two years we have started 62 miles of new motorway and 91 miles of new trunk roads. We shall do all that we can within our budget to make sure that motorway and trunk road building goes ahead as speedily as possible.

While the Minister is busy trying to pat herself on the back for the success of the road programme, is she aware that in my home city of Manchester road maintenance in 1981–82 was cut by 22·5 per cent. in real terms as against 1975, and that the roads are falling to pieces? When will the Government find some money for the roads in Manchester?

Many local authorities last year underspent the money that was allocated to them for their road programmes. It is up to individual local authorities to decide their priorities. Overall, the transport supplementary grant was highly favourable to most local authorities, and some had a 100 per cent. grant.

What has happened to the idea of using private money for road construction?

We are discussing that further, and there are excellent possibilities. We may be able before long to use private capital in road building.

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

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

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is now in a position to make a statement about the Channel tunnel.

The joint Anglo-French report has been submitted to both sides. Discussions with the French Government are continuing.

rose——

Order. I shall call first the three hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Does the Secretary of State agree that there is no near or projected need for a Channel tunnel and that none of the groups that have put forward schemes has done so without wanting some direct or indirect subsidy, guarantee, or indirect support from British Rail, the Common Market or the British Government? Will my right hon. Friend at least give an assurance that British taxpayers' money will not be used to support this white elephant, which seems to be supported only by contractors, consultants and fanatical supporters of the Common Market?

I can give my hon. Friend the firm assurance that the Government are committed to private finance. The Government believe that if a decision is taken in principle to go ahead with a Channel fixed link, it should be done without recourse to public funds.

Will my hon. Friend make it clear that he gives due weight, and nothing more, to those who, for political or even commercial, reasons, are mounting campaigns against the Channel tunnel? In the light of his discussions with the French Government, does my right hon. Friend feel able to assure them that when and if Her Majesty's Government reach a decision to proceed, they will be able not only to carry the House with them but to sustain the project? To make this possible, and in order to avoid the problems that occurred on the last occasion, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it would be advantageous to have political support as broad as possible across the political divide when he makes his decision?

Any giant project, particularly one based on agreement between two Governments, requires broad political support. I accept what my hon. Friend said. The first matter to be decided is whether there is to be a fixed link and, if so, which type.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that had the previous scheme not been cancelled by the then Labour Government, the tunnel would have been open next year at a cost much less than is estimated for a single-bore tunnel? Is he aware that Folkestone in my constituency has had to put up with indecision for 15 years? Has not the time arrived for some finality?

I recognise the need not to repeat the long delays and uncertainties of past years when this issue was being discussed. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that uncertainty benefits no one. It leaves ferry operators or those who would invest in a fixed-link, if there was one, with doubts about the decisions that they should take. I recognise the need to reach a decision. I shall try to meet it.

Is the Secretary of State aware that this would be another piece of grandiose lunacy like Concorde, which never produced anything? I put to the right hon. Gentleman the suggestion that I made to his predecessor: that the parts of the tunnel already dug should be blocked with a Concorde at each end and cemented over.

I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman's broad approach to this project.

Irrespective of whether one is for or against the project, can the right hon. Gentleman supply me with information about the dangers should the tunnel be blown up by terrorists? I seem unable to obtain this information from his Department or any other Department. I am especially concerned about the possibility of the flooding of Dover and the surrounding area. No one seems able to say whether it would be easy to send a car loaded with petrol into the tunnel and blow it up or to estimate the damage that would be caused.

Any final decision, if there were to be a project and construction of a tunnel, would have to take account of safety and defence considerations. The relevant Departments would be responsible for seeing that they were enforced.

Is it not of immense significance that the Cairncross report, commissioned by the Government to advise them, concluded that there was no overwhelming case for a fixed link? Does my right hon. Friend not detect the distinct odour of a very dead duck? Would it not be better to forget the whole project before wasting more time or money upon it?

All odours and sentiments and, of course, the economic analysis and report of Sir Alec Cairncross have to be taken into account by the two Governments and by those Governments individually in reaching a final decision in principle.

Without going into the merits or demerits of the argument, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he agrees with his hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain)? Is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman reached a decision? Does he agree that every conceivable argument has been put forward and that the prevarication that he seems to be practising is not fair to the House?

I hope to reach a decision as soon as possible.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that uncertainty is causing great anxiety in the county of Kent, especially in respect of the completion of the M20 road link? People do not know whether they are coming or going. Does he agree that the delays and uncertainties of the preliminary work on the road link are most unsatisfactory? Will my right hon. Friend accept my assurance that the people of Kent are less worried about the possibility of a Channel tunnel fixed link now than at the time of the previous proposals? Is he aware that British Rail and the other consortia have put forward their plans much more thoughtfully and tactfully?

I note my hon. Friend's assurances. He is correct in saying that the uncertainty connected with a great project of this kind, when it is first brought forward, is debilitating. That is why I am anxious that we should reach a decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has recently discussed the amount of subsidy for British Railways in the current year with the chairman of the British Railways Board.

I meet regularly the chairman of the British Railways Board to discuss this and other matters of mutual interest.

Does the Secretary of State realise that the complete inadequacy of investment in the railways by this Government is bound to run down the railways and that it seems to be deliberate policy by the Government to get rid of the railways? Does he think that we can stand idly by while this is happening? Many areas—it is certainly the case on the line between St. Pancras and Sheffield—suffer with old rolling stock, late trains and all the inadequacies that flow from low investment. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is bound to cause trouble among railway workers? All the excuses put forward about, flexible rostering and so on are completely inadequate when one considers the serious lack of investment.

The hon. Gentleman's remarks about Government policy towards the railways are without foundation. It is the board that decides on investment. The considerable resources made available to the board by the Government or the resources that it can generate internally provide the finance for investment. If the board can control its costs, get rid of restrictive work practices and make its inter-city business profitable, it will have the investment to proceed towards building the modern railway that we all want to see. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join everyone else in wishing to see that progress achieved. However, this depends a great deal on the railways and the unions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the size of the PSO grant depends to a great extent on the size of the total network that the railways are asked to operate? Is the size of the network one of the matters under consideration in the current review of British Rail?

The review that I have announced, which is being led by Sir David Serpell, will look at the options and finances of British Rail. It will also consider whether the very large grant, which is £100 million more in real terms than at the end of 1980 will buy a worthwhile return for the taxpayer in terms of the services that the taxpayer and the ratepayer want for this large sum of money.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that during the past couple of months he has announced two separate cuts in the PSO grant, one of £15 million in real terms and the other of £6 million in real terms? Does he further recognise that there is no point in putting a passenger service obligation on British Rail to maintain the present size of the network if he then denies it the money to run trains on those lines?

The hon. Gentleman's arithmetic is wrong. The passenger service obligation grant for 1982–83 is £100 million more in real terms than the original application for grant for 1981. It is correct that during 1981 a unique record-high increase in the social grant was made to British Rail. The figures for 1982 maintain very nearly that unique high level. Any suggestion that there has been a massive cut in the grant is wholly wrong.

Is the Minister aware that it is shabby of him to shuffle off responsibility on to the unions and the British Railways Board? Is he further aware that in my region the north-south bypass at Manchester, which would link Scotland and London via Manchester, and the link into Manchester international airport are imaginative projects that could go ahead with a fair wind from the Department?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not condoning the continuation of restrictive practices that are damaging to British Rail and are widely recognised to be damaging by many of those working on the railway. If the hon. Gentleman has the interests of a modern and well-invested railway at heart, he should approach the matter in a slightly more even-handed way than he has with his supplementary question.

Will my right hon. Friend give the taxpayer the comfort of an assurance that he will not consider giving any more grants to British Rail unless and until it accepts at all levels, both management and workers, that it must adopt modern working practices? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the taxpayer is heartily sick and tired of being told that the workers are prepared to work only on their terms?

I believe that the British Railways Board, many responsible people working on the railways and the unions recognise that it is essential to achieve higher productivity and to adopt modern practices. The Government wholly back the board and all other interested parties in achieving those changes.

Is the Secretary of State aware that 2,000 constituents of mine who work in the Horwich locomotive works have contributed to productivity agreements, the like of which the railway industry has not seen? Is he further aware that the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) and for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) have done exactly the same thing? The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that if he and the board close those railway workshops, with job losses of 5,000 and the deaths of three towns, the Opposition and the industry will not be prepared to put up with it. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State and of British Rail to ensure that sufficient finance is forthcoming to keep those workshops open.

The loss of jobs through closures is a serious matter for all the communities mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Everyone must recognise the social implications when these changes occur. The decision to close the workshops and to rationalise railway workshops generally is for British Rail. The board has reduced its orders for wagons—an example that will interest the hon. Gentleman—not because it cannot afford them, which would be the implication of giving more money for investment, but because it does not need them. Modern wagons last longer, can be moved faster and can carry more freight than old wagons. The demand no longer exists for these workshops. It is with great regret, but nevertheless with realism, that British Rail has decided to take that course. I believe that it is right to do so, but I fully recognise the social and unemployment implications.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of dual three-lane motorway were in the course of construction at the latest available date.

About 44 miles are at present under construction in England.

Is the hon. Lady satisfied that we have sufficient road mileage to meet the country's needs? Is she aware that there are many unemployed road construction workers? Will she look into the quality of roads? Are we to have more roads, such as the M1, on which every day many miles are being repaired and motorists have to use the hard shoulder because there are only two lanes open, and sometimes only one?

I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, but the House and the country must recognise that the M1 and other early motorways were built over 20 years ago with a life expectancy of 20 years. The greater volumes of traffic now mean that those motorways must be resurfaced in a structural way so that they will last longer. We are strengthening the motorways that are being repaired to give them another 20 years of life.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the need to connect the Midlands with the ports to give our industries a chance to compete? What is being done to bring forward the construction of new connecting motorways?

I believe my hon. Friend knows that we had hoped to start work on the important M42 Bromsgrove section before the end of this year. This now depends on the successful outcome of a legal challenge on the side road orders. I assure my hon. Friend that, whether it is his section of the M42 or any of the other sections that connect Birmingham with the ports, we shall move as quickly as we can. However, the public consultation and inquiry system is a safeguard in road building that we should not lightly give up.

Will the Minister tell the House how many miles of cycleway are under construction? Does the fact that she recently gave me £1 to join the all-party friends of cycling demonstrate the importance of this subject? Will she transfer some of the considerable resources from three-lane motorways to cycleways in view of their great importance to cycling in this country?

I fully accept the importance of cycleways. Some very imaginative new schemes have come from the consultation paper issued by my predecessor some months ago. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact mileage, for which I apologise, but I can assure him that, where local authorities share my acceptance of the importance of cycleways and forward sensible recommendations in their transport policies and programmes, we shall do our best to assist them in the building of cycleways.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has yet received proposals for the electrification of the Paddington-Reading railway line.

No, Sir, and I would not expect to receive any before the British Railways Board submits its 10-year programme of schemes for the electrification of potentially profitable main line routes.

Bearing in mind the age of some of the diesel units on this line, will my hon. Friend do his best to speed up development, because it is important that such key lines have capital investment as soon as possible? At the same time, will my hon. Friend urge the train drivers to accept Lord McCarthy's proposal so that we can at least have more efficiency in the railway system?

I understand that there has recently been a major programme of refurbishment on the diesel units.

rose——

Order. This is a constituency question.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be in a position to make a decision on the route of the final section of the M3 motorway.

Consultants are investigating the improvement of the trunk route south of Bar End, Winchester, and I expect their report by the end of this year. We must then allow time for the further statutory procedures that will be needed, but I hope that we can reach a decision in 1984.

Does the Under-Secretary accept that her reply shows a sense of complacency and that we shall have a marvellous motorway that ends in the middle of nowhere? Is the hon. Lady aware that the Winchester bypass is completely blocked, that it has become a danger spot, that it cannot cope with the existing volume of traffic and that there are massive hold-ups? Will the hon. Lady speed things along as quickly as possible?

I am anxious to speed this matter along. The hon. Gentleman knows that the M3 Popham to Bar End part of the work will proceed in the autumn of this year. But a problem exists in the section known as the Bar End to Compton section. This difficult route, which runs between meadows and a chalk hill, is now being investigated by independent consultants. We are investigating all possible solutions, but the hon. Gentleman will know that this is the most difficult part of the whole route. There have been considerable protests at the public inquiry. We must get the right solution as soon as possible.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the motorway box formed by the M3, the M27 and the A3(M) is vital to the planning of all road networks in Hampshire and crucial to all who travel in the county? As substantial progress has been made by the Government, will she continue to give the M3 top priority?

After the M25, the M3 has one of the highest priorities. I fully accept the difficulties in completing those sections of motorways in the South. We shall take remedial steps in the meantime to improve the Hockley crossroads and so on, but we cannot proceed faster than we are permitted to do by the public inquiry and the difficulties ensuing from that final section of road that I mentioned to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell).

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what subjects she expects to discuss at her next meeting with trade union representatives of the Civil Service.

Manpower reductions in the non-industrial Civil Service.

Has the Minister seen the report in The Guardian today of a leak from the Megaw committee of inquiry to the effect that the principle of pay comparability between civil servants and those doing similar jobs in the private sector should be eroded and the suggestion that the role of trade unions in pay negotiations should be reduced? If that report is true, will the Minister tell Megaw to ditch such provocative proposals now, otherwise we will be heading for a confrontation like last year's Civil Service strike?

I have seen those purely speculative reports, but I will certainly not intervene in any way on the basis of them.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that time off for trade union duties in the Civil Service is currently costing the country over £14 million a year? Has he noted the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service that more control should be exercised over how trade union officials carry out their duties in Government time? Has he any additional statement to make on that matter?

I have, of course, noted the Select Committee's recommendations, and I can confirm to the House that a new agreement has been made with the trade union side of the National 'Whitley Council which defines this whole area more precisely than did the previous agreement. It also provides for greater overall control and for the accountability of union representatives for their time spent on industrial relations and trade union duties and activities. Therefore, the agreement takes account of the Select Committee's recommendations.

In view of the worrying points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), will the Minister tell us when he expects to receive the Megaw report? When the hon. Gentleman next meets the trade unions, will he explain to them why the Top Salaries Review Body report, which was received on 1 April, was not implemented at the same time as the recommendations on the pay of doctors, dentists and the Armed Forces? That seems to imply that the Government are considering a modification of the recommendations. If so, will the hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that he and his fellow Ministers will discuss the situation with the unions before announcing any final decision?

The right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on purely speculative reports about the work of the Megaw committee. As far as I am aware, the committee is on schedule to make its report by midsummer. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making an announcement on the TSRB report very soon.

While the majority of right hon. and hon. Members would be happy to accept a pay increase of only 4 per cent., they would be very reluctant to do so if senior civil servants, such as principals and assistant secretaries, were to receive an increase above that level. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that senior civil servants will not be offered a pay increase of more than 4 per cent., thereby increasing still further the differential between them and hon. Members?

It would be wise for my hon. Friend to await the report of the TSRB. However, in view of his comments, it is worth noting that the TSRB group is receiving about 5 per cent. in cash below the level of the 1980 award, whereas hon. Members are receiving the full value of that 1980 award.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many redundancies among staff for whom she is responsible have occurred in the past 12 months.

More than 3,000 industrial and non-industrial civil servants were made redundant in 1981.

Is it not disgraceful that the Minister has taken responsibility for putting 3,000 people in the ever-swelling dole queues created by his Government? Is not that attitude symbolised by the sacking of 26 prizewinning, film-making civil servants in the COI? Is not the Government's attitude to sack them, come what may? The Minister will have seen that the director of the COI film and television department, Mr. Arthur White, has said that the decision to sack those film makers would have been made whatever the position. Is that not a complete and utter disgrace?

I have frequently acknowledged the quality of the work done by the directors, production assistants and editors at the COI who have been made redundant, but the hon. Gentleman and the union concerned, the ACTT, have been involved in a campaign of deliberate deception and misrepresentation about this matter. Privatisation will save about £100,000 a year, and it makes good management sense. The hon. Gentleman knows the facts. I hope that he will abide by them and will cease misrepresenting the position.

As the Civil Service's annual percentage turnover, measured by those who leave the service on reaching retirement age or voluntarily transfer to non-Civil Service jobs, is in double figures, can my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the planned reduction in the number of civil servants by 100,000 over five years can be achieved with no, or at least very few, forced redundancies?

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we shall be seeking to achieve our manpower targets with as little redundancy as is required. I can give him the news that the reduction in the size of the Civil Service now amounts to just under 66,000, which implies a full-year saving on the Civil Service pay bill of just under £½ billion. That is a very substantial achievement.

But is not the figure of redundancies given by the Minister a severe underestimate? Is not the real redundancy level being concealed by the enforced retirement at 60 of specialists and professionals who entered the Civil Service late in their careers on the tacit understanding that they would be able to stay until they were 65? Will not the Government's policy make it more difficult for us to have the exchange of experience between industry and the Civil Service that all previous Governments have declared is required?

I acknowledge that a number of people between 60 and 65 who wish to stay on in the Civil Service have been asked to retire. That is fully in accordance with the terms and conditions of their employment.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what further proposals she is considering with regard to Civil Service dispersal from London.

None, Sir.

In relation to the transfer of 1,400 jobs in the Ministry of Defence to the Anderston site in Glasgow, can the Minister confirm that the building will be ready by the end of 1985 and that by that time the Ministry will have identified the jobs that are to be transferred?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is primarily a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. However, I assure him that, following the Select Committee's recommendations, when it became clear that the use of the Anderston site instead of the St. Enoch site would make the dispersal possible a year earlier, it was proceeded with. Although it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, the posts are, as far as I am aware, being identified and that dispersal will go ahead as planned.

In view of the changed and much worse employment conditions, is it not time that the Government reconsidered their dispersal policy as part of the total regional policy? Areas that have come to expect a supply of Government jobs are not receiving them and there is no other source for meeting the major employment needs of those areas outside London.

A dispersal policy is expensive and the need to contain public expenditure prevents any further initiative in that direction. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that when it comes to the location of new Government work, or the relocation of work for operational reasons, the pressing needs of particular areas will be given full consideration.

In view of the disastrous unemployment situation in the Northern region, why does the Minister not transfer Civil Service jobs to the North? The Government frequently tell hon. Members who represent Northern region constituencies that they must wait until there is an upturn in the economy. Is not this one way in which the Government can act direct to provide jobs for the region?

The Government announced their dispersal plans and programme on 26 July 1979. We are sticking to those plans, and it is right that we should do so, despite considerable pressure from the Departments and individuals concerned.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I shall take points of order after the statements.