asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average age of electrical multiple units running on the third rail system on British Rail lines.

Just under 20 years.

Is the Minister aware that many of those units, especially the ones on the Brighton line, are dilapidated and urgently need refurbishing? Is he further aware that the Swindon railway workshops were promised a 10-year rolling programme to refurbish the EMUs on the Brighton line but are now unable to do so because of restrictions on the external financing limit? Will he do the commuters on the Brighton line a favour by extending the external financing limit so that we can get on with the work?

I note with sympathy the hon. Gentleman's point about Swindon. He will appreciate that it is for British Rail to decide on its refurbishment programme. Refurbishment is extremely beneficial to those vehicles and produces one that is as attractive as a new one to passengers.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the great problems of all commuters in the Southern region, especially those travelling on the mid-Kent and Maidstone lines? Is he aware that modernised rolling stock would make commuters' journeys more comfortable? May we be assured of some early progress?

I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's point about commuters' problems. He will be encouraged to know that the programme of refurbishing vehicles that run on the third rail system applies with special benefit in Kent, where that system operates. I hope, therefore, that his constituents who are travellers will find their conditions of travel much improved by the refurbishing programme.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that he accepts that the running of commuter services is part of the social fabric of the country, that if British Rail does not do it nobody will, and that that would place an intolerable burden on the roads? On that basis, does he agree that the public purse has an obligation to keep the units as modern and as efficient as possible?

I accept all the terms of my hon. Friend's question. He is right to emphasise the importance of those matters to commuters. They are never out of our minds in the Department.

Is the Minister aware that a recently published report shows that while railway systems in most major industrial nations are expanding, ours is contracting?

Yes, but the hon. Gentleman must take account of the reasons for the financial problems of the British Railways Board. They are created by a loss of traffic and are aggravated by senseless and irresponsible strikes. Government support is at the highest level ever, but it is for British Rail to settle the problems of industrial disputes and move towards modern working practices that will make good use of investment.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he anticipates he will next meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the public service obligation.

I meet the chairman of the British Railways Board frequently to discuss this and other issues.

When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he raise with him the threatened withdrawal of the Manchester to London rail sleeper service? Is he aware that it was that service that attracted some trouser-related notoriety? Can he assure the chairman of British Rail that there are hon. Members who are prepared to make the supreme sacrifice of seeing successive Chancellors of the Exchequer go trouserless if the service is retained?

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will be grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's attention to his sartorial needs and concerns. With regard to the provision of sleeper services, it is mainly a matter for British Rail and its marketing division to provide services for which there is a demand. I shall see that the matter is drawn to the attention of the chairman of British Rail.

In view of the need to improve the public service obligation, is my right hon. Friend yet able to say when he will approve investment for the electrification of the east coast main line scheme?

Not yet. The success of the east coast main line investment rests on making the inter-city business profitable. That has been recognised by British Rail, and was made clear by the Government as long ago as 1981. I am still awaiting the board's revised proposals on how that profitability is to be achieved. Until I have received those, it is not possible to reach a decision.

Instead of the Government pursuing a policy of having yet heavier juggernauts on the roads, why does not the right hon. Gentleman try to get more traffic on to the railways? Do we not need a co-ordinated transport policy that encourages traffic on the railways rather than on our overcrowded roads?

As the hon. Gentleman will recall from our debates last week, the Government have agreed to raise to a maximum of 60 per cent. the grants for encouraging the movement of road freight on to rail through rail facilities at warehouses. The Government recognise that, but neither British Rail freight nor the interests of the nation would demand that there should be artificial protection for the rail freight industry. On the contrary, British Rail management wants to compete on fair terms, but to do so it must have efficiency, the removal of restrictive practices and high efficiency operations on the railways.

rose—

Order. If Front Bench speakers wish to ask questions, will they please indicate their intention earlier so that I can maintain a proper balance?

Will my right hon. Friend urge the chairman to announce that British Rail has every intention of keeping in operation the Waterloo to Exeter service, which is the longest service run by Southern Region? There is some fear in Dorset and Devon that this service might be closed. That would be a major worry to people living in those counties. I believe that there is no truth in the rumour, but it would help if a statement were made by the chairman of British Rail.

Nothing of that kind has been raised either with myself or with the Government, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the chairman of British Rail.

While the Minister has fairly recently revised the PSO for last year to take care of what he calls "transitional finance", when will he announce the PSO for 1983–84?

Fairly shortly.

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

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the chairman how he expects British Rail to maintain an efficient and modern railway system when the Government are renewing only half the necessary requirements for basic assets? The right hon. Gentleman is also plundering public property by selling off British Transport hotels, including the Liverpool Ade1phi. When will he stop this asset stripping and make a positive contribution to the future of British Rail?

The hon. Gentleman talks about asset stripping, but hotels overall are a drain on British Rail's finances. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome anything that checked the drain on finances and enabled British Rail to increase its investment and improve the rail system.

rose—

Order. We are still on question No. 3, when by this time we are usually on question No. 5. I remind the House that long questions and answers delay our business.

When my right hon. Friend last saw the chairman of British Rail, did the chairman express any views about whether it was reasonable for British Rail to continue to run a network of 11,000 miles of permanent way? In view of the comments of Mr. Lance Ibbotson, does my right hon. Friend think that it is time to reappraise how large a rail network we require?

I have long taken the view that we need to appraise whether the considerable sums paid by the taxpayer to British Rail are securing the social service—over and above the commercial service—that is required. It was in the light of that view that we set up the Serpell committee to look at both this and longer-term questions. That committee will be reporting fairly soon.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the Serpell committee would be reporting fairly soon. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the report is published in full as soon as possible and that there will be a proper opportunity for debate in the House land elsewhere before the Government make up their mind? Frankly, the right hon. Gentleman's record on consultation is quite appalling.

I certainly hope that the conclusions of the Serpell report can be published, but I must take a view on the basis of the report, which I have not yet seen. As to a debate, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's views to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that previous Governments allowed British Rail to finance by leasing using private sector finance—for example, for its locomotive programme? Is it not time that both British Rail and the Government adopted a far more determined approach to the harnessing of private sector resources and initiatives in developing British Rail investment?

I should like to encourage those initiatives wherever possible. My hon. Friend is aware that with regard to freight wagons, the arrangements combine private capital and operations on the railway. The chairman of British Rail has recently expressed interest in the idea of harnessing private investment for the Victoria-Gatwick link, and I have no doubt that there are other possibilities. That is one way of bringing more investment and capital in to improve our railways, a way to which we should not close our minds.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many road accidents have been caused as a result of roadworks on the M1 during the last year for which records are available.

The accident report form supplied by the police gives no information as to the causes of accidents, although the presence or absence of certain unfavourable circumstances is noted.

Will the Minister accept, from one of those who hit the road works, that while roadworks are in progress on the M1 the motorway is far more dangerous than normal and that during the present season of fog and ice people should cease behaving like homicidal maniacs, thereby risking their own lives and others on the roads, not least the lives of hon. Members going to and from their constituencies?

I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about the increased danger on the roads at this time of year. Motorists would do well to observe the speed limits. However, since we started the longer crossovers and the shorter length of road under repair, the accident rate on all the sections has fallen dramatically. That is good news. But too high a speed in bad road conditions will cause accidents.

I have frequently come across these roadworks, but have not hit them. Does the Minister accept that this is a matter of widespread concern among the travelling public? If there are no figures on the relationship between accidents and road works on motorways, is it not time that such figures were compiled? Is it possible for the Minister to give her original figures as a proportion of the total number of accidents, so that we can judge the contribution that road works make to the accident figures?

I frequently ask for more statistics so that we can see whether there is any casual relationship, but hon. Members would be wrong to draw the conclusion that accidents are necessarily more prevalent at road works. Accidents arise from a combination of factors. Often the most important factor is that drivers fail to reduce speed when conditions demand that they should.

Are the speed limits displayed near road works legally enforceable? If so, is my hon. Friend aware of any prosecutions for exceeding those limits?

I am not aware of any prosecutions, but I shall look into the matter further.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the proposed level of Government subsidy for British Rail in each of the next three years.

I am at present discussing the appropriate level for 1983 with the Railways Board. Decisions on later years will be taken in the light of the review of railway finances under Sir David Serpell, whose report I expect to receive shortly.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Whatever conclusions he may reach, the sums involved will be very large. Will he ensure that there is no possibility of public money being wasted in the way that has occurred on the St. Pancras to Bedford line, where £150 million worth of rolling stock has lain idle for nearly a year due to union manning disputes?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. It is a matter of great concern. We all welcome the prospect of more investment in new equipment and rolling stock for British Rail, but it is essential that when the investment takes place the equipment is worked with proper manning levels and without restrictive practices. Until there is a change in the present situation, it is difficult to win public confidence and support for further improvement of the British Rail system and the investment that we all want.

What conclusions does the Minister draw from the fact that on the London-Midland line, which serves the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and me, revenues have dramatically increased since the belated introduction of high-speed trains between London and Sheffield? Does the Minister agree that such investment raises both morale and revenue, and that that is what we need, rather than carping and sniping at British Rail?

Yes, I agree with that. The HST programme has been particularly successful, although in some senses internationally underrated. The 125 mph high speed diesel trains are a remarkable railway achievement.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm yet again that in terms of finance there are two railways—the one that British Rail is able and willing to run profitably, and the social railway that the nation demands? Does he agree that there are far too many questions about the British Rail subsidy and far too few about the subsidy for the M1 motorway, the cost of repairs, police, accidents and time lost? Is it not time that a fairer comparison was made?

Yes. I hope that the results of the Serpell committee inquiry will help to disentangle which parts of the railway are run for social reasons and which parts are or should be run commercially.

Does the Secretary of State recall that during the industrial dispute earlier this year both he and the chairman of British Rail constantly said that if the railway unions accepted the productivity package it would result in investment in the railways? How many investment schemes has he approved since the productivity agreements were reached?

The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that final agreement has not yet been secured. It is the subject of current negotiations. I am anxious that British Rail should be able to move forward on all the agreements that were signed in 1981 but have not yet been delivered. Those agreements are a precondition for the successful working of existing investment, let alone new investment.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the percentage increase in public transport fares since May 1979.

Public transport fares increased by about 16 per cent. in real terms between May 1979 and October 1982.

How much of that increase is due to cuts in Government transport subsidy and cuts imposed by the Government on local authority transport subsidies? Is it not a classic example of Tory double standards when Ministers refuse to provide an adequate transport subsidy for the general public but approve a 100 per cent. transport subsidy for themselves so that they can travel around for nothing in the luxury of chauffeur-driven limousines?

The hon. Gentleman completely misrepresents the facts. I point out to him very firmly that since May 1979 revenue support to public transport has risen in cash and in real terms. I hope that he will go away and think seriously about that, as it shows what rubbish his question was.

Leaving aside all political implications, does my hon. Friend appreciate the social consequences of the increase in fares? Is he aware that the price of a season ticket to London from Folkestone has risen fourfold since I have had the honour to be in the House? Does he realise that, as people used to commute from Folkestone to London, the increases mean that house prices in Folkestone have fallen while those in London have risen? Should that not be considered before further price increases are approved?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise the importance for the quality of life generally of efficient public transport. The way to get public transport fares under control is through higher productivity, worthwhile investment and responsible wage settlements. Throwing money away on irresponsible current subsidies makes it impossible to finance the investment that could cut costs and make the services more attractive.

Is the Minister aware of the enormous increase in fares on the section of the Central line that runs through Essex, especially the Epping and Ongar section, because of the refusal of the Conservative-controlled Essex county council—unlike the Labour-controlled GLC—to claim transport supplementary grant to provide a subsidy for that line? Is he aware that all services on that line are to disappear, except for those in the rush hour? Will that not prove to be a recipe for the eventual closure of the line? Will he do something about it?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is for Essex county council to decide what support should be given to that line. The fact that fares in London have risen 40 per cent. more than the retail prices index makes one think very seriously about the policies of the GLC.

When challenged about public transport fares, will my hon. Friend never fail to mention the need for efficient and economical operation? Is he aware that today London Transport announced that it suspects that it is losing £30 million through fraud? Would not the elimination of that fraud contribute to lower fares than the 40 per cent. increase to which he has referred?

I know that the director of London Transport is very concerned at the loss of revenue through fraud and is considering various measures to decrease that loss.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what improvements he expects to be brought about by the introduction of a new computer system at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre in Swansea.

It is planned to bring the new system into operation over the next three years. It is designed to provide a more rapid service to the public and will enable us to make significant manpower savings.

I am delighted to hear that reply. Is my hon. Friend aware that I have had to write to her Department in Swansea in the past three weeks about two cases of delay in the issuing of driving licences? Will she assure us that during the interim period while the new computer comes into operation steps will be taken to ensure the reduction of the delays that have taken place recently?

I understand that there have been problems in a small minority of cases, about some of which my hon. Friend has written to me. Our current aim is to handle 90 per cent. of transactions within 10 days. When we have an on-line rather than a batch processing system we shall be able to deal with far more inquiries instantaneously. I assure my hon. Friend that we are providing for the continuation of the old system until the new system is fully operational, with the help of private computer consultants.

How many people are now employed at Swansea, particularly in dealing with vehicle excise duty? Are the Government taking steps towards a fundamental reform of the car licensing and VED systems?

The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea and the local vehicle licensing offices now employ 5,500 people. That is 1,500 fewer posts than when the Government took office, despite a 4 per cent. increase in work load. We are continually reviewing the way in which jobs are carried through to make the service more efficient. The VED system was examined in 1979 by the then Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), and the Government decided not to abolish vehicle excise duty because of the effect on rural motorists and business users.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what are the outstanding issues to be resolved before heavy goods vehicles testing can be transferred to the Lloyd's Register Vehicle Testing Authority.

Much progress has been made in our discussions with Lloyd's Register of Shipping. There are still a number of issues to be resolved and detailed discussions are continuing on such matters as the conditions for occupation of the test stations by LRVTA, terms and conditions of employment for staff, and arrangements for LRVTA's relationship with the Department after transfer.

Does the Under-Secretary of State recall that when what is now the Transport Act 1982 was passing through the House hon. Members who objected to the proposal to transfer HGV testing stations to the private sector were given increasingly firm assurances that the passing of the Bill would enable the transfer to be made, virtually immediately, to Lloyd's? As the gravest doubts are cast on those assurances by the hon. Lady's answer to me, may we have a categorical assurance that if this transfer is not successfully negotiated there will be no transfer of the HGV testing to the private sector, and that in no circumstances will HGV testing be broken up and handed over to a series of private firms?

I remind the House that I never expected the transfer to proceed immediately. The Act that permits the transfer received Royal Assent only a few weeks ago. Discussions are continuing well towards agreement. I hope that agreement will be reached, because the Government's declared aim has been to transfer all 91 stations together. At present we are not considering any other solution.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the maximum investment expenditure possible by British Rail operating within the external financing limit announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the current year and next year.

The British Rail investment ceiling is £462 million in 1982–83 and £497 million in 1983£84.

How much of that figure is available to British Rail for investment, because, increasingly, British Rail says that it is unable to meet the investment programme by reason of the constraints placed upon it by the Government?

As my answer will have shown the hon. Gentleman, the investment ceiling is not one of those constraints. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question must lie in British Rail containing its operating costs and in generating the funds available for investment up to the substantial ceiling that I have outlined.

I was delighted that my right hon. Friend visited my constituency on Saturday of last week, although, sadly, I had to be with my regiment in Preston. What percentage of the resources that my right hon. Friend has announced today will be available to British Rail to assist with the commencement of a Channel tunnel, which is vital not only to the United Kingdom and industry in the North-West—which would benefit greatly from a rail-only tunnel—but to the construction industry?

I was delighted to visit my hon. Friend's constituency recently, but I cannot—

The right hon. Gentleman was probably even more delighted that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) was not there.

I had a very pleasant time.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that British Rail has put forward proposals for investment in a modified form of the advanced passenger train to run between Glasgow and London? When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to announce the go-ahead for the modified form of the APT, so that it can at last run between Glasgow and London carrying fare-paying passengers?

I have not yet had such specific proposals put before me.

May I assure my right hon. Friend that, should he visit Folkestone, he will be able to see the site of the Channel tunnel—and I promise not to be in Preston when he comes?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that invitation. It is nice to be in demand.

Will the Secretary of State deny any speculation that the new advanced passenger train will run, not to Glasgow, but only as far as Liverpool and Manchester?

The precise arrangements for the use of the train are a matter for British Rail. These are matters that should be announced by and referred to the chairman of British Rail.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list his powers in relation to traffic management schemes proposed by the Greater London Council which affect trunk routes.

My powers in relation to traffic management schemes affecting trunk roads in Greater London are derived from section 6(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, which enables my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or, with his consent, the Greater London Council, to make traffic regulation orders relating to trunk roads.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the GLC is trying to impose on Enfield town a contra-flow bus scheme at a cost of £90,000? Is he further aware that this proposal is opposed by the council and by all organisations in Enfield? Will he examine the powers of the GLC in this regard and consider whether he can overrule them?

Church Street is not a trunk road and it does not come within the provisions that I specified. My right hon. Friend was not consulted when the GLC introduced the proposal for the scheme. I understand that the proposal is on an experimental basis, limited in time. If the GLC wishes to proceed with a permanent order, it must be advertised locally and nationally and the public must be given a right to object.

Should the Transport Act 1967 be reinforced to limit juggernaut movements in central London?

I should need to consider carefully an answer to that question. If I may, I shall write to my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied that the rural areas of the country have a sufficient level of bus transport.

It is for county councils, with their local knowledge, to decide how the particular needs of their areas should best be met. Where conventional buses are no longer viable, innovatory forms of transport can be a great help, and my Department is doing what it can to make people generally aware of all the possibilities.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there used to be a slogan "Get on a bus"?

I have been on two buses today.

Is my hon. Friend further aware that, apart from peak hours, one cannot find a bus in the countryside. There seem to be fewer and fewer buses. I appreciate that few people travel outside peak times. Does this not show that it would almost pay if some of these subsidies were to go on taxi fares, which would cost less than it costs to run buses outside peak hours?

I sympathise with those in rural areas who cannot get the bus services that they wish. That is why we have encouraged the development of community transport and shared taxi systems, which are already running well in many parts of the country, and in which I expect to see a growth in the months ahead.

Is not the low level of transport in rural areas, and generally, due to a lack of investment in transport by the Government, and is not the biggest restrictive practice in transport precisely that lack of proper investment by the Government? When this matter is examined on a world scale, is not the United Kingdom among the lowest on the international list? Is not the real reason for that the lack of proper rural transport?

The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. Bus revenue support in 1982–83 was £260 million-about 20 per cent. higher than in the previous year. Rural services have not suddenly started to decline. They have been declining for many years. The Transport Act 1980 opened up new opportunities for rural areas, which have been taken up gladly in many parts of the country.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in many rural areas, such as the one that I represent, fares on public transport are greater than those on private transport on the same routes? While that situation continues it is hardly surprising that many rural communities are not served by bus services, which are becoming increasingly unviable. Will my hon. Friend encourage bus companies to experiment with cut-price fare schemes? If they cut their fares by 50 per cent., they may be surprised to find that use more than doubles and that such systems become feasible.

My hon. Friend's proposals are attractive. Few bus companies can afford to run widely flung services in areas where there is insufficient demand for them to run with a sensible pricing system.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) asked the Minister whether she was satisfied with rural transport. I am not surprised that the Minister did not answer the question. The hon. Lady must be aware that National Bus Company mileage fell by 8 per cent. between 1980 and 1981 and that the number of passengers carried fell by 8·3 per cent. in the same year. There was a 9 per cent. loss of jobs in the National Bus Company. Between 1980 and 1981, 43 million miles of stage carriage routes were lost. That has arisen largely—

Order. This is the time not for argument but for questions. The hon. Member has not asked a question. He may ask one now.

I seem to remember prefacing my remarks by asking the Minister whether she was aware—

Order. Front Benchers as well as Back Benchers must be fair to the House.

Is the Minister aware that that dismal performance on rural road transport has stemmed largely from the provisions of the Transport Act 1980? Until something is done about that Act, that spiral of decline will continue.

The hon. Gentleman quotes many statistics. He should have listened to what I said. Rural services have been declining for many years. The 1980 Act made it easier for the small private operator to work routes which were uneconomic for the large operators.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce proposals to stimulate the greater use of public transport.

Tighter control of operating costs combined with capital investment to improve passenger facilities is the key to stimulating greater use of public transport. The measures currently before the House will promote efficiency and will help to ensure that resources remain available for valuable investment and are not drained away into unreasonably high and wasteful operating subsidies.

What response has been given to Staffordshire county council, which has said that the Government's financial support is inadequate to maintain a minimum level of public transport in that county? Does the Minister accept that the provision of public transport is an essential social service for the young and old and many other sections of the community?

The last time that the hon. Gentleman raised that matter I explained that with regard to transport Staffordshire county council was treated favourably when compared with other councils.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the best stimulus to increased use of public transport is an improvement in quality? My constituents are still travelling in cattle-truck conditions on London Transport. The first step should be to take London Transport out of the hands of the Greater London Council, which has made such a mess of it.

There is widespread support for my hon. Friend's comments.

Would not one way to stimulate use be to provide different forms of public transport? For example, the Minister could increase British Rail's investment programme to enable it to switch from DMUs to rail buses, which are produced in my constituency. At the end of next year the current orders run out. May we look forward to a continuity in orders by the Government increasing British Rail's external financing limit?

There is some good sense in the hon. Gentleman's point. We are in favour of having fares as low as possible and public transport to being as good as possible. The essential requirements are a sensible level of subsidy, which we are providing, sensible levels of service, tailored to needs, and efficient operation to prevent subsidies being wasted. By following those principles the resources can be created to improve the services.

There would be much greater use of public transport by my constituents if some means could be found to ensure greater uniformity of concessionary fares arrangements between London and Essex.

I know that that point troubles my hon. Friend. A decision about subsidies is essentially one for Essex county council.

Does the Minister acknowledge that the continuous pursuit of a cheap fares policy by the South Yorkshire metropolitan authority has been accompanied by a higher level of investment in bus services than has occurred in authorities where high fares policies have been pursued? How will the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State increase investment in public transport by cutting the transport supplementary grant?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the claim of the South Yorkshire metropolitan authority to have increased passengers by 7 per cent. has been accompanied by an admission that its subsidy has risen by no less than 600 per cent. One has to judge whether that enormous cost has yielded an adequate benefit. One of the industry's great problems is to ensure that investment is related to achieving an effective return in improved services.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representation he has received from the public about heavier lorries since his announcement of 4 November.

I have received some 35 letters from the public since my announcement on 4 November.

Is my right hon. Friend sincerely convinced, after the generous vote of the House last Thursday for heavier lorry weights, that the heavy lorry operators will accept the overriding need for additional restrictions on the movement and parking of such lorries?

The Government's view is that there should not merely be acceptance by the hauliers, but that the existing powers, which my hon. Friend played no small part in providing, should be used more vigorously. The Government are determined to see that they are so used. We have said that our decisions on the transport supplementary grant will be influenced by the vigour with which various county councils make use of the restrictions on the movement of heavy lorries.

Has the Secretary of State received a request from Gwent county council to meet a deputation about the difficulties on the Severn bridge, which will be aggravated by the order authorising. the use of heavier lorries? Will the Minister assure the House that the work of repairing and strengthening that vital bridge will be carried out on a 24-hour basis?

I am not aware of having received such a request. The subject of repairs to the Severn bridge has received close consideration and the matter is proceeding. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are reviewing the longer-term needs of the Severn bridge.

Is not part of the reason for the much greater acceptance of the Government's proposals on heavy lorries the undertaking to build more bypasses? Will my right hon. Friend carefully review the decision not to build a bypass on the A13 through the Rainham, Essex, part of my constituency?

The Government have decided substantially to increase the bypass programme, but that is not the only reason for the support for our much more comprehensive package of lorry controls. We need to tackle all aspects of the matter—the quality of the vehicles, where they go, where they are routed, bypasses and enforcement. The overall package has rightly been welcomed, because those aspects have been neglected for many years.

Is the Minister aware that when the Labour Opposition mounted an attack on heavy lorries last Thursday, with a vote to try to stop their introduction—

The Opposition were heavily defeated.

—we were heavily defeated because, among others, the Gang of Four and the leader of the Liberal Party were missing? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that some of us are wondering whether there is a Japanese lorry invasion on the horizon?

The heavy defeat was partly because common sense is on the side of fuller loads on quieter and more efficient lorries and because a good many of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends in the trade union movement realised that a vote against the regulations was a vote against jobs, about which the hon. Gentleman waxes eloquent, and rightly stayed away.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service to what extent British equipment is being used for the modernisation of Civil Service office systems.

British equipment is being used as widely as possible, given the need to ensure technical efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency placed contracts for the supply of computer and computer-related equipment totalling £160 million in the three calendar years 1979 to 1981, of which about 76 per cent. was of British manufacture.

Will my hon. Friend assure me that he is maintaining close liaison with his hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology about the Civil Service office of the future? Will he also reassure us that he bears in mind that it is imperative that everyone is aware that when foreign machines are purchased British jobs are lost?

I give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance on both points.

Can the Minister give us an absolute assurance that when senior civil servants involved in equipment purchasing retire they do not join firms with which they have negotiated?

There are well-established procedures for people retiring from the public service, setting out the jobs that they are permitted to take, and the procedures will be fully followed.

In considering the modernisation of Civil Service office systems, will my hon. Friend give due weight to the need to disperse as many civil servants as possible to the regions and consider with sympathy and urgency the need for the Patent Office to be located in Manchester, which is an ideal location for the new office within the EC?

I believe that that supplementary question relates to a later question.

My hon. Friend avoids answering the question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice and assistance. In response to my supplementary question my hon. Friend referred to a later question on the Order Paper. That question was not reached. I seek your advice and assistance in putting what I describe as a bona fide question. Should not my hon. Friend have responded to the question instead of seeking to hide behind what was clearly not another question on the Order Paper in his endeavour to avoid giving an answer?

Order. I never attribute motives to Ministers. I always assume the best. In any case, it is not my responsibility.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service to what extent, in formulating the financial management initiative, he took into account the Minis system developed in the Department of the Environment.

Very fully indeed. The working document with which the initiative was launched referred to Minis as one of the departmental reviews that had pointed the way. The Government expect Departments to establish management systems that include the ground covered by Minis.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it will be necessary for all Departments when replying to the FMI to adopt the form and degree of detail of the information displayed in the Minis format in the Department of the Environment?

The recent White Paper made it clear that all Departments had to respond to the FMI by early next year. The Management and Personnel Office and the Treasury will be reporting to the House.

Are not many of the savings that the Government claim achieved at the expense of efficiency? Is the breakdown of DHSS services, such as that in Birmingham, with a reduced staff facing an extra 80,000 claims, not just the tip of the iceberg? Are not frustrated and overstretched officers throughout the country facing rapidly increasing work loads while the Government pursue their shibboleth of arbitrary staff cuts regardless of work load and the effect on the quality of services to the most needy in our society?

That is not a reasonable statement of the position. The numbers are being reduced from the 732,000 when we came to office to 630,000 by 1 April 1984. We are down to 655,000 and are on target to achieve the reduction. Adjustments are being made to the numbers of civil servants to take account of different work loads. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in deploring the call for a one-day strike in the DHSS and regretting the action, which will hurt the general public.

Is not the action the result of sheer frustration, to which the Government have responded inadequately by offering temporary replacements of staff, who will take three months to train, to deal with a long-term increase in work?

The right hon. Gentleman is badly informed. The NEC of the CPSA, one of the main unions involved, on 17 November recommended a full return to work on the basis of proposals made to the Government. I have the union circular here. The right hon. Gentleman should join me in regretting that the work force did not respond to the call from the union executive and deploring action that will hurt the general public.

As the Ministry of Defence employs far more civil servants than any other Government Department, has not the Minis system more applicability and potential benefit there than in any other sector? Has the system been introduced there, and if not, why not?

The Ministry of Defence already has elaborate management control systems. Although Minis is relevant, I do not necessarily believe that transplanting it from the Department of the Environment to the Ministry of Defence would be appropriate. The reports coming forward will come to the House next year and will fully set out what has been done in all Departments.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what matters he plans to discuss at the next meeting with the Civil Service unions.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with representatives of the trade unions in the Civil Service.

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

When the Minister next meets the unions will he assure them that in the next wage bargaining lower paid civil servants will not suffer the same shabby treatment as that meted out to the Health Service workers?

I do not believe that the Health Service workers have been treated shabbily, so I can give no such assurance.

Will the Minister discuss the possibility of giving civil servants greater freedom of speech? For example, would it not have been to great public advantage had we known earlier the views of Mr. Andrew Britton, the former under-secretary at the Treasury, who yesterday stated that the Government's monetarist policies had done virtually nothing for the economy's underlying problems and accused them of persisting with an economic strategy that had no firm intellectual base?

I regard that as a partial precis of what Mr. Britton said yesterday. At any rate, it is a long-established custom that civil servants should not indulge in controversial comments about Government policies of the day. I suspect that if that were allowed to happen, under any Government, the whole quality of government and, indeed, the position of this House would be prejudiced.

In view of recent events. is the Minister satisfied with the personal vetting arrangements for civil servants? When he next meets the unions, will he have discussions with them about the matter?

As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, matters of this kind are the subject of a review by the Security Commission. I do not think that it is for me to comment today.

Is my hon. Friend aware that officers and members of the IPCS are worried about terms for obliging people to take early retirement and the contradiction that exists for those who wish to carry on?

There are difficulties within the Civil Service for those civil servants who would like to continue serving after the age of 60 when they have no right as such. Those personal requirements are necessarily in conflict sometimes with wider managerial considerations and taking into the Civil Service people who would otherwise not have jobs.