asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the workings of the Transport Act 1981 as it affects motor cycle training for learner riders.

It is too soon to make a fully considered assessment. I want to see more riders taking training than has been the case so far, but I am encouraged that the pass rate of those who take the part 1 test with an approved training organisation after a course of training is more than double that of those who take the test with the Department, and therefore without training in most cases.

Does my hon. Friend think that the 1981 Act gives sufficient encouragement to 16-year-old moped riders? Can she see any reason why they should not be able to take part 1 of the test and perhaps then be allowed to ride 125cc motor bikes with L-plates until the age of 17, when they can take the test?

My hon. Friend's question is extremely interesting. I have been aware for some time of concern about the 16-year-old moped rider. That is why I am taking a fresh look at the whole issue, and I hope to be able to tell the House something about it shortly.

Does the Minister appreciate that most motor cyclists consider it grossly inequitable that they should be debarred from riding for a year if they are unable to take or pass two tests within a two-year period, whereas a motorist who has not even attempted the test in that period should be able to go on driving on a provisional licence? Will she reconsider that and possibly lay amending regulations at least to cover the position of motor cyclists who are unable to take the test because there is not a test available to them?

There should certainly be a test and both parts 1 and 2 are available to provisional licence-holders in the first year. There is a difference. Learner car drivers must be accompanied, so they have an incentive to take training and pass the test. There is no such incentive for the unaccompanied motor cycle learner. We want, above all, to reduce the awful number of accidents, particularly to young learner riders. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to give the legislation a chance to work. If it does not work, we can then talk about reviewing it.

I thank my hon. Friend for explaining that the legislation needs a chance to work. Might it be sensible to set a period after which there will be a formal review of the legislation, particularly this qualification about which many motor cyclists feel deeply resentful?

I thoroughly understand what my hon. Friend says, but we must encourage young motor cyclists—indeed, all motor cyclists, to take training and pass the test. If he has any other bright ideas, other than making training mandatory—which I believe would be wrong—I should be happy to receive them. We must encourage young motor cyclists to take training, and they should be encouraged to do so in view of the 85 per cent. pass rate in part 1 after training.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now make a statement on the effectiveness of the drink-drive publicity campaign in the light of the control system used over the Christmas and new year period, when such campaigns were confined to certain areas of the United. Kingdom.

The results of the evaluation of the Christmas and new year drink-drive publicity campaign are not yet available. They are expected shortly.

Does the Secretary of State accept that this whole thing is a statistical control system gone mad? Does he realise that if there is evidence from this inquiry that the drink-drive campaign was successful, the implication is that in areas where it was not shown over the Christmas-new year period there may have been accidents, or even deaths, due to drunken driving?

The campaign took place in all areas. It occurred in some areas at Christmas, while in other areas it was deferred until February. As a lot of expenditure is involved, it is important that such compaigns are cost effective. There are many other competing claims for funds for advertising of this kind, and it is important to make them cost effective. That was the purpose. As soon as we have the results we shall be able to evaluate them and make future campaigns more effective.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to increase the level of investment in road construction and improvement in the south-west during the next 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

We expect to start work later this year on major trunk road schemes costing some £7 million in addition to the £75 million worth of schemes already under construction. Our longer-term programme for the region is substantial, and I expect to add to it following the review that is now in progress. Moreover, in the 1983–84 transport supplementary grant settlement we accepted £46 million for capital investment on local transport in the region, 6 per cent. more than last year's settlement.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Is she aware that genuine anxiety is being expressed in Devon and Cornwall about the fact that proposals for major road improvements in respect of the A38 Saltash bypass and the A30 west of Okehampton are for single rather than dual carriageways? Is that not a shortsighted policy, particularly when we recall that it made sense in the early and mid-1970s to have dual carriageways whereas in the early 1980s we merit single carriageways only?

My hon. Friend must be careful to compare like with like. Wherever it makes sense to build a dual carriageway—for instance, stage I of the north Devon link and appropriate sections of the A30— we shall do so. I appreciate the desire of people in the area to see the highest possible standards provided. However, we must consider that every time we build a dual carriageway we take more farmland than we would if we built a wide single carriageway. We must be able to justify every yard of dual carriageway that we build.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to abolish tolls on bridges under his control.

No, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous debt outstanding on that great white elephant, the Humber bridge? Does he not think that it is time to wipe out and write off that debt? If he will not abolish tolls, will he use them as levies to pay for the maintenamce of the bridge?

I understand that the reason for building the bridge was to secure a favourable outcome in a by-election in the 1960s. The bridge has now been built and it must be used to the best possible advantage. The Humber Bridge Board is responsible for the debt and for its finances. I have agreed to meet the board when it has prepared some financial projections. It has 60 years in which to repay the loan, so it is early days yet.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when the Labour Government were in power Conservative Members were clamouring for the abolition of tolls? Is he aware that in Scotland many road hauliers have gone out of business? If he will not discontinue tolls, will he give serious consideration to alleviating the problens that now arise?

I am aware of the problems caused by tolls. The difficulty is that someone has to pay for the enormous capital charges incurred in building bridges and tunnels on the trunk and motorway system. Free crossing would not make the debts go away. Someone has to pay for them. I believe that it is right to adhere to the principle of the user contributing to the huge capital costs. I recognise the worries expressed by the Freight Transport Association and other bodies.

Does my right Friend accept that some of us are disappoointed, if not surprised, at his answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton)? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the original justification for major estuarial crossings being tolled is no longer valid, as so many of them are not tolled?

I am interested in the small number of large capital investments in major crossings where there is a substantial capital debt that someone has to repay. I realise that the charge upon the user is an irritation. I have heard the views of the FTA and other bodies. If those crossings were made free, the debt would not go away. Someone else would have to bear it.

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Sit down. I apologise, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I should explain to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) that if he pursues his point of order now I shall not be able to call anyone else on this question.

Is it not the case for almost every toll bridge that the amount collected does not pay the interest? Theoretically, if not practically, the debt is increasing each year. How, therefore, does keeping tolls make any possible sense?

It does not happen in every case. In an example that will arise in a later question—the Dartford tunnel—with the completion of the M25 orbital road and the increase in traffic, there will be increased contributions towards the repayment of the debt.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the somewhat unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that at the first opportunity I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to gather the information necessary for a comprehensive assessment of the effects on energy conservation of encouraging cycling.

Any realistic assessment depends upon information about the potential scale of transfer to cycling from private cars rather than from public transport. It is planned to collect such information during the monitoring of certain larger urban cycling projects which the Department is now considering.

Will the Minister clarify which projects and when, as it has been a clear principle of transport economics and cost-benefit analysis for a long time that one should be able to evaluate the difference between travelling by car and by bicycle? If it is Government policy that we should get on our bikes, will the hon. Lady consult her right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Employment on this matter so that she can get it straight?

I shall limit my reply to the real question, which is about progress on the larger scale urban projects. I have received proposals from eight local authorities for these larger scale projects where we can assess how the traveller on his or her bicycle used travelling time before. It is essential to know whether they were travelling previously on public transport or by private car and, if by private car, whether with others or singly. We shall be able to do that with the larger scale urban projects.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the danger and discomfort to the cyclist from cycling, particularly in London, where the GLC completely fails to maintain roads, so that one hits potholes and kerbstones and everything else that is strewn across the road? Will she bring pressure to bear upon the GLC to maintain roads properly so that cyclists can have a proper run for their money?

I am well aware of the dangers of potholes and certain types of drains, but I assure my hon. Friend that they exist not only in London. The maintenance of the sides of roads is extremely important for cycling. I do not think that local authorities are in any doubt about that now, because regional cycling officers have been making them well aware of their responsibilities to cyclists.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) on the subject of energy conservation, but are not there two other equally important matters relating to cycling? First, it does not pollute the atmosphere, and, secondly, it is important for general health and physical fitness. Would it not be a good example if hon. Members were to cycle? Applications should be made to me as the man in charge of the House of Commons bicycle pool.

I believe that the hon. Gentleman will have many more people joining the All-party Friends of Cycling, of which I am proud to be a member. I can say that it helps one's health to cycle, particularly because of the unpleasant hours we work here.

Is my hon. Friend aware that tolls are still payable by cyclists on bridges over estuarial crossings? Is she further aware that an all-party group is being established in the House to press for the abolition of tolls for cyclists and others?

Order. I think that the hon. Member is stretching things. This question is about conservation. I know that he missed his question, but we shall try to fit him in on another one.

I cannot be blamed for trying, Mr. Speaker.

Would it not help to gather the necessary information if there were some full-time regional officers? They are all part-time. Will the hon. Lady encourage full-time regional cycling officers?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was aware that I do not restrict interest in cycling to the regional cycling officers. We have made it clear to all our staff, particularly engineers designing roads and so on, that they must think about the needs of the cyclist. The regional cycling officer must have good links with other aspects of the Department's work, which is one reason why I believe that it is better to have an all-rounder who can dive into all circumstances about cycling which need his expert help rather than to restrict someone to full-time work on cycling.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost of repairs to the A19 road in county Durham and county Cleveland, respectively, for each of the years since the opening of the road.

The A19 trunk road has been open to traffic for many years and information related specifically to repairs could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

That was an exceedingly disappointing reply. The Minister knows that the cost of the repairs so far is over £2 million. Does she recall that I first wrote to her about this problem about two years ago? Is she aware of the great inconvenience, not to say danger, that is caused to literally thousands of my constituents by the massive road works that are for ever being carried out on the A19? In view of the concern that has been widely expressed in county Durham and county Cleveland, and the great cost involved in repairing that comparatively new road, will the Minister authorise an independent inquiry as a matter of urgency?

The hon. Gentleman must have written to my predecessor. However, I accept that he is worried. That is why on 12 March last year I announced the appointment of independent consultants to look into the matter. I, too, was thoroughly dissatisfied with the information that I had received. The report has now come in, but we have not yet had a full chance to assess it. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as the figures are in my hands.

rose—

Order. I will call the hon. Gentleman, but he must realise that the question is about the A19 in county Durham and county Cleveland.

Is the Minister aware that if she travelled up the A1 and left it at junction 29 for a rest, she would see the A617—on the way to Durham, that is—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone up a side path. He has wandered off the straight and narrow.

Will the Minister for a brief moment examine that road with a view to getting a bypass for the Glapwell residents, who are up in arms about it?

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has had discussions with the chairman of the British Railways Board on the electrification of the line between Bedford and Sheffield.

I meet the British Rail chairman regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest, including proposals for main line electrification.

Is this not a matter of mutual interest to the Minster? If he replied in the affirmative about this route, that would alleviate some of the wilder excesses of the Serpell report, because many of us are wondering whether that report will get rid of British Rail altogether. If we found that there were electrification plans for the Bedford to Sheffield route, that would allay many fears about what will happen to that route and many other routes that may be affected by the Serpell report.

The hon. Gentleman's worries are without foundation, so he can drop them straight away. The midlands main line route is not one for which British Rail has made proposals for electrification. British Rail determines the lines that have priority for electrification. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, high speed train services have been introduced on the midlands main line in the past year or two years.

There are fewer trains.

I am told that as a result the services have been improved, although the hon. Gentleman may have different views.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that before pushing electrification north of Bedford, which would be expensive, although welcome, people want to be sure that the Bedford — St. Pancras line is working properly, that a proper service is being provided for Bedfordshire commuters and that agreements between management and unions are adhered to?

My hon. Friend has drawn attention to an important consideration. He knows that agreement has been reached on the practices and procedures for running the Bedford—St. Pancras electrified line. I understand that partial experiments and developments in running the line have begun and that a full service is likely to be in operation in the autumn. My hon. Friend is right in saying that we should see how that development goes and make sure that the line is working properly.

Is the Secretary of State aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House are deeply concerned at the lack of decision, not only on the Bedford —Sheffield line, but on electrification as a whole? Is he further aware that this is a glorious opportunity for him to take action, in view of the Prime Minister's concern for unemployment, and at a stroke help to solve the problem of unemployment? The right hon. Gentleman could help manufacturing industry to galvanise itself on the electrification programme and thus start to make up for the fact that the Government are virtually destroying manufacturing industry.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to glorious opportunities. The most effective way to create employment is through worthwhile investment which produces a proper return, secure jobs and benefits for the future that the country needs. That has always been the criterion upon which the Government have sought information on electrification from British Rail. The Government had accepted in principle the 10-year electrification programme, but I have told the House that I would need to see a satisfactory plan for the future of the inter-city business as a whole before reaching a decision on east coast main line electrification. I have now received the board's prospectus for up to 1988 and I am considering it. The board tells me that it is working on longer-term proposals, which will be ready in a few months.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the management and unions of British Rail have managed to reach agreement on the Bedford — St. Pancras part of the midlands line is welcome? Will that significantly alter his attitude and encourage British Rail to believe that funds will be forthcoming for further electrification sooner rather than later?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is good news that a major investment project, such as the Bedford-St. Pancras line, now looks set to be used effectively. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that it is not a question of alteration of views. In 1981 the Government set out sensible business conditions upon which investment in electrification of the main line system should be developed. Those conditions remain the same today. I repeat that I am now considering the prospectus that the board has put to me for the inter-city business up to 1988. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the decisions on new electric power units to replace diesel units depends very much on the overall prospects for the inter-city business system. The timing of those decisions also depends on the length of time that the new diesel units now being used on the east coast main line will be in use. It would be pointless to take them away and replace them before they earned their worth.

Order. I hope that we shall have shorter questions and answers.

Will the Secretary of State publish in the Official Report the electrification proposals that he has received from British Rail?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport in what circumstances the disposal of surplus land by British Rail requires his authority.

There is no statutory requirement for the British Railways Board to seek my right hon. Friend's authority to dispose of surplus land, although it notifies us before disposing of surplus track formation under a 1974 non-statutory arrangement.

When the Minister or the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he discuss with him land that is owned by British Rail that could be used for development and result in the creation of jobs, particularly in areas such as Merseyside, where we meet local red tape and bureaucracy? Will he also discuss land in residential areas owned by British Rail which is used for dumping and tipping?

I note the hon. Gentleman's second point. I am grateful to him for raising this subject. It is important, particularly in large cities such as Liverpool. Some 149 acres of unused or underused land in Liverpool are now registered. That evidence is available, so potential developers can gain from the information.

Will my hon. Friend encourage British Rail to get rid of surplus land so that it can be used for building, particularly in city areas, rather than have more of the countryside used for housing accommodation? Will he also consider whether the board should examine whether it can build over the top of railways to a greater extent than at present in city areas?

I have much sympathy with my right hon. Friend's point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently visited one of the London terminals and surveyed the programme for the development of the 15 London terminals. What my right hon. Friend says about development is relevant to those considerations.

Is the Minister aware that in my constituency there are several disused railway lines and that British Rail is guilty of failing to fence off that property safely? I fear that children can easily walk on to those disused railway lines and fall into railway cuttings. Is he further aware that I have received several complaints that car thieves take cars to such railway cuttings, using the cuttings as a dumping ground? Will he ask British Rail to do something about that?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall raise all of those matters with British Rail. He is right to draw attention to the problems of fencing. They are sometimes an obstacle to the disposal of a site because such fencing obligations must be imposed on the purchaser.

Will my hon. Friend ask British Rail not to dispose of surplus land in a way that damages the quality of life of those who live nearby? Is he aware that British Rail wants to put a container depot on the site of Feltham marshalling yard, which is on the fringe of my constituency, with the result that heavy lorries would be travelling through residential roads in Whitton?

I understand the sensitivity of the points that my hon. Friend has raised. They are taken into account in the planning process when the application for development is considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether British Rail has yet approached him about funding a rail link to Manchester international airport.

No, Sir.

Does the Minister appreciate that there is growing frustration in Greater Manchester because the Government seem unwilling to seize the initiative to get that small railway link built? Is he aware that it would make a great deal of difference to the infrastructure of the Greater Manchester area, yet the Government seem happy to spend vast sums on a public inquiry at Stansted and more extensions at both Heathrow and Gatwick? Is it not time that the north-west had a fair share of resources and a little action from the Government to get the rail link built?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm in support of Manchester airport. He will be aware that the Government supported the Second Reading of the private Bill that was recently introduced by British Rail and that that safeguards the land necessary for a rail link to Manchester airport. As for the railway development that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, it is for British Rail to advance plans, which we shall consider.

Surely the Minister appreciates that this is not simply a British Rail decision. Does he agree that a runway-railway link makes sense for all airports? Does he further agree that, with regard to Manchester, it makes sense in tying up the expansion and investment plans that are under way, and that it will allow the country to make a proper judgment about whether Manchester airport should be expanded as opposed to further investment being made in the south-east of England? Does he agree that the Government should take that overview and not leave the decision to British Rail?

As I have already said, I understand the hon. Gentleman's support for development in Manchester, but I must emphasise that the airport link is connected with the railway "Windsor link" and the electrification of the Preston-Manchester line. All of these developments are issues that British Rail must consider and prepare plans on. It must use its expertise to bring forward proposals.

I understand the importance that my hon. Friend attaches to that subject, but he is badly out of date on the difficulty with sleeping cars. Those difficulties have now been dealt with satisfactorily.

If the link is agreed to, will it not be one of the most cost-effective successes that British Rail has introduced? Why does the Minister continue merely to sit back and wait for British Rail to apply? Why does not he, as the Minister, take the initiative?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm, but he misunderstands British Rail's role. It must be for British Rail to develop and advance plans for a railway development of that type.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the time allowed to cross roads at pedestrian crossings controlled by traffic lights.

I have recently received representations from my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell). I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that we have just issued revised pelican regulations for consultation. They, and the revised departmental advice that we shall issue, will improve both the timing and the phasing for pedestrians at such crossings.

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Is she aware of the GLC's dangerous incompetence in managing pelican crossings, as with many other things? Is she further aware that I have frequently attempted to cross Greenford and Mandeville roads with old people and young mothers with young children and found it impossible to do so without running? Will she put all the steam that she can behind the GLC and her Department to make sure that the crossings are suitably phased to allow people to cross without danger?

The proposals were issued on 12 April. They recommend a variation in timing according to the width of the road for the benefit of those who find it more difficult to get moving when the lights change. We expect that the suggested two-second increase in the steady green man time will take account of the delays that we have noted and that an overlap of part of the flashing green man signal with part of the red signal to traffic will afford greater safety to the old and vulnerable.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to repudiate the comments of her hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway)? Is she aware that the GLC used the powers that are available to it to extend the maximum period for the green man and that permission to alter the timing must be given by the Department of Transport? It is the Department of Transport, not the GLC, that makes those regulations. Therefore, will the Minister take this opportunity to repudiate her hon. Friend's allegations?

The GLC has made no effort in the matter.

Far be it from me to take responsibility for what my hon. Friends, or any other hon. Members, say in the House. I can confirm that the Department must make a change in the regulations that cover phasing. It is, however, up to each local authority to adjust the timing to improve safety on the roads.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what amount of traffic he estimates will be deterred by continuing toll charges from using the Dartford tunnel when the M25 orbital road is completed.

Very little. The advantages of using the motorways are so great, while the alternative free crossings at Woolwich ferry and Blackwall tunnel would demand a long and costly detour through east London.

Although the principle of users paying the cost would ordinarily be acceptable, as there is to be no charge for the rest of the M25 orbital motorway, is it not the sheerest expediency for the Government not to take greater responsibility for the Dartford tunnel when it becomes an integral and essential link in the circuit? Contrary to my right hon. Friend's optimism, will not the increasingly high toll charges necessary to recover the present crippling debt create a distortion of traffic patterns in the area and militate against the benefits that the motorway can bring, especially if the new east London river crossing is to be free?

The Government recognise the interdependence of the Dartford tunnel and the M25. That is why we are grant-aiding improvements to the approach roads and the toll collection plaza. My hon. Friend knows that the Dartford tunnel was built by Essex and Kent councils. It was never contemplated that the tunnel would require Government subsidy and the joint committee of Essex and Kent councils is confident of discharging the debt from toll revenue. The arrival of the M25 will greatly increase traffic flows and provide good business for the Dartford tunnel. I think that that is the right way forward, although I recognise what my hon. Friend says, that with the arrival of the M25 circumstances will be different from those that were foreseen when the Dartford tunnel was built.

Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the capacity of the existing Dartford tunnel will be capable of meeting traffic flows on the completed M25 to both the north and south of the tunnel? Has he considered a second tunnel, so that there can be one for northbound and one for the southbound traffic? If he has not, to what extent is the additional expenditure on the toll booth plaza justified, as opposed to making provision for an additional tunnel to improve the traffic flow and to reduce the chances of motorists travelling on other, less suitable, roads to avoid a tunnel bottleneck?

An additional tunel was installed in the 1970s. We must watch the position carefully, but our present projections of traffic show that the flows will be maintained. As the huge M25 orbital comes into place, we must think about future developments and the effect that they will have on traffic, but our present projections show that the Dartford tunnel, together with the additional tunnel built in the 1970s, can cope.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to start on the section of the M3 from north of Winchester to the M27.

As my hon. Friend will now be aware, I announced on 6 April that the first of two main contracts for the M3 extension from Popham to Bar End, Winchester had been let. A second contract will be let shortly. Work on both contracts will start very soon. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) on 21 February, I hope that construction of the improvement south of Bar End can start in 1985.

Is my hon. Friend aware that all those who use that busy road are much indebted to her for the energy that she has put into the improvements and extensions of the motorway? Will she press forward, knowing that she has much support, with the revised proposals of the consultants for the road south of Bar End, which many of those who love that area believe make much sense?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. We have received a generally favourable reaction to the consultants' report, which justifies our asking the consultants to consider a difficult area for building. I shall, of course, consider all representations before making further announcements, but I assure my hon. Friend that I am anxious that there should be no unnecessary delay.

Will the Minister confirm that the proposed road east of St. Catherine's hill will now be adopted?

I am still considering reactions to the consultants' report, which the right hon. Gentleman has seen, and as soon as I am convinced that we have received all representations we shall make a decision. However, it would be a little premature for me to say anything today.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria he currently applies in determining railway electrification schemes submitted by British Rail.

On main line services, we require acceptable plans for the commercial operation of the intercity and freight businesses, and a good prospect, on the basis of those plans, that the investment will earn a 7 per cent. return on the capital employed. On other lines, the case for electrification depends on whether this is the most cost-effective way of maintaining a rail passenger service.

Could greater weight be given to the convenience of the travelling public, and will my hon. Friend take pity on commuters on the Cambridge line who use the intermediate stations, who travel in what must be the worse conditions on British Rail?

I note my hon. Friend's point, and within the context of financial viability, we shall do our best to keep that in mind. As he knows, British Rail has proposed electrification on the Cambridge line from both Royston and Bishops Stortford. It has been asked to consider whether it would be more cost-effective to electrify only one of those lines. We await further information from British Rail before making a decision.

Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) earlier this afternoon, created the impression that the proposals that he received recently from British Rail for a cost-benefit analysis of electrification of main lines up to 1988 did not include electrification from Bedford to Sheffield? Will he clarify that matter?

My right hon. Friend made clear the position about the prospectus that has been received from British Rail. That is now being considered with regard to the development about which the hon. Gentleman asked.

Whatever criteria have been applied, how many proposals for electrification that have been approved by the Government have been implemented?

At least one is being implemented.

Will my hon. Friend give priority to, and move higher up the priority list, the electrification of the western routes, bearing in mind that many of the diesel trains on those routes are becoming very old and are causing difficulty in the western region?

My hon. Friend will know that such proposals must come in the first instance from British Rail, but I shall draw his point to its attention.

Does the prospectus put forward by British Rail to the Government for inter-city rail development, or the total investment programme up to 1988, contain a proposal to electrify the main line to Sheffield?

The prospectus relates to the entire intercity network. The document to which the right hon. Gentleman refers does not include such an electrification proposal.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the progress on the construction of the Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section of the A564 Stoke-Derby link.

Yes, Sir. The main work of constructing this road started in January this year, as planned, and the road should be open to traffic in about two years' time.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Draycott, Tean and Checkley will be pleased with her reply? Does she envisage any hold-ups in this scheme, or does she believe that the road will definitely be open by the end of next year?

If the good weather continues, and unless something totally unforeseen happens, I do not expect any hold-up in the building of that road. During the past year many contractors have finished their contracts well ahead of schedule, and I hope that that will be the case in my hon. Friend's constituency.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the maximum and minimum number of brake lights a car may have operational; and if there are any maximum and minimum intensities for such lights.

Cars are required to have two stop lamps and may have any number of additional ones. Every stop lamp must conform with an international standard that specifies a maximum and minimum light intensity.

May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the increasing practice of installing additional stop lights on cars? Does she agree that they cause confusion, fatigue and aggravation when there is rain and heavy traffic, and that the practice has a consequential safety effect? Will she take steps to amend the construction and use regulations?

I, too, am concerned about additional stop lights and their siting, which is why I have asked the Transport and Road Research Laboratory to consider improvements in the layout of rear lights. The laboratory will also take into consideration research on additional stop lamps and any confusion that they may cause.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the greatest dangers on motorways is the driver who puts on his fog lamp without a hint of bad weather? It is a dangerous distraction, and I am glad to hear what my hon. Friend has said.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I agree with him. We are considering the possibility of improving the tell-tale device on the dashboard to remind drivers that their rear fog lamps are on, because I am sure that half of them forget.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what investment proposals he has received for electrification of the east coast main line; and if he will make a statement.

Last year we received proposals from the British Railways Board for electrification from Hitchin to Leeds and Newcastle. We are considering these proposals further in the light of the board's revised inter-city prospectus, which has recently been submitted, and which is to be followed by longer-term proposals for the inter-city business which, I understand, are coming within a few months.

Is the Minister aware that the east coast main line warrants further investigation? It makes good sense to develop the electrification programme on this line, because of the healthy return. Will the Minister give the House details of the number of electrification programmes that the board has suggested to his Department?

I could not answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question immediately, but discussions on electrification involve questions such as timing of the replenishment of rolling stock. That is why we need to study the prospectus that we have received before we can reach a decision on the east coast main line scheme.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon the Minister was unable to answer part of my question, when the information is readily available in the Department. May I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister provides those figures in the Official Report?

The hon. Gentleman's request will have been heard and, no doubt, will be met.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants there are in the northern region.

The latest figures available, at 1 October 1982, were 33,583 non-industrial and 4,526 industrial civil servants located in the northern region.

Will the Minister confirm that none of those posts have been transferred to the northern region since May 1979 as a result of this Government's deliberate policy? Is he aware that his Government have a continuing policy whereby private firms are being constantly urged to transfer their headquarters and their research and development organisations to the region? Therefore, why do not the Government set an example and transfer their own organisations? Would that not be some proof that the Government are determined to help the region?

Yes, I can confirm both the points made by the hon. Gentleman. As to the Government's policy, I can only reaffirm that, in considering the location of new work or the relocation of work for operational reasons, the pressing needs of particular areas are taken into account.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that it was a Labour Government who proposed the shift of the Government Chemist to my constituency in the northern region, and that it was a Conservative Government who rescinded that decision, preventing the transfer taking place? Is that not clear evidence of the Government's opposition to the transfer of Civil Service jobs and institutions from London and the areas of central population to the outer regions, such as the northern region, where we desperately require that work? Can we have some additional Civil Service establishments in the northern region?

The Government's policy on the dispersal of civil servants was made clear in our early days. I can confirm that the policy then laid down is being followed. Already, in the northern region civil servants amount to about 3·4 per cent. of the working population, and only three other regions have a higher percentage of civil servants in their working populations.

Can the Minister confirm that an investigation is taking place into the number of civil servants in the northern region? Can he give an undertaking that there will be no redundancies arising out of that review?

A review is taking place on the future manpower needs of the Civil Service generally. I cannot give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks—that no redundancies will take place—but I can say that the substantial rundown that has occurred in the Civil Service of 80,000 jobs since the Government took office has been accomplished through a process of natural wastage.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the criteria used for appointments to committees set up to advise the Government.

Members of advisory committees are selected in the light of the ability, experience and knowledge required by the work of the particular advisory body concerned.

It was widely thought that, on the Serpell committee, Mr. Alfred Goldstein was chosen because he was a chum of the Prime Minister's economic adviser, Professor Walters. Will the Minister assure the House that chums of the Prime Minister who have a direct financial interest in a subject, who are apparently able to appoint advisers from their firms with impunity to rip off the taxpayer—in this case by a sum of about £600,000—will not be appointed in future, and that there will be no question but that the chief accountant's guidelines will be rigorously enforced, without any exceptions from a Secretary of State?

The hon. Gentleman has a short memory, because he should recall that about two or three months ago he raised the same absurd allegations. They were wholly repudiated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself, and I do so again today.

Can my hon. Friend say whether the TUC and trade unions are now prepared to nominate people for Government committees when they are asked to do so, as obviously there are times when there is a great deal of advantage in getting the unions' point of view on various matters of policy? I understand that they have been refusing to serve, and this is obviously a mistake. Does this still obtain?

No, I know of no blanket condemnation by the TUC or refusal to co-operate in the way that my hon. Friend has implied. He will know that I have had a close concern with various committees recently, notably the Megaw committee, on which there was a distinguished trade unionist.

In the Serpell case, does the Minister recollect that there was a clear risk of a conflict of interests? Was the responsible Minister informed of this conflict of interests before the contract was placed? If not, will the Minister assure us that in future any use by such a committee of a consultancy in which a committee member has a vested interest will be referred to the Minister for approval?

My right hon. Friend was fully informed of any possible conflict of interest and he judged that no such conflict was taking place and that he wanted to appoint, as he determined, the best people for the job.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what matters he expects 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.

When the Minister next meets the Civil Service unions, will he assure them that civil servants and public service workers whose jobs are affected by privatisation will not suffer any reduction in their pension rights?

Discussions are going on with my right hon. Friends who are concerned with aspects of government where privatisation proposals are under consideration, and these would be matters for them.

Do not candidatures for union office show that there are civil servants employed by the Ministry of Defence who are openly hostile to the defence policies of the present and the previous Government? Do Her Majesty's Government think that this is a satisfactory state of affairs?

One should not envisage circumstances in which all civil servants were necessarily supportive of the views of the Government of the day in their private opinions. We have a long tradition that the private views of civil servants, particularly those in senior positions, must be kept separate from their Government work. I accept that in the Ministry of Defence particular considerations apply, and those who are positively vetted will have these matters taken into account.

As it appears that the Government are about to run for cover before inflation rises, and as inflation is so critically important to those on fixed incomes, when the Minister next meets trade unions, representing as they do over 500,000 Civil Service voters and as many again Civil Service pensioners and their families, will he give them a categoric assurance that, in the unlikely and improbable event of a Conservative Government being re-elected, they would not abandon index-linked pensions nor allow any reduction in the pension entitlement of those whose jobs were privatised? Or does the Minister still intend, ominously from the point of view of civil servants, to fudge both these issues this side of a general election?

I made the Government's position clear in the debate last October. I would be happy to meet representatives of the Civil Service unions to discuss these matters if they so desired. I see no worry on their part and no desire or request for a meeting. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to make a political point without being fully aware of the views of the civil servants involved.

Does the Minister realise that prevaricating and evasive as that reply was intended to be, it will be clearly understood by civil servants throughout the country to mean that an incoming Conservative Administration would end the indexation of public service pensions?

Perhaps I see more representatives of Civil Service unions than does the right hon. Gentleman and am better able to judge their awareness of the realities of the situation, which are very different from what the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

I have received a complaint from the hon. Member for Stroud, (Sir A. Kershaw), Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, about a report in The Times newspaper of 18 April which gives an account of the Chairman's draft report which had been circulated to members and staff of the Foreign Affairs Committee and strictly limited to them. The press report gives information about the Committee's arrangements for considering the report. The subject matter of the draft report is British foreign policy in relation to the Falkland Islands and, in his letter to me, the Chairman expresses his concern at the damage that premature disclosure of these draft proposals may have done. He asks that the matter should be given precedence over the Orders of the Day.