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

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the type of information which he intends to give the public concerning seat belt wearing; when it will be published; and how it will be distributed.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid the wearing of seat belt regulations before Parliament in draft on 6 July. They had to be relaid due to a minor correction on 13 July.

As for timing, is my hon. Friend aware that every week's delay in putting the regulations into force costs 14 lives and about 200 serious injuries? It is now almost a year since the House, by a majority of 77, voted for the law—the House of Lords having done so earlier by a majority of 40. Will the Department of Transport hasten to comply with the clear will of both Houses of Parliament and bring forward the day from the twenty-third Monday after the regulations have been voted on, which has been suggested, and put the rules into action as quickly as possible?

Nobody regrets more than I the loss of life, but people do not need compulsion to wear seat belts. The provisions of the Transport Act 1981 require us to lay a statement of proposals before Parliament three months before the regulations are laid for approval. We issued a consultative document last December, which went to all representative organisations and the general public. It is important to get this matter right. Seat belt wearing has been more effective in those countries, such as Australia and Sweden, which took their time, rather than in those countries that rushed their introduction. We shall speed the matter as soon as Parliament completes its necessary consultation and approval procedure.

Does the Minister agree that it was anticipated by her predecessors in the Department that compulsory wearing of seat belts would be introduced by late this summer? That seems to be getting further and further away, and perhaps dangerously near to a general election. That would worry many of us, because this type of measure has been put off by that kind of event before. Is there any possibility that measures to improve protection for children in cars could be brought in earlier? Seventy children lose their lives every year in cars. That would be an improvement—

Order. It is not really fair, because we had a preamble as well as an argument after the question.

I shall see whether the provisions for the protection for children, which I had intended to introduce at the same time as compulsory seat belt wearing, can be brought forward. We have not sought to delay bringing forward this measure. We want to get it right. I believe that that is the sensible way to proceed.

Before my hon. Friend introduces the regulations will she consider the unfairness of allowing an exemption for driving examiners—half of whose passengers are competent drivers—and refusing an exemption for driving instructors, nearly all of whose passengers in the earlier stages are incompetent?

Because an examiner should not intervene during a test until the last moment, to see whether the provisional driver has corrected the fault, we thought it necessary to give examiners the right not to wear seat belts if they felt that there could be a hazard. It is a different matter for instructors. They should be setting an example. The British School of Motoring has advised that seat belts must be worn at all times during tuition by pupils and instructors. I believe that is right.

Will the Minister consider exempting taxi drivers from having to wear seat belts? Is she aware that taxi drivers are frightened of being attacked and robbed while wearing seat belts and not being able to protect themselves?

We have already included that among the exemptions in the regulations, for the reason the hon. Gentleman cites.

The Minister will be aware that it is right and proper to allow sufficient time for adequate and appropriate consultation on these matters, but she will recall what the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) said earlier. It is almost a year since I stood at the Dispatch Box and asked the House to approve the seat belt regulations. I accept that the hon. Lady is not responsible for the business of the House, but will the regulations be debated in the House before the Summer Recess?

That is not a matter for me. I should like the regulations to be debated soon and I am using my best endeavours of persuasion to ensure that that happens.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the Greater London Council's transport policies and programme document.

All county and metropolitan councils have been asked to submit their transport policies and programme documents by the end of July.

Would it not be in the best interests of London's travelling public if London Transport were removed from the GLC's sticky paws and placed temporarily with his Department so that a study can be made of the possibility of privatising the entire operation? Would that not be in the best interests of London's transport consumers?

From bitter experience, there is something to be said for a changed structure within which London Transport can work. I await with interest the report from the Select Committee on Transport on the right structure for the administration of London's transport. I understand that the report is due soon. I shall study it with great interest, as will many others.

Does the Minister's last answer mean that the Government now believe in new quangos and have given up their desire to reduce them? Does the Minister agree that London Transport fares are far too high? If the GLC puts a plan to the Minister under which, gradually, they can be reduced in real terms, will he agree to it?

My last answer means what it said. I think that Londonders have had a raw deal in transport organisation. New thoughts are not out of place. I hope that the GLC will produce a firm and sensible plan. I detect some signs that the GLC now accepts that its "Fare's Fair" experiment was unrealistic and unworkable nonsense and, therefore, I have hopes that it will produce a sensible plan. I should like lower fares and lower costs. They are too high. The plan must be formulated around that aim.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour-controlled GLC is breaking an election pledge in deciding to go ahead with the new bypass and terminating it at the White Hart roundabout in Northolt? Does he agree that that will have catastrophic effects on local people and does he not deplore that appalling behaviour?

I note what my hon. Friend says. He will have enough experience of politics to know that election pledges are not always fulfilled to the letter.

Will the Secretary of State undertake to have no truck with the nonsense expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor)? More important, will he consider discussing not only the Select Committee's report but the GLC's proposals? May we have a firm assurance that before coming to a conclusion he will publish a Green Paper so that all the ideas can be thoroughly canvassed and discussed before any change is made in London Transport's structure?

I cannot give an undertaking now about the precise way in which we shall carry the debate forward, but I hope that the GLC will have some views on a changed and improved structure for transport for London and the surrounding counties. That would be desirable. The chairman of London Transport, among others, has made his views known, and other views have been offered to the Select Committee. We should wait for its conclusions.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the consequences of prolonged industrial action to British Rail.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about public investment in British Rail in the light of recent industrial disputes.

I shall be making a statement later today about the current industrial action on the railways. But it is clear that strike action can only have the most damaging effects on the future prospects of the industry and its work force. The present strike is bleeding the industry of vital resources, which could be used for better and more modern equipment.

rose—

Perhaps hon. Members would prefer to be called to ask a question after the statement has been made. I shall call them then if they do not ask a question now. Hon. Members who are called now cannot expect to be called later.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that prolonged industrial action will have a detrimental effect upon investment in further electrification and, what is more, could affect the private sector, in that such desirable projects as the Channel tunnel are unlikely to receive the Government's blessing because British Rail will not be in receipt of the infrastructure investment that is vital for that project? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that project would create substantial employment in all parts of the country and be beneficial to the regions?

Prolonged industrial action and strikes can do nothing but harm to all aspects of the railways' future.

Now that the Leader of the Opposition is to meet Sir Peter Parker with the object of resolving the dispute, will the Prime Minister do likewise?

Is the Leader of the Opposition taking Sid Weighell with him?

Hon. Members should await my statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is yet in a position to make a statement about the future of public transport in and near London.

My right hon. Friend is still considering the future organisation of transport in the London area and awaits with interest the report of the Select Committee on Transport. In the meantime, we have made it clear to the GLC that what is needed is a decent transport system for London with lower fares and better value for money within the considerable resources available to London Transport. We have asked the GLC to prepare a plan on that basis. How it measures up to the task will be a factor in decisions about organisational change.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the reliance of many of my constituents on the Epping-Ongar and Central line of London Transport, which is the responsibility of the Greater London Council, upon which my constituents' local authorities are not represented? Will the Secretary of State, therefore, expedite proposals for setting up a public authority for London transport which is able to do justice to all its users?

I appreciate the complications, which will be taken into account when we consider the Select Committee on Transport's report and my right hon. Friend's proposals.

Is the Minister aware that his total inactivity on London Transport affairs for months is doing as much damage to London as his inactivity over the rail dispute is doing to the country as a whole?

The right hon. Gentleman should understand that the damage to transport in London was caused by the ill-conceived GLC "Fare's Fair" policy. That is why my right hon. Friend is right to call on the GLC to prepare sensible plans to deal with London's transport requirements.

When the Minister is considering discussions with the GLC, with a view to removing responsibility for London Transport from it, will he consider the possibility of taking away the GLC's responsibility for main roads in the London area, in view of the GLC's failure to deal with the heavy lorry problem?

That will be taken into account.

Does the Minister agree that the unfair deal that his hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) mentioned is the responsibility not of the GLC, but of the ill-considered and ill-judged intervention of one or two Bromley councillors? Since both British Rail and London Transport gain revenue support from the Government, does the Minister agree that representation and organisation of transport in London can be separate from those of national support?

On reflection the hon. Gentleman will understand that the Lords' judgment was misrepresented in its effect by the GLC, which has now realised that it does not require it to break even without subsidy. The hon. Gentleman should understand that the GLC plans did enormous harm to businesses and to a great number of private individuals as a result of the excessive burden of rates that was placed on them.

When my hon. Friend is publishing and considering his future plans for public transport in London, will he also consider finding a new parent for London Transport which could be a new parent for the Hackney carriage industry and the private hire car industry?

I appreciate the importance of my hon. Friend's points and they will be taken into consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet representatives of the railway workers' unions to discuss future investment in the railways and matters pertaining thereto.

I have done so, at a meeting of the Rail Council, and I hope that a similar opportunity will arise in the future.

Will the Secretary of State urge British Rail to give further consideration to ASLEF's claim, as the dispute has already cost about £100 million, which is more than what British Rail would hope to gain by the introduction of flexible rostering, even over the next decade? Does not today's decision to set up a special Cabinet Committee to preside over the possible closure of the complete railway network, and the inclusion in that Committee of the chairman of the Tory Party, prove conclusively that the Tory Party is trying politically to engineer and exploit the dispute to try to smash the trade union movement?

Those are fantasies in the hon. Gentleman's mind. If consideration is to be given, perhaps it should be consideration by those who have called this strike and, indeed, the strike action earlier in the year. Both caused much misery and suffering to the travelling public, to families going on holiday, grave difficulties for the commuter and have drained away millions of pounds that could have gone into investment in a modern railway.

Before my right hon. Friend discusses with Mr. Buckton any further investment, will he make it clear to Mr. Buckton that his protestations this morning on radio, that he wants to negotiate with British Rail, would come from him rather better if he had not run through a full year of negotiations on flexible rostering and failed to implement anything that was discussed, including the report of Lord McCarthy, for which he asked?

Those points are self-evident and widely understood by those who want to see a modern railway and believe that some unwisdom has been shown by the ASLEF executive in charging into the strike and causing great damage to the railways' future.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he now anticipates that the current major roadworks on the M1 will be completed.

The M1 widening scheme between junctions 5 and 8 in Hertfordshire should be completed by the autumn of 1983. Several major maintenance contracts are also in progress on other sections of the motorway and should be completed during the summer and autumn of this year.

Does the Minister agree that the existence of major roadworks on the M1 not only creates delay, aggravation and expense, but potentially grave danger, especially when traffic is flowing in both directions on the same side of the motorway? Is she aware that I was involved in a serious accident only a few days ago near Leicester on the M1, when the lives of everyone in the car were undoubtely saved by seat belts and by the existence of a crash barrier? Will she please do all she can to see that the occasions on which there is a contra-flow system are kept to a minimum?

I am sure that the whole House will join me in saying that we are relieved to see the hon. and learned Gentleman safe and sound and to learn that he was wearing his seat belt.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is still considerable dissatisfaction among users of the motorways about the apparent coning of parts of surrounding areas that are involved in motorway reconstruction but where there does not appear to be any work going on? Will my hon. Friend look closely at the problem, as it delays many of her right hon. and hon. Friends as they travel to their constituencies?

I am concerned not only with my right hon. and hon. Friends and other hon. Members, but with the whole travelling public. We have asked our regional directors to ensure that coning on the motorways is carried out only when necessary. The fact that works may not appear to be going on is because the asphalt may be drying out. If we did not allow that necessary procedure to happen, there would be a waste of the investment in the resurfacing work.

Is the Minister satisfied with the liaison between her Department and the police authorities? Is she aware—I reported this to her office on Monday—that when I came down the M1 on Sunday, drivers were using the hard shoulder as though it were the outside, fast lane? Will she join me in deploring that dreadfully dangerous practice? Is she further aware that there was not a policeman in sight to take action? Will she see that that is remedied as soon as possible before there is a major accident and loss of life at those roadworks?

I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information. I, too, had noted this. We have asked the police to take special note of those who are travelling on the hard shoulder. As I said in an earlier reply, we appeal to all motorists to observe the speed restrictions, which are put there not for fun but to save lives. I hope that motorists will take heed of that.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide direct financial support for all public transport undertakings which are heavily used by commuters.

The Government already provide substantial financial assistance for local transport services through transport supplementary grant and for British Rail passenger services through the PSO grant.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the refusal of the Essex county council, on principle, to pay any transport supplementary grant towards the support of the Epping-Ongar section of the Central Line, on the ground that British Railways' commuter services receive a 100 per cent. subsidy and do not receive a 30 per cent. contribution from local authorities? Is it fair that that section of the line should be burdened with premium fares that are driving travellers away and are continually forcing the question of closure to be raised when these problems have nothing to do with the travellers there? Will he instruct Essex county council that it should pay TSG straight over to London Transport—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is answering his question as well.

The provision of local transport services on the Epping-Ongar line, which are provided by London Transport, requires the Essex county council to decide whether it will give support to those services. If it does so decide my right hon. Friend will assist the council by giving sympathetic consideration with regard to the TSG grant and to any proposal that it makes. It is essentially a local matter.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm to the House that it is not part of his policy to turn railways into highways, an idea that is being promoted a great deal on television, but that it is part of his policy to give public transport the opportunity to provide the type of service that consumers are entitled to expect?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he does not expect any substantial closure to take place on the railways. The hon. Gentleman will understand that there are parts of the country, mainly the rural areas, where lines are now unused and where it is sensible to bring forward alternative proposals, such as cycle tracks.

If we can get back to the question—[Interruption.] We have strayed a little. Will the Minister give a guarantee that when the Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council submits a scheme for free transport for all its elderly and disabled persons in the near future he will ensure that any shortfall that has to be paid to public and private undertakings for bus services will be made good by the Government?

Sensible and responsible plans prepared by local authorities are always considered carefully and sympathetically by my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how much money he now expects to be paid to British Rail out of public funds in the current financial year.

Grants from public funds are expected to total about £915 million.

Does my hon. Friend agree that his answer shows that the Government are putting huge sums of money into the railways? Is it not also true that the Government and the taxpayer are providing about £2 million each day to keep open uneconomic lines for social reasons? I can understand the need to subsidise the railways, but is my hon. Friend aware that the public demand that the railways are run as efficiently as possible and that their money should not be used to maintain outdated working practices which other railway systems have long abandoned?

I agree with all the points that my hon. Friend has made. In real terms, total support under the Government has been set at £186 million more than in the last full year of the previous Administration, but within the grant system there will be adjustments to take account of the strikes.

What is the cost to public funds of maintaining uneconomic and marginal lines such as the Kings Lynn—London railway link? Will the Minister confirm that the future of those lines will depend very much on the present industrial dispute coming rapidly to a close?

The costs of the lines to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are borne partly within the PSO grant of £915 million, to which I have referred. It is realised on all sides that the continuation of the industrial strike will do enormous harm to the economy and future of the railways, which naturally gives rise to great concern about the pattern of the railway services.

I recognise that when this damaging dispute is over it will be necessary for my hon. Friend's Department to continue subsidising the social services by British Rail, but what ideas does my hon. Friend's Department have for ensuring improved performance and productivity from the whole British Rail industry?

It is difficult to answer my hon. Friend fully when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is about to make, after questions, a serious statement about the railways. The earmarking of part of the PSO for maintaining lines was one of the steps that were taken to ensure more efficient use of resources in the railway system.

When will the Minister realise that the present trouble on the railways is due entirely to lack of proper investment by the Government? When will he realise that not only is that bringing the Government to an unnecessary collision with the railway men but is antagonising the entire trade union movement and causing an unnecessary struggle? Does he realise that railway men have had to put up with so-called flexible rostering for years, that to try to intensify flexible rostering by making more and more cuts meant that a stand had to be made at some time, and that that stand by the trade union movement is now here?

The hon. Gentleman insistes upon ignoring the facts. I have given direct evidence that the PSO payable under the Government has been greater in real terms than under the previous Government. There has been more than £2 million of investment in the railways since 1976, one half of that since 1979. The hon. Gentleman must understand the significance of that, but the essential requirement is modern working practices to make good use of that investment.

I do not accept the Minister's figures for the amount of PSO grant and so on. Does he understand that one of the reasons why the Government were compelled to increase the amount of money was the economic plight facing the railways—a plight that was caused by the Government's actions?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that the railway also failed to hold this business in certain respects—for example, in parcel traffic. Those adverse factors were taken into account in the unusually high grant that was given to the railways last year.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss investment in the railways.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss investment in the railways.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss investment plans for the railways.

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

The Secretary of State will be aware of recent cuts in inter-city services. Does he accept that such cuts lead to unemployment, particularly in areas such as Liverpool? Does he agree that the Government adopt double standards on service to the general public? When there is an official strike by the rail unions the Government attack the trade unions, yet when there is industrial peace the Government support cuts in services and jobs?

On the railways it makes sense in management terms to adjust capacity and supply of rolling stock and services to demand. The running of many empty trains is a waste of resources that would otherwise go into modern equipment, resignalling and all the other things that we want to see on a modern railway. That is a sensible course to follow. The vast majority of railway men who want to see investment in a modern railway system and who do not want to strike are right to support good management practice.

My question could be altered by the Secretary of Slate's statement, Mr. Speaker. May I reserve my question until the statement has been made?

I shall not say, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look in my direction.

Does the Secretary of State accept that, despite current levels of investment and the increased PSO, there is a continual rundown of the railway system, which in part is the background to the current crisis? What priority do he and his Department give to the continued retention of the net work at its present level?

We have made it clear that we do not want substantial cuts in the network. I am sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the present resources of the railway system are being bled away. Even with the vastly greater social grant last year and this year than previously, even with the investment programmes, which were mentioned a few minutes ago—£1 billion since 1979 and another £1 billion spent on track renewal—and even with special parts of the current increased grant being reserved for track renewal, there is bound to be enormous pressure on all parts of the system in future. Severe difficulties will have to be faced in maintaining the railway network that we had before this hideous and disastrous strike action.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a need for more investment in the railway system, but only when the railway unions accept that we no longer live in 1919? If they would bring their practices up to date, it would be worth while investing more money in the future railway system.

I agree.

When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of the British Railways Board, will he encourage him not to withdraw the new flexible rosters? I come from the railways and I have examined the new rosters. They are the best working rosters that I have seen in the last 40 years.

The hon. Gentleman speaks from great experience and with wisdom about the railway system. He echoes the views of Sidney Weighell, who has made it clear that the flexible rosters are a social and economic benefit to his members. I only wish that other senior and responsible people in the trade unions would bring home the same message that Sidney Weighell has given, who has had experience on the footplate and on other parts of the train.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will carry out a survey of bus lanes to establish their effect on traffic flows in urban areas.

The effects of bus lanes on traffic flows have been widely studied and my Department has issued advice on design.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people believe that bus lanes slow down the flow of traffic not only for cars and other vehicles but for buses? As there will be new data because bus lanes have been withdrawn during the present rail crisis, will my hon. Friend make sure that statistics on the traffic flow of buses and other vehicles during this period are compared with those for periods when the bus lanes are in operation?

I know that my right hon. Friend will understand that some traffic experts maintain that properly administered bus lanes can help to ease traffic congestion. I assure him with pleasure that his points will be carefully considered. The matter is being monitored.

Will my hon. Friend take immediate action to remove the GLC's power to impose bus lanes in outer London boroughs against the wishes of residents associations and local councils?

I assure my hon. Friend that some of the technical objections to some of the GLC's actions are well understood. The Secretary of State does not have the power to take the type of action for which my hon. Friend asks.

Does the Minister agree that bus lanes would be far more successful if more people used public transport and, in London, the Underground? Does he agree also that bus lanes are part of a package that includes cheaper public transport fares? Does he agree, further that the GLC and other councils have the right to reduce fares as well as to introduce bus lanes?

The main problem lies in the balance with which the plans are prepared and implemented. We are taking careful account of traffic engineering requirements. It is said that they can help, but ill-prepared plans do only harm.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's plans for support for public transport.

Our plans provide for the continuation of substantial financial support for public transport.

Does the Minister agree that the present problems of British Rail and the difficulties of public transport in Staffordshire, about which he has received several representations, including some from the county council, are a direct result of the low level of support that the Government have given to public transport as compared with the support that is given by many of our industrial competitors?

The hon. Gentleman misrepresents the case in Staffordshire. I am told that on revenue support that is accepted for transport supplementary grant, Staffordshire does better than average for non-metropolitan counties, per head of population. Staffordshire receives £3·08 per head of population whereas the average for the English shire counties is £2·51 per head. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.

I welcome the Government's continuing support for public transport. Does my hon. Friend agree that we can justify that support to our constituents only if it provides the service that they require, rather than subsidising outdated working practices that jeopardise the public transport system?

I agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the actual construction of the Blythe bridge to Uttoxeter section of the A564 Stoke to Derby link to start.

In four of five months' time. Tenders for the construction work are to be invited later this week.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Draycott, Tean and Checkley will be delighted to hear that date confirmed? When is it expected that the work on that section of the road will be completed and the road will be open to traffic?

I agree that the residents of Draycott, Tean and Checkley will benefit a great deal. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We hope that the work will be completed within two years and that it will start later this year. The more speedily it is done the happier we shall be.

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

Our top priority is to encourage the provision of better and safer routes and to make cycling safer on all roads through training, improved standards for new bicycles, and promoting wider awareness of cyclists' problems and needs.

Is the Minister aware of the vast increase in cycling in the past 18 months? We welcome the fact that the hon. Lady is a member of the all-party cycling group. Does she agree that the Government should be treating the reasonable paper plans with more urgency? Does she agree that local authorities should be put under greater pressure to implement those plans? Is she aware that the British Medical Association report, which was published this week, suggests that there is an urgent need for cycle lanes? Will she do something about that urgently?

The BMA is not quite up to date on the progress that has been made. All of the initiatives in the January cycling policy statements are important and are being pursued. That is one of the reasons why we issued a circular to local authorities three months ago asking them to advance cycling schemes in their TPP bids by the end of this month. We promised favourable considerations for that in the 1983–84 TSG supplement. We hope that they will take the hint.

I warmly welcome the Government's support for cycling. Is my hon. Friend's Department prepared to examine one of the most unpleasant aspects of cycling in London—the emission of smoke and diesel fumes from motor vehicles? Does the Department have any plans to increase the control of emissions?

All HGVs and PSVs must undergo a smoke test in their annual inspections. Smoke and diesel fumes are extremely unpleasant. The maintainers of those vehicles must be conscious of it as it is a hazard not only to cyclists but to pedestrians and car users.

The Minister gave an encouraging initial reply. Will she now give one example of each of the improvements that have been achieved?

I should be out of order if I were to give a long list. I shall, however, give the hon. Gentleman one good example. It is the recent opening of the Albert Gate crossing on the GLC's ambassador route, to which my Department is making a contribution of £53,000. Other schemes are in progress. As I said to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand), I shall do what I can to ensure that they are considered favourably.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many ports he owns, or owns shares in, in the Northern region.

None, Sir. Two ports in Cumbria, Barrow and Silloth, are owned by the British Transport Docks Board, a nationalised industry for which my right hon. Friend is responsible.

Is the Minister aware that Maryport harbour in my constituency, which is publicly owned and has lain fallow for 30 years, could be a good object of capital investment as it is in a community that is desperate for work? Will he consider such investment?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the ownership of that trust port is vested in the harbour commissioners as the statutory harbour authority and owners. I understand that the Maryport Steamship Company intends to provide a permanent exhibition of historic vessels in that harbour and that a grant is being obtained from the tourist board. I hope that that proposal will be helpful.

rose—

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the question relates to ports in the Northern region and that a supplementary question must be on that subject.

Will my hon. Friend bring the House up to date with plans for the disposal of the British Transport Docks Board? If he has no plans, are discussions in train to formulate some?

The British Transport Docks Board is continuing with its responsibilities to prepare for privatisation.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to discuss major investment projects, for which his approval is necessary, with the chairman of the British Railways Board.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir. A. Costain) and Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and the hon. Members for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) and Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, irrespective of any current dispute, he will have to take certain basic investment decisions next year on proposals already submitted to him by the chairman of the British Railways Board? Will he confirm that those decisions are his responsibility and that he is therefore responsible for the future size of the railway network?

I certainly confirm that important investment decisions have to be made both now and in the future, decisions that are essential for a modern and efficient railway. As the Government have always made clear, however—this is widely supported both outside and within the industry—progress on investment must go hand in hand with progress on working practices to operate it. It is no use having new trains standing by if the work practices to operate them are not brought forward. I think that the hon. Gentle man will accept that the two must go together.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what the reduction in Civil Service jobs in Scotland has been since May 1979.

Information is not available about the reduction in Civil Service jobs since May 1979, but between January 1979 and January 1982 the number of civil servants in Scotland fell by 3,300.

Is the Minister aware that by reducing the number of civil servants he is contributing to the economic decline of Scotland? Is he aware that 341,232 people are already unemployed there, that unemployment in Strathclyde is running at 17·7 per cent. and that cuts in the Civil Service simply make matters worse?

It is important that our Civil Service should be efficient, and it is right that reductions are being made. In percentage terms, however, the reductions in Scotland are smaller than those in many other regions of the country.

Will the Minister give an undertaking that proper consultations will take place with all interested parties before any Civil Service jobs in Scotland are lost as a result of jobcentre closures that might follow Sir Derek Rayner's latest report? Incidentally, is Sir Derek Rayner a civil servant? If he is, will the Minister please sack him?

Certainly not. Sir Derek Rayner is making very valuable contributions to the overall efficiency of Government. I think that the hon. Gentleman should put his question about jobcentres to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

How do the Minister's figures for job reductions in Scotland accord with the Government's promise to divert Civil Service jobs to Scotland and the regions?

The dispersal of more than 2,000 jobs to Scotland is going ahead and the dispersal to East Kilbride has been completed ahead of time, but Scotland cannot be exempted and insulated from the overall reduction of jobs in the Civil Service.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether official discussions she proposes to hold with trade unions in the Civil Service will examine promotion systems.

There has been no request from the trade unions for central discussions on promotion. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal is always ready to discuss such questions if the trade unions so wish.

Is the Minister aware that there is great resentment among the vast majority of civil servants who carry out the humdrum tasks in the operation of the Government machine at being held down to a paltry wage increase while senior civil servants in Whitehall not only receive an 18 per cent. increase but have their own promotion system whereby they promote themselves into the boardrooms of the major corporations on leaving the Civil Service? Is he aware that many people believe that this amounts to a form of corruption and that the sooner it stops the better, so that people can then see that our Civil Service is completely impartial?

I believe that our Civil Service is impartial and I pay tribute to it once again. Its integrity compares exceptionally well with any other civil service in the world. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman can speak on behalf of the Civil Service. Certainly the trade unions do not reflect the views that he expresses.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that management ability is given sufficient weight in promotions within the Civil Service.

The whole impetus in recent months has been that management experience and ability should play a considerable part in determining promotion for senior civil servants.

In the context of promotion systems and the good image and good management of the Civil Service, will the Minister confirm that, recently, instead of an internal promotion being made to the post of head of the Property Services Agency, the Government appointed a person lacking the Civil Service Commission certificate of qualification, although, according to the Government, the appointment of persons without that qualification should be extremely rare? Will he further confirm that instead of directly employing that person, the Government are paying a fee to a company set up by that person just before his appointment in which he and his wife are the only shareholders and which has no trading record? Has not the Treasury shown a serious lack of judgment in involving itself and its employee in what could be construed—wrongly, I hope—as an exercise in tax avoidance?

I can confirm some of the details given by the right hon. Gentleman, as I believe that I gave them to him in a letter or my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal made them available. I do not believe that tax avoidance arises in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggests. The individual concerned was appointed because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and others felt that he was the best man for the job.

Can the Minister tell us what action the Government propose to take on the recommendations of the Megaw inquiry?

No, I cannot, because the valuable report produced by that inquiry is now under consideration. As this is the first occasion on which it has been mentioned, however, I thank Sir John Megaw and all his colleagues for the speedy way in which they carried out their task and met the deadline given to them.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what matters she expects to discuss at her next meeting with the Civil Service unions.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what matters she intends to discuss on the next occasion she meets with representatives of the Civil Service unions.

Plans for my next meeting with Civil Service unions have not yet been made.

When the Minister meets the Civil Service unions, will he discuss with them the representations that he has received, particularly from the Civil and Public Services Association and others, about the Rayner report on employment? Does he accept that the recommendations to cut jobcentres in areas such as Liverpool and Merseyside, where unemployment is running at 30 or 40 per cent., is nothing short of criminal and should be rejected?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is responsible for these matters. So far as I am aware, the report would not bear the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman seeks to place on it.

When the Minister next meets the Civil Service unions, will he discuss the location of the Government Laboratory and direct their attention to the annual report, which shows that accommodation at Cornwall House is insufficient and, indeed, offends the terms of the health and safety legislation? Will he point out to them that there is still prime land in West Cumbria on which a Government laboratory could be built, as that is what we understand they want?

I have not seen such representations from the Civil Service unions, but if they are made to me I shall of course consider them.

I thank the Minister for confirming to me in writing that in the Civil Service the job release scheme is running into considerable difficulties and is thus frustrating the aim of taking people off the dole queue in return for others retiring early. What steps will he take to ensure that the scheme will work effectively, particularly in the Inland Revenue service?

I know that there have been some changes in the rules for the scheme for the Civil Service. Again, the changes have been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I am certainly prepared to consider representations about difficulties in the Inland Revenue.

When the Minister meets the Civil Service unions, will he inform them of the timetable that he envisages for negotiations on the Megaw recommendations? Does he hope and expect that the new system will be operating by next April? If the Megaw proposals are accepted by the trade unions, does he expect the new system to begin with one of the major four-yearly comparison reviews to provide base figures for the future? If the negotiations and calculations are not completed by next April, will arbitration be assured for the 1983 pay round?

As I said, the Government asked the Megaw committee to report this summer. The committee met that timetable and I hope that its recommendations can be considered in good time for the 1983 settlement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that the Government intend to begin discussions with the unions as soon as both sides are ready, but it is too soon now to judge how much progress may be made towards reaching a new agreement that can be effective for the 1983 negotiations.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the Minister made an error when referring to the Rayner report. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) raised a question about jobcentres on Merseyside. The Minister implied that the Rayner report did not deal with jobcentres, but it did, and St. Helens—

Order. The House will be grateful for that correction, if it is a correction. I do not know.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) commented on the detail of the report. I fully accept that the committee referred to jobcentres, and that is why I said that it was a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

asked the Minister for Civil Service what progress is being made with the production of new management information systems throughout Departments.

Each major Department has been asked to prepare a specific programme to improve its financial management. Departments are considering their requirements for management information systems in that context.

My hon. Friend gives very encouraging news. Will he say by what date such schemes must be given to the Treasury? Will he confirm that in future more power will be given to the centre, particularly the Management and Personnel Office and the Treasury, to impose systems on other Departments?

The Departments have been asked to submit to the Treasury and to the Management and Personnel Office early next year their plans for improving their financial management. Further details will be included in the Government's response to the helpful and constructive report from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee.