asked the Secretary of State for Transport what fees have actually been paid to the consultants Travers Morgan Ltd. for their work on the Serpell report.

Payments to date amount to nearly £370,000 inclusive of disbursements and VAT. Final accounts have not yet been received.

As over half the costs of the Serpell inquiry have gone in lucrative fees to the consultants Travers Morgan, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider it unwise to pay any further sums that may be outstanding to the firm, as many Opposition Members and others in the country believe that—inadvertently or not—he breached the guidelines in the code of practice with regard to seeking a sufficiently wide source of assistance and advice for such a committee? Many of us believe that this matter should go to the Public Accounts Committee.

There is no question of a breach of the code of practice. The hon. Gentleman will see that page 5 shows that the procedures were strictly followed. The payments to Travers Morgan are strictly and closely audited and checked; and, of course, the PAC has a perfect right to look at them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that several Conservative Members welcome the very quick findings of the consultants Travers Morgan and consider the fees paid to be a mere trifle compared with the enormous savings that will be possible?

It is true, as my hon. Friend points out, that the report identifies savings in excess of £200 million. Therefore, it is clearly worth while getting good and thorough complex financial and engineering studies.

Is not the total cost paid out to two firms of consultants, which had two members on the Serpell committee, in excess of £500,000? Is it not curious that, although the Secretary of State always rabbits on about competition, these consultants were chosen without any competitive tendering whatsoever, contrary to the general rules of conduct applying to such business?

As I have said, the consultants were chosen not contrary to, but in accordance with, the code of practice laid down for their procurement. In this case, it was clear that there was a need to make rapid progress—as was strongly urged by British Rail—with complex financial and engineering studies. The consultants were chosen because they could give prompt backing to those selected to help with the review.

Can the Secretary of State cite one other case in which companies that have provided a consultancy service to a committee of inquiry have had their senior partners appointed to it? Where is that specified in the rules that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned?

There are precedents for the employment of consultants whose partners are committee members, and I shall let the hon. Gentleman have details— [Interruption]—if he so wishes. The rules for the employment of consultants make it clear that in exceptional circumstances an approach to a single firm may be made.

If, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the inquiry will save hundreds of millions of pounds, how does he intend to proceed?

We had a full debate in which I answered that question and implied that British Rail was being urged to seek the savings—well in excess of £200 million—that were identified in the Serpell report.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of the British Railways Board the prospects for the manufacture in British Rail Engineering Ltd. workshops of rolling stock for overseas railways.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend and I have made it clear that we will do everything we can to encourage the railway engineering industry to seek and win overseas orders.

No doubt the Minister is aware that British Rail Engineering Ltd. has issued compulsory redundancy notices to quite a lot of people, particularly in Westhoughton. At the same time, that company is farming out work to private enterprise. Will the Minister comment on that, particularly as the situation is so difficult? As British Rail has now secured an important order for the Congo, will the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State state categorically that they reject the options in the Serpell report about the future of British Rail Engineering Ltd.? Will the hon. Gentleman approve the investment programme for British Rail, so that the sleeper coaches on the London-Midlands line can be refurbished in British Rail workshops instead of being withdrawn from service, as currently planned?

The hon. Gentleman raises a number of questions, but he knows that the problems of over-capacity that have arisen in BREL, which have been given active consideration during the past year, throw upon BREL and BR the responsibility to organise their affairs to the best advantage.

The Minister says that BREL is suffering from over-capacity. Will he tell British Rail that it is wrong in principle to farm out the breaking up of old wagons to private enterprise, such as Dobbins of Chester and others? Will he instruct BR that if there is over-capacity, the capacity of the workshops should be fully utilised before work is farmed out?

British Rail must make its commercial decisions about the allocation of work. The Government want to see more investment in the railways, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that alone will not solve the problems of BREL. We must take account of the technical changes that have taken place in the running of the railways—for example, wagon loads, the new style of wagons, their more efficient use and, therefore, the reduction in the number of wagons built and the reduction in repair work.

Does the Minister not realise that the Government are intervening in the affairs of British Rail? Does he not also realise that over the heads of British Rail there hangs the threat of cutbacks? How does he expect any part of British Rail to build up an efficient and viable industry not only for internal use but for exports? When will he help the nationalised British Rail to be more efficient and viable?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government want an efficient, competitive railway engineering industry that can supply British Rail and win overseas orders. His question relates to the responsibility of BREL and BR in conducting the affairs of the company to its best advantage.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of the British Railways Board to discuss the feasibility of a rail link between central London and Stansted airport; and if he will make a statement.

The feasibility of a rail link to Stansted airport has already been established. Whether the link will be needed will depend on the decision on the proposed expansion of the airport.

What would be the cost of such a project? Will that cost not further tend to question the wisdom of establishing a third London airport in north-west Essex? Will my hon. Friend consider whether such a sum might be better directed towards improving services on the Cambridge line so that my constituents can enjoy a railway service more fitting to the 1980s than to the 1930s?

My hon. Friend knows that the Government have made it clear that they intend to provide a rail service to link the expanded airport with London. But a decision will not be taken before the outcome of the inquiry is known. British Rail's earlier study estimated a cost of about £170 million at 1980 prices. The detailed work currently under way shows scope for reducing that cost.

Is the Minister aware that a rail link between Stansted airport and central London is more sensible than the proposal to build a dangerous and noisy heliport on the banks of the Thames opposite my constituency?

I note the hon. Gentleman's opinion.

Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to compare the cost of a rail link with Stansted with the cost of extending the Picadilly line to serve a fifth terminal on the Perry Oaks site at Heathrow, which would cost only £19 million at 1979 prices? Is that not one good reason, together with many other good reasons, for developing a fifth terminal at Heathrow rather than embarking upon development at Stansted?

My hon. Friend mentioned a factor that must be taken into account when the outcome of the inquiry is known. I know that he will understand that the decision on the airport will be taken by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and for the Environment.

In order to compare like with like, will my hon. Friend consider the cost of extending British Rail's network from Feltham to terminal 5, which would be much cheaper than building a new rail service from central London to Stansted?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. It will be taken into account in due course.

Will the Minister give an assurance that a decision will be taken on this matter before the end of the century?

The right hon. Gentleman will have to await the outcome of the inquiry, and we cannot yet estimate when that will be.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of the British Railways Board for the purpose of discussing plans for further electrification.

I frequently meet the chairman of the British Railways Board to discuss matters of mutual interest, including plans for further electrification.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman of the board, will he confirm that he intends to authorise the electrification of the line between Ashford and Hastings with the least possible delay? Will he also confirm that the rates of return for the electrification of the east coast main line are favourable? When the board's submissions are complete, will he authorise the electrification of the east coast main line without delay?

The Government recognise and have made a commitment to the need for a major investment on the Tonbridge to Hastings section of the line. Discussions are continuing on the precise form that the investment should take.

Would not the prospects for electrification be greatly improved if British Rail were allowed to operate the parts that have been electrified—for example, the Bedford to St. Pancras line? Does not that and other restrictive practices, such as guards still travelling on goods trains when they are not required, make the prospect for British Rail rather bleak?

I assure my hon. Friend that British Rail has my full support in seeking to overcome the monstrous delay in the use of £150 million of modern equipment on the newly electrified line between Bedford and St. Pancras. It has become a symbol of the refusal of part of the trade union movement to accept the new practices that are necessary to go with the new investment.

When the Minister next meets the chairman of the board, will he remind him of the speech that he made on 8 February when he stated clearly that if the electrification of the railways took place it would mean the renewal of diesel engines which, in many instances, would have to come from abroad? Will the Minister speak seriously with the chairman about that problem?

It is correct that, elsewhere in the system, diesel engines are coming to the end of their lives and are in need of renewal. However, the diesel equipment on the east coast line still has many years of service. That is why the Government and the British Railways Board seek to provide an overall view of inter-city services and how they can be brought to profit.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will tell the chairman of British Rail that once the proposals for the electrification of the east coast line are submitted to him they will be reviewed as a matter of urgency and a quick, and I hope positive, decision will be taken on them?

I shall do my best to look at the proposals as quickly as possible in the light of the criteria laid down by the Government, which have not changed since they were laid down in the summer of 1981, one of which was that there must be a prospect and a plan for how much inter-city business as a whole can be brought into profit.

Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a growing suspicion that the only programme of massive public expenditure that the Government seem eager to embrace is continuingly increasing unemployment? Would it not be better to devote resources to major items of expenditure, such as the gas-gathering pipeline, which the right hon. Gentleman rejected in another office, and major electrification? Would this not at least bring us into line with the practices of many of our competitors?

Yes, I welcome all worthwhile investment, and I welcome the fact that British Rail is lifting its moratorium on investment projects and will be able to increase investment next year. Investment in new infrastructure, including rail developments, is highly desirable where it is worth while and soundly based.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that consideration of electrification of the east coast main line route will be separate from and parallel to any consideration of the Serpell report?

The issue is being looked at separately from the Serpell report. The Serpell report made some observations about the long-term prospects for the inter-city business, but that does not alter the way in which the east coast electrification issue is being handled.

How many times has British Rail submitted figures on electrification to the right hon. Gentleman and how many times has he asked for recalculations to be done?

On the east coast main line, British Rail has brought forward proposals once before, and the next time will be the second occasion. British Rail decided to withdraw its calculations in November, following discussions with my Department which revealed that the revenue projections were no longer soundly based.

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

At average 1981–82 prices, expenditure on new construction of motorways and trunk roads in England was £438 million in 1979–80, £407 million in 1980–81 and £449 million in 1981–82. The corresponding figures for local roads were £380 million, £465 million, and £335 million. The last figure is still provisional.

Does my hon. Friend agree that our roads are inadequate for the traffic that they have to bear? In such circumstances, does she not think that expenditure on new roads should be much higher in the next few years than it has been in the past three years?

Some roads are inadequate, but there was an increase in trunk road output of 10 per cent. in 1981–82 and of at least 10 per cent. more in 1982–83. We are seeking an extra £45 million this year for roads, by means of Supplementary Vote, because we have been able to make exceptional progress on work already in hand, so we shall be able to get on with extra structural repairs.

Why is there all this emphasis on new road building, which has consequences for loan charges and which means that there will be less money for normal road maintenance? Does the Minister recognise that decaying infrastructure in the inner city areas is a deterrent to the development of industry? Is it not about time that there was a new emphasis on spending on maintenance rather than on major road schemes?

I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is right to maintain our roads, but maintenance spending on motorways and trunk roads rose by 27 per cent. in real terms between 1979–80 and 1981–82, and a further increase is likely in 1982–83. Nobody is more conscious than I of the need to maintain adequately our older roads which can still give very good service and have a good extended life.

Will my hon. Friend speed up the construction of the M25 to give some relief to the continuing and serious problems on the south circular road?

As my hon. Friend knows, the south circular road is a matter for the Greater London council, not for my Department. The M25 not only has our top priority, but in many stretches it is running ahead of schedule. It will be completed by 1986, and two thirds of it is either under construction or will be completed for use later this year.

Why is it that of the 22 new schemes introduced in this year's White Paper, only two fell within the area covered by the North of England County Councils Association? Why could not more of the schemes in Cumbria be introduced in this year's White Paper? Does the Minister recall that only two years ago the Government produced a White Paper that removed six schemes from the county of Cumbria?

Let us get this into perspective. In 1980, when the Government looked through the schemes said to be under preparation, they found that many were not under preparation but merely lines on a piece of paper. The review made sure that those schemes that were listed were truly under preparation. In last year's review I was able to bring schemes back into the preparation pool so that we could take advantage of lower tender prices and build those roads sooner.

Given the need to increase expenditure on road maintenance and construction, what progress has my hon. Friend made on the suggestion that future roads should be funded partly from tolls?

There is, as my right hon. Friend knows, a working partly looking at private finance for roads. However, in general terms, it seems that we might be in the danger that France has experienced if we were to introduce tolls on roads now. The introduction of tolls on roads simply drives much of the traffic off the new roads on to unsuitable roads. I do not rule out that possibility for all time, but there are other means of financing new roads by the use of private funding, instead of introducing tolls.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the programme for the construction of the Thamesmead spine road with a view to ensuring the early completion.

The programming and priority given to this proposal are matters entirely for the Greater London council as highway authority.

Is the Minister aware that heavy traffic is imposing an increasing burden on local residents and that the attitude of the GLC is a cause for widespread dissatisfaction? Will the hon. Lady consider opening discussions with the GLC to see whether Mr. Livingstone can be persuaded to take a more helpful attitude towards traffic problems in Erith and Crayford?

I am well aware of the problems, because I have been to see the spine road and the area to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. However, before the Department can consider funding, the GLC must include this scheme in its transport policies and programmes. Until the GLC gets on to this and puts it into its TPP, I am powerless to help. When it does so, I can help.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the interests of Londonders and of the country would be better served if the GLC attended to the matters for which it does have responsibility, which responsibility it carries out poorly, such as roads, instead of spending ratepayers' money on groups such as Babies against the Bomb and other freakish outlandish organisations which are a complete waste of ratepayers' money?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that Londoners will take careful note of where the money that they provide as ratepayers is being spent by the GLC.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many additional persons would be living within three miles of a railway station if network option C2, limiting the annual deficit to about £700 million, were adopted by Her Majesty's Government, rather than the option of a commercially viable railway as defined by the Serpell committee.

The networks described in the Serpell report are broad illustrations, and not specified in sufficient detail to enable me to make the estimate requested.

Should not this country take advantage of the oil revenues for sensible, much needed railway investment? If there is £700 million, should it be spent on railway investment, or should the £684 million allocated next year to the defence budget be squandered in the South Atlantic?

The serious part of the hon. Gentleman's question with regard to transport relates to the heart of the debate that is being conducted on the Serpell report on the nature of the development of a modern and efficient railway system.

I accept that the options set out in the Serpell report are broad brushed, but has the Minister examined the interesting statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland, in an interview that was reported in the Sunday Standard of 9 January, that any Serpell option that involved substantial closures of railway lines in Scotland would be unacceptable to the Government? Will the Minister confirm that that is the position?

I have not seen that report. However, if it is an accurate account of what my right hon. Friend said, there will be a good deal in it. The options that appear in the Serpell report are illustrative only. They show the network that there could be for various levels of support. The options presented are not a basis for policy choices on the structure of British Rail. That would require a great deal more work. It follows that there is nothing to rule out in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Is my hon. Friend able to calculate to the nearest £100 how much the question by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) would cost to answer, bearing in mind the cost of bringing together all the details for which he asked? In view of the gross number of questions that the hon. Gentleman asks, has it been calculated what it costs to publish them and the accompanying answers?

I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question precisely. The question by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) could not be answered, for the reason that I gave. However, to attempt to answer such a question would involve costs far in excess of the allowed maximum.

In view of the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland, will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no railway closures in the north of England, including the Newcastle-Carlisle line?

There are no railway closure proposals before my right hon. Friend. I emphasise that the options in the Serpell report are illustrative only, in the way that I have explained.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the chairman of the British Railways Board.

I expect to discuss a wide range of subjects of mutual interest at my next meeting with the chairman of the British Railways Board.

In view of the widespread concern in Scotland and elsewhere about some of the Serpell report options, which would annihilate the railways in many areas, will the Secretary of State ask the chairman to do what the right hon. Gentleman has so far failed to do, which is to come clean and tell us exactly what options in the Serpell report are still being considered and exactly what proportion of the existing railway network he intends to retain?

We had a full debate on this issue, during which I made it clear, as I have elsewhere, that while I rule out the extreme option of closing down virtually the entire railway network and leaving only a few hundred miles—

Thank you.

—the network maps in the Serpell report are merely illustrations of cost. The Government do not regard them as policy choices for the structure of the network. If we were to do so, far wider considerations would have to be taken into account in future. It is necessary, no doubt, that they should be. However, we now know more about the costs of running the passenger network. That is an asset and an improvement on the stale, sterile and rather useless debate that took place previously.

Among the many matters that will no doubt be discussed at the meeting between my right hon. Friend and the chairman of the British Railways Board, will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that somewhere on the list of topics is consideration of the replacement of the rolling stock on the eastern suburban commuter route, without which by the end of the decade my constituents will be faced with an even more uncomfortable journey than they face now?

As British Rail becomes more successful in curbing costs, and if it can avoid further unnecessary and expensive industrial disputes, I hope that it will have more room for investment in modern railway equipment and be able to make better use of the new equipment which it already has, but which, alas, is sitting in sidings unused.

We recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is doing his best to bury the Serpell report before the general election. Does he recognise that it would be much better if he cremated it? Will he condemn the more ludicrous recommendations in the report, including the one that states that one of the ways in which railway management can save money is to cut railway safety standards?

I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is so frightened of information. The Serpell report illustrates the costs of running the passenger network and various services and sets out how much revenue is obtained and how much they cost in terms of public support. Why is the hon. Gentleman frightened about that? I accept and recognise that safety must be paramount. The Serpell report does not question the importance of safety—it would be entirely wrong to do so—but poses the question whether high safety standards could be achieved more efficiently. That seems to be a legitimate question to which those interested in a modern and efficient railway should not shut their eyes. That should not prompt them to demand the burning of reports and books, which is an unhealthy sentiment.

Is not the main message of the Serpell report that the railways are being run extremely inefficiently? When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the British Railways Board, will he make it clear to him that one of the most unacceptable features of the way in which the railway is being run is the high number of administrative staff—about 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. of the work force? Will he take this issue up with the chairman?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the central overheads of monolithic nationalised industries, of which British Rail is one, which we inherited from the Socialist past, are quite often excessive. It is high time that in this nationalised corporation and in others a far more vigorous look is taken at the way in which overheads can be reduced and a more efficient, decentralised and modern structure established.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not really want to go back to 1938 and the "fair deal" for the railways. Is he aware that British Rail cannot place new orders for rolling stock, especially coaches on the west coast main line, without the Secretary of State's consent to extend its external financing limit? Is it not a fact that it definitely needs new rolling stock for the west coast main line and for the southern region Portsmouth and Bournemouth routes?

The answer is no. The external financing limit has been set at a high level and within that there is room for British Rail—I hope very much that it will take advantage of it—to remove its self-imposed investment moratorium and step up its investment programmes. That depends on preventing a repetition of last year's tragedy, when large amounts of funds were sucked away and drained off in useless strikes. It depends also on its ability to get going and to proceed with the cost savings identified in the Serpell report, which, to the credit of British Rail, both the chairman and the chief executive have embarked upon.

Is the Secretary of State aware that he mentioned during the debate on the Serpell report and today that he has ruled out acceptance of the extreme options contained within the report? Can we take it that the right hon. Gentleman has ruled out option H, which is the high investment option? Is that an extreme option? Will he say that he and the Government are committed to the maintenance of the existing 12,000 track miles on which British Rail currently has to operate? Will he tell me and the House that he is committed to the maintenance of the 12,000 miles?

The hon. Gentleman will remember that a few moments ago I stated exactly what the Government ruled out for the long-term future size of the network. The other illustrative costs in the Serpell report tell us how much the network costs and how much parts of it cost. They do not provide a basis for policy choices. As the report shows, much more work would be required before those choices could be reached. The hon. Gentleman's supplementay question is based on a presumption of what the Serpell report states, which is not founded in fact.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions the Government advertisement on the correct usage of rear fog lights has been shown on commercial television channels; and if he is satisfied with its effect.

This short public service information film has been shown 94 times on independent television since the beginning of November in unsold advertising time at no cost to Her Majesty's Government. Since it does not form part of a specific road safety campaign, it has not been subject to formal evaluation, but I am satisfied that the item is effective.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that the problem is by no means extinct and that more and more rear fog lights continue to be used on motorways and main roads when it is not foggy and visibility is not restricted? Does she agree that, as rear fog lights are about 20 times as intense as ordinary rear lights, if everyone used them there would be a severe danger due to lack of visibility? Does she further agree that it would be useful if the campaign were drawn into the road safety campaign so that the problem can be nailed once and for all?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the misuse of rear fog lights is a real problem. There are limited occasions when it is necessary to have them on. The problem is a recent one, as more cars have recently been fitted with rear fog lamps. We are examining the matter carefully. If it seems necessary, I shall consider the improvement of tell-tale arrangements, such as exist for hazard warning lights inside vehicles, that warn the driver that the rear fog lights are on. We are including a new and special paragraph in the revision of the highway code. I shall see what can be done to ensure that it can be better made known to motorists so that they do not misuse their rear fog lights.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further applications he has received concerning the proposed container terminal at Falmouth; and if he will make a statement.

None. The situation is unchanged since the statement by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on 9 November last.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the anxiety of Liverpool and Merseyside dock workers and the Transport and General Workers Union? Is he further aware that if the Government give permission under the Harbours Act 1964, that will mean the end of the Seaforth container terminal? Will the right hon. Gentleman remove the agony by putting the application off, once and for all?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, because he and some of his colleagues made it clear when they saw my hon. Friend. As I have said, there is no application before the Government at the moment. The Government have said that they will consider the matter if they are asked to do so. In that event, we should have to take fully into account all the relevant factors, including the impact on the rest of the ports industry and the available trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has received to his consultation document on the draft dim-dip lighting regulations for new vehicles.

We have received a very favourable response. Organisations representing motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, street lighting and road safety experts and the police have welcomed the principle of dim-dip. Opposition has been confined largely to some vehicle manufacturers and traders, and two campaigning organisations. There has been opposition from the vehicle manufacturers and from an organisation campaigning for the mandatory use of dipped headlights.

I thank my hon. Friend for that typically helpful and comprehensive reply. Can she say what benefits will result from the introduction of dim-dip headlamps? Bearing in mind the success that we enjoyed with the dipped headlight campaign that her Department ran some time ago, why does she propose to introduce new regulations on the subject now?

The use of dim-dip headlights, if approved by the House, will make it impossible for someone to drive on side lights only without the need for enforcement activity. It will also give drivers the option of using dim-dip headlights at any time if they wish to be readily visible without there being a risk of glare. Dim-dip headlights do not create the same problem of dazzle that dipped headlights often do. On unlit roads and at night, normal headlights in the dipped position will continue to be required, but the general consensus seems to be that this is a useful step. I await further comments, although 37 organisations have responded and supported the dim-dip device.

Will my hon. Friend take into account the appalling extent to which cyclists now drive at night without any rear lights? Will she consider a television advertisement that brings to the attention of cyclists the dangers that they and other road users are subjected to because of that?

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. Cyclists who drive at night without illumination are putting themselves in great jeopardy. One can see that from the accidents that cyclists suffer. I hope that it will not be necessary to mount an expensive campaign, but we shall continue to monitor what they are doing about their illumination. They would help themselves if they wore reflective armbands and sashes at all times—day and night.

Will the Minister confirm that these draft regulations will apply only to new vehicles that are not yet registered? That being the case, does she agree that all the problems that she has just described will continue in existing vehicles? Does she agree that this must therefore be an unsatisfactory way of dealing with the problem?

It is necessary to see the issue in context. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the suggestion is that the proposed dim-dip regulations would apply to new vehicles, but it is possible to fit a dim-dip device to existing vehicles, although that would be expensive for some motorists. It is worth bearing in mind the present rate of renewal of cars. I am sure, also, that many motorists will want to take advantage of the fact that they can adapt their lights to have a dim-dip facility. Although it will not cure the problem, the proper regulation of headlights will greatly help those who do not have a dim-dip device.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange to meet the Scottish traffic commissioners to discuss roadside inspections of public service vehicles.

My right hon. Friend receives regular reports from the traffic commissioners about public service vehicles, but we are always willing to meet them to discuss particular points of concern.

Is the Minister aware that the latest Scottish traffic commissioners' report said that out of 1,979 vehicles that were examined in a spot check, 200 received suspension notices, 95 of which were enforced immediately? Is he further aware that it said that, on routine checks, more than 200 vehicles were immediately issued with suspension notices—twice the figure for the previous year—and that that was described as an unnecessary risk to the public, which resulted from the failure to keep the number of inspectors up to standard? What discussions will the Minister have to ensure that the shortage of seven inspectors is immediately rectified or that their number is increased in the light of that serious report?

Spot checks are part of the system for enforcing PSV standards. The number of inspections in Scotland is broadly in proportion to the number that take place throughout Great Britain. I note the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the subject. We are willing to do anything that we can to improve and increase the standards of enforcement. I shall be ready to discuss that subject with the commissioners.

Is my hon. Friend aware that most inspections take place in public laybys? When he meets the Scottish traffic commissioners, will he give them some guidance about giving advance notice to oncoming motorists about where an inspection is taking place? Is he aware that, invariably, one arrives at a spot where an inspection is taking place without having been warned, and that there is therefore a danger to motorists using that road?

I note my hon. Friend's practical point. I shall arrange for that to be discussed with the traffic commissioners. According to my information, most inspections do not take place in laybys, as there is a desire to allow the PSV to go to a terminus, garage or proper parking space so that passengers will have disembarked and the inspection can be carried out properly. I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.

Is the Minister aware that I am grateful to him for agreeing to review seating arrangements on school buses? Is he further aware that there is still great anxiety among many parents, especially in Strathclyde region, that some old vehicles—they are often more than 25 years' old—are being used for school bus contracts? Will he arrange for the traffic commissioners to make regular swoops to check the vehicles, as there is grave concern about the safety of schoolchildren?

I shall certainly discuss that point with the commissioners. If the hon. Gentleman has any special matter of concern and would be kind enough to let me have details, I shall ensure that the matter is discussed in detail.

Is the Minister worried by the problem to which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) drew his attention? If he is, why has he not already had discussions with the traffic commissioners about the subject?

I believe that considerable efforts are being made, within the resources that are available, to ensure that enforcement is carried out properly throughout Great Britain. Naturally, I am prepared to do anything that I can to improve those standards.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the primary road network in north-east Lancashire.

The joint trunk and county M65 motorway from Blackburn to Colne, together with the link via the M66 to Manchester, is progressively coming into use. When this key project and the other schemes in our programme are complete, the trunk network will be generally satisfactory; local roads are of course the county's responsibility.

Does my hon. Friend accept that a first-class motorway network is vital to the long-term economic development of north-east Lancashire? Therefore, does she acknowledge the strength of feeling about a full motorway link between the M65 and the M6 to the west and similarly, looking to the longer term in the east, a full motorway link to the Aire valley motorway to the east of Pendle?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, a first-class motorway network is important. He knows that we are already pressing ahead with preparations for essential improvements to the existing route to the north of Blackburn out to the M6. Following the meeting that I had in Preston, which was most useful, I shall consider any proposals from the Lancashire county council for the extension across to the M6. My hon. Friend spoke of an extension of the M65 eastwards into Yorkshire. There are no plans by us for that, because that road would have to be the responsibility of a county as the route is a principal route.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the operation of the rules governing the appearance of retired civil servants before inquiries where their official knowledge is relevant.

There are no rules relating specifically to the appearance of retired civil servants before inquiries.

Had Sir Anthony Parsons offered to give evidence to the Franks committee, is it likely that he would have become special advisor on foreign affairs to the Prime Minister? Had Sir Nicholas Henderson offered to give evidence to the Franks committee, is it likely that he would be the Prime Minister's preferred candidate to succeed George Howard as chairman of the board of governors of the BBC? Is it not extraordinary that the Franks committee did not ask either of those two key witnesses to give evidence? How can we treat as authoritative any report that has such startling omissions?

There is no doubt that the supplementary questions asked by the hon. Gentleman have absolutely nothing to do with his original question. They were hypothetical in character. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing his campaign with his considerable ingenuity, by asking questions that have already been answered by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) did much better on the "Lothian question" than he has done on the Falklands, which he has got consistently wrong from beginning to end?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the hon. Gentleman has fallen below the high standards that we have come to expect of him in other matters.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will revise rules governing tendering for, and conflicts of interest in, consultants to bodies appointed by Ministers.

The existing rules already give comprehensive guidance. There are no plans for revision at present.

If the existing rules give comprehensive guidance, does the Minister realise that two members of the Serpell committee are principal partners in two consultancies which, between them, received over £500,000? Is he aware that the public at large are extremely suspicious, particularly when one of the committee members is a friend of the Prime Minister's economic adviser? Does he realise that those two consultants have been lining their pockets at the expense of the public purse? It is not good enough to have rules that allow such a thing to happen. If it is happening, as it clearly is, the rules must be revised. Such a thing would not be allowed in local government. People feel that the Government are applying a set of double standards.

I heard the exchanges between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport earlier. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing this vendetta in the way that he is.

Scandalous.

The appointment of consultants was fully in accordance with normal rules and precedents.

Is the Minister aware that there is appreciable public concern and anxiety about the circumstances in which the Serpell committee appointed consultants outwith the normal tendering arrangements? Will the Minister confirm that, with regard to the appointment of those two companies, the contracts should have gone out to tender had the guidelines established by the Government's chief accountant been observed? Those guidelines laid down that a candidate would be ruled out if there was a clash or a potential clash of interests. In those circumstances, is there not a case for a revision of the rules?

The guidance that was given by the chief accountant was in no way broken by what was done on this occasion. I remind the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members of the clear precedent in 1974 provided by the McGregor inquiry into the press, which had, as one of its members, Mr. Chorley of Coopers and Lybrand.

It was wrong then.

That inquiry commissioned work from Coopers and Lybrand. That precedent in 1974 under the Labour Government makes nonsense of the spurious anger on this issue.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity. I hope that you will give me a favourable opportunity.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many Civil Service posts have been transferred to the northern region since May 1979.

As I have told the hon. Member on many previous occasions, the dispersal programme announced on 26 July 1979 did not include any transfer of posts to the northern region. Details of posts that may have been transferred by Departments for management reasons are not held centrally.

So the answer is none. For how long will the Government be so obstinate on this matter? If the Government are so concerned about the northern region, as they often say they are, why do they not use the power that is in their hands to transfer jobs to the north? If the Government will not do that, will they at least stop taking jobs away from the north by transferring the regional offices to other parts of the country?

It is important to recognise that the need to contain public expenditure prohibits any further dispersal initiative in the forseeable future. That is the same answer as I have given to the hon. Gentleman previously, but he asked the same question.

Does the Minister agree that if the Departments were charged rent for the premises that they occupy Ministers might revise their thinking about the amount of office accommodation they think they need in central London and there might also be a saving in public expenditure?

My hon. Friend raises an important matter. Account should be taken of the rents of premises. Repayment arrangements of the kind that he described are now being put in place.

While the Minister will not transfer existing Civil Service posts to the regions, may I ask him whether he is aware that in the Telecommunications Bill there is provision for the establishment of what will be the largest single quango of all time, the Office of Telecommunications? Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry about locating that office in one of the regions?

I shall draw the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend. Perhaps he will make sure that the Bill proceeds at proper speed and is not delayed by the curious tactics that have been used by some of his hon. Friends.

More to the point, how many Civil Service jobs have been transferred out of the northern region by the transfer of regional offices by various Government Departments to Leeds? Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the latest proposition to relocate the Property Services Agency from Newcastle to Leeds is nothing short of ludicrous? The Government should think again.

I do not have that figure available, but I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman, if I can find it.

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

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

Is the Minister aware of the concern and low morale of civil servants in the DHSS in the north-west region over staffing levels, and the grave danger of the social security system grinding to a halt? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to examine that serious problem?

I was not aware of any particular problem in the north-west region as described by the hon. Gentleman, but I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the point that he has been made.

When my hon. Friend next meets the Civil Service unions, will he discuss with them the reduction in the number of civil servants since 1979? Will he confirm that the Government are on target and say whether there have been many forced redundancies to achieve that considerable reduction?

The latest figures show that the Civil Service is now some 80,000 smaller than it was in May 1979. That is a very substantial reduction and we are firmly on course to achieve the target of 630,000 by April next year. A substantial number of those reductions has been achieved through the processes of natural wastage and without enforced redundancies.