To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in the European Transport Council on the issue of ferry safety.

I told the Transport Council last month that we are committed to applying higher standards of ferry stability. Since then, we have made good progress in reaching a draft agreement with other member states, and with Norway and Sweden, to achieve these higher standards for ferries in north-west European waters.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that some of the best ferry services in the country sail from the port of Poole. Is he satisfied that our European partners are coming up to the standards that we require? What pressure is he bringing to bear on them to ensure that safety measures are brought into operation as quickly as possible?

As my hon. Friend will know, the ideal is to achieve higher standards through the International Maritime Organisation, and we have been doing a great deal to try to do that in that forum. However, we were disappointed with the progress there, so for some considerable time I have been discussing with our European partners in the EC the possibility of introducing these higher standards in north-west European waters, failing ability to reach agreement in the IMO. I am delighted to say that large numbers of members of the Community, and Norway and Sweden, have joined us in this. I hope at a meeting tomorrow to finalise agreement, and I am grateful for their co-operation.

Any improvements in SOLAS 90 ferry stability standards are most welcome, but I must tell the Secretary of State that many families preparing to go on their summer holidays, whether they sail from Poole, Ramsgate or the Dover ports—or anywhere else—want to know that the highest safety standards have been agreed.

As for the IMO, it is the Government's own port state control inspections that are crucial. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that he will not go ahead with the deregulation of the Surveyor General's office? In effect, that would lead to lower standards while the rest of Europe attempts to achieve common standards of safety inspection.

I disagree entirely with the hon. Lady's point about the Surveyor General's office. We have been playing a leading part in the European Community on port state inspections and achieving stricter standards for them. We have been making a good deal of progress and we reached agreement on the way forward at the last Transport Council.

Ferry stability is a different question. Of course I agree that we must have the highest standards of ferry stability. We already have high standards in this country and we want to make them higher still. We are getting a lot of co-operation from our European partners. At the Anglo-French summit this morning, I discussed this very point with my French opposite number, Mr. Bosson. We reached agreement and I am grateful for his support.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are doing all in their power to ensure that Dover ferries may earn the reputation of being the safest ferries in the world? Will he also confirm that many millions of people can safely go on holiday this year using the wonderful ferries of Dover and have a marvellous time?

Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. With the building of new ferries, there is increasingly the opportunity for even higher standards. The SOLAS 90 argument is to get the higher standards applied to the older ferries. It is already happening and the agreement, which I hope we shall reach tomorrow, will be a further significant step in that direction.

As, I assume, a legitimate member of the Cabinet, will the Secretary of State assure us that, when the channel tunnel opens, he will not allow the ferry companies to cut costs and put safety back on the agenda in a more serious way? Will he tell every member of the Cabinet that, when it comes to protecting the safety of passengers, he will not let the bastards grind him down?

The hon. Gentleman was so busy contriving his question that he failed to listen to earlier answers. If he had been listening, he would have realised that with our relevant Community partners—in this case, those in the north-west European waters—we have gone a long way to reaching an agreement on higher standards and I hope that we shall achieve that agreement tomorrow.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when work is expected to commence on site on the A205 Catford town centre gyratory system; and whether the directorate of environmental services of Lewisham council will be permitted to compete for the design contract.

Subject to satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures, the work is currently programmed to begin in spring 1995. Competitive tenders have been invited for the design contract. Under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970, local authorities such as Lewisham are not empowered to compete in this way for work offered by the Department.

I thank the Minister for his answer. On the final point, will he confirm that the timetable for the consultants has been rigged to prevent local authorities from tendering, because the date has been set before the EC directive, which would outlaw such discrimination, comes into effect?

I also thank the hon. Gentleman for the decision on another south-east London road scheme—that at Oxleas wood—and hope that it marks a change in the Department's thinking, away from schemes for roads that nobody wants and towards those which everyone wants. The south circular, the A205, falls into the latter category. Will he confirm that there have been five start dates since the scheme was inherited fully formed from the Greater London council in 1986 and that, if the entirely unnecessary trunking of the south circular had not taken place, the people of south-east London and south circular users would have benefited from the improvement many years ago?

If I followed all that, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's commendation for my right hon. Friend's announcement that we will re-examine the east London river crossing to ensure a better environmental outcome. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are undertaking that work at the moment. As for the ability of the local authority to tender for the scheme, I suggest that no ulterior motive is involved. It is clear that, under the 1970 Act, this is not the type of work for which a publicly subsidised local authority should tender. I regard that as not only a wholly unexceptionable principle but one to which it would be sensible to continue to adhere.

Any works undertaken in Catford are bound to have a huge impact on the flow of commuter traffic from north-west Kent and south-east London into the centre of London. Will my hon. Friend assure me that every step will be taken at all times to minimise traffic dislocation to my commuters from Dartford, especially during the works?

I will indeed give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Department tries, whenever possible, when major works are being undertaken, to take account of the effects on other parts of the region. I will certainly take my hon. Friend's words to heart.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to commence on the building of a new Ashford international railway station with related works.

I expect the railway works for the Ashford international passenger station to commence in October. The time scale for construction of the station buildings is a matter for the private sector promoter. I hope that work will begin in the first half of next year and that the new station will open by October 1995.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information, since the opening of the Ashford international station will benefit my constituents in Hastings and Rye. Does he know that there are rumours that the Hastings-Ashford line may be closed? Will he scotch that rumour once and for all and confirm that the electrification of that line will go ahead?

I can assure my hon. Friend that no Minister has received any indication that the line is likely to close. Therefore, I can confirm that, as far as we are concerned, the line will remain open. It is an important and valuable line.

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that British Rail and the Department of Transport are in discussion with the private sector about its participation in electrification—not only of that line, but of the west coast main line—that will mean that we can accomplish those important infrastructure works faster than would otherwise be possible.

Will the Minister realise that there is a problem not only in constructing the Ashford international railway station, but in getting there if one travels from any of the regions? Many passengers in Wales, for example, would like to travel to Paris and Brussels via the international link, but can travel direct only if they leave at 2 o'clock in the morning. What will the Minister do to spare us the delights of having to travel round the Circle line in London?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, some of the trains on the Great Western railway route will travel directly to Waterloo international station. If he has not seen the impressive new station, I strongly recommend that he does so and that he commends its use to his constituents.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was a meeting last week at which the future of the railway lines through Ashford was discussed and that Union Rail failed to provide the necessary information for the basis of that meeting until 24 hours before?

Union Rail has a similar meeting in my constituency on Wednesday and has so far failed to provide any of the information required. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if there are to be meetings with the public to try to explain the positions of the Government and Union Rail, the necessary material on which to base judgments must be made available beforehand?

I can assure my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends who have an involvement with the route plan for the channel tunnel rail link that we want Union Rail to conduct a proper consultation. At Maidstone last week, I undertook to write to all the local authorities and my hon. Friends by the end of the week, re-emphasising the rules of procedure under which Union Rail will be consulting, not only at Boxley and Ashford, but at other locations along the route.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet representatives of the British Railways Board to discuss the privatisation of the railways; and if he will make a statement.

I meet the chairman and other British Rail representatives regularly and will be doing so again this week.

Most work on the railways has never been well paid, but at least it used to be secure and, after it, people received a pension. Is there to be a guarantee of job security in future and will there be a guarantee of the solvency of pensions when the dreaded day of rail privatisation arrives?

We reached agrement with British Rail and with the British Rail pension trustees last week on the final arrangements in relation to a solvency guarantee, following pretty long discussions in which we dealt with all the other issues. Arrangements have been drawn up and I answered a parliamentary question on the subject last week. In a generous way, I think that that gives the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Before privatisation takes place, would my right hon. Friend agree that there are still many lines in Network SouthEast that require new rolling stock? Will he therefore strongly encourage the new leasing deals? Will he also comment on the prospects of Network SouthEast being allowed to lease trains for that purpose in the near future?

As my right hon. Friend knows, a £150 million leasing deal, which was agreed and announced in the autumn statement last year, is currently out to tender, and BR will make its decision on it within the next two months. One of the possibilities there is for Network South East. I hope that we shall be able to continue that kind of arrangement in the future. As to privatisation, the opportunities for leasing will be substantial.

Will the Secretary of State assure me that the privatisation of railways will not prejudice investment in the west coast main line, which is of major importance to us in Northern Ireland, as the Larne-Lochryan-Carlisle route is the major route used to carry the commercial traffic of Northern Ireland—[Interruption.]

I thought that other Opposition Members were also interested in the west coast main line —it is not just of interest to Northern Ireland. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no reason why privatisation should in any way adversely affect the proposals for the west coast main line. I hope that some of the preliminary work on that will start shortly. We are investigating also the possibility—we are out to consultancy on it at the moment—of involving the private sector in the construction and financing of the modernisation of the west coast main line.

Will my right hon. Friend please note that there will be a warm welcome in Wales this week for his right hon. Friend the Minister of State when he travels with me on the heart of Wales line from Swansea to Shrewsbury? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to say that that is a demonstration of the commitment of the Government to socially necessary lines in rural areas, just like the central Wales line, and give lie to the fear that has been built up by Opposition Members that services of that kind, which are so essential in my constituency and other rural areas, will in some way be diminished by the Government's proposals?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend is doing a great deal of travelling around the country and is making clear, as we shall in Wales and as we have made clear throughout, that the subsidies will continue for socially necessary lines. I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance and I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who is looking forward to his visit very much, will do so as well.

Will the Secretary of State accept that there is absolutely no need for the spurious and divisive contest between the west coast main line and Network SouthEast and that it is perfectly well within the gift of Government to allow both rolling stock schemes to proceed under the leasing procedures, which they have belatedly acknowledged as feasible?

Will the Secretary of State address himself also to the question of where the money is to come from to fund the profits that operators will look for under privatisation? Will he particularly address himself to the report by Price Waterhouse to BR, which has been commented on in today's Glasgow Herald, which shows that private investors are being encouraged to believe that they should seek a 30 per cent. return on their investment?

Will the Secretary of State tell us, after many months of discussing those issues, where that 30 per cent. is to come from in a subsidised, loss-making railway system? It can come only from increased subsidy, which is clearly not the Government's intention, or from cuts in services, increasing fares and the loss of jobs. Would not the Secretary of State be doing his Back Benchers and his candidate in Christchurch a great favour if he were now to draw one of those famous lines in the sand and forget all about railway privatisation during the summer recess?

I was in Christchurch recently and have to tell the hon. Gentleman that there was not a great deal of concern about railway privatisation, because the aasurances that I was able to give were clear. As to his other two questions, the leasing arrangement was feasible only because of the prospect of privatisation. It is only that which has made it possible. But, of course, one cannot do everything at once. One has to make choices among priorities. There must be a limit to the levels of public expenditure—it would be as well if the hon. Gentleman recognised that. As to the Price Waterhouse report, I have not yet seen it, let alone read the Glasgow Herald.

Here is the newspaper.

I would rather read the Price Waterhouse report in full, if I may, and will certainly look at it.

The hon. Gentleman will know that there will be considerable opportunities for franchisees through efficiency gains, better marketing, increasing passenger returns and so on. I would also tell him that the Price Waterhouse report is premature, because, until the Bill is given Royal Assent, we will not be going out positively seeking franchisees and marketing the opportunities. It is not possible to make such calculations at this stage.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to strengthen and develop the role of regional airports.

The Government are keen to see regional airports meeting all the demand that they can attract. We also wish to encourage much greater involvement of the private sector, including privatisation of local authority airports.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that many local regional airports such as Teesside remain unable to take full advantage of the new opportunities in freedom of air traffic movement, in particular around Europe, because they are shackled to local authorities, which lack the imagination and expertise to compete in a sophisticated market? Therefore, willl he give serious and urgent consideration to introducing measures to entice or compel local authorities to release those airports into the private sector, where they belong?

My hon. Friend is right on several counts. There are certainly big opportunities in Europe, not least with the third aviation package, the opening of the skies in Europe and the removal of so many controls. He is also right to say that regional airports have a big opportunity and to suggest that that is best seized in the private sector, as the British Airports Authority has done.

I have been trying to encourage local authority airports to go in that direction, partly by the fact that, given all the other priorities for public expenditure, I have cut the amount of public expenditure available, knowing very well that the private sector can find the funds. This year, through the 100 per cent. capital receipts, we have also given encouragement for local authority airports to seize the opportunity.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the newly announced twinning of Birmingham and Chicago? What support and encouragement can he offer to establish direct air services between those two cities?

I am keen to do so and, in the discussions that I am having with the Secretary for Transport in the United States, on which I have embarked and which I will be pursuing further in September, I am seeking further liberalisation of routes from the United States to regional European United Kingdom airports. Indeed, I recently made an interim offer, which he was not able to accept but which involved further opportunities for regional airports. I shall have that in mind in the negotiations in which we are now involved.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the further expansion of small regional airports, such as Blackpool in my constituency, and in particular the fact that a number of extra air services have started this year, including a direct flight three times a week to and from Stansted and a third airline using Blackpool as the airport of entry from the Irish Republic?

Yes, I welcome the development of regional airports and we believe that airport development is something for the airport operators themselves. I am pleased to hear of the progress that Blackpool is making.

Will the Minister accept that, if it had been left to the private sector, for Manchester airport there would be nothing there? That is a good example of the foresight of the Manchester city fathers and other local authorities, which have developed one of the best international airports in the country. Is it not grossly unfair for the Government to be robbing them of that asset just as the airport is proving to be such as success?

There is no question of robbing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that there has been massive Government investment in Manchester airport. The significant point now is that regional airports can, in the same way as London airport, raise their funds from the private sector because they are regarded as successful businesses. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noted that BAA, since privatisation, has put in a great deal more capital investment than was possible when it was in the public sector.

Will the Secretary of State consider ring-fencing the flights from Heathrow to Plymouth? As he knows, the west country depends on the link between Heathrow, Plymouth and Newquay, so he would be doing it a great service if he would do something to protect the route. British Airways has taken it over, and nobody is certain that it will not give up the slot and use it for a more lucrative route.

As my hon. Friend knows, I fully appreciate the importance of air services to the south-west, but we have discussed the difficulties of ring fencing particular slots. In that regard, I see British Airways acquisition of Brymon Airways as a reassuring development. I am pleased to note that British Airways has stated that it recognises the importance that the people of Devon and Cornwall place on their air link with Heathrow and looks forward to improving its communications with its international network there.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department is proposing to spend on new road building during the next five years.

The current public expenditure plans of my Department involve the spending of £4·1 billion on the construction of new motorways and trunk roads in the years 1993–94 to 1995–96. In the current year, we plan to spend £1·4 billion on building new motorways and trunk roads as part of this year's record expenditure of VA billion on national roads.

I welcome the Secretary of State's decision not to concrete over Oxleas Wood. Was it a one-off or the first step in a programme to prise his Department from the grip of the road lobby? If the Government are interested in making savings in public funds, is not their insane road building programme an obvious place to start?

I do not accept that it is an insane road building programme and, as I go round the country, the demands and requests that I receive are for building bypasses and improving the motorway network, on which the vast majority of people want us to put emphasis. Increasing emphasis is being placed on environmental issues. Having benefited from close proximity to a wood, and knowing the importance of lungs, I believe strongly in trees and woods and lungs for London. I took my decision on Oxleas Wood on its merits. Nowadays, the Department of Transport puts heavy emphasis on all environmental aspects of the road programme.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey North-West (Sir M. Grylls) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) are today visiting the European Environment Commissioner to express the concern of many thousands of people in Surrey and elsewhere around London about the proposal to build link roads on the M25? To what extent is my right hon. Friend of the view that link roads work in harmony with local, district, county and regional plans and, indeed, with the Department of the Environment's Green Paper, which was published only last week and suggested that we should restrain traffic growth in the interests of the environment and of health?

I think that they are consistent with regional plans and with the Department of the Environment's Green Paper, with which I was closely associated and with which I agree. We propose to hold a public inquiry next year on the proposed link road between the M3 and M4, which will have to look at the fact that doing nothing is not an option. Whatever restraint—motorway tolling or other measures—is put on the growth of traffic, there is no doubt that traffic on that section of the motorway, which is one of the most congested in the country, will continue to increase. Unless something is done, the danger is that a substantial amount of traffic will be diverted back to local roads, which will recreate the congestion and environmental disadvantages that the M25 was designed to remove.

Will the Minister confirm whether his Department is considering a network of 12 or 14-lane wide motorways, as speculated in some Sunday broadsheets, whose vivid diagrams almost went off the edge of the page and probably evaded the tabloids altogether? Is not he concerned about projected growth figures of 35 million vehicles by 2025, and how will that square with the commitments that the Government gave at Rio? Is not he concerned by reports linking asthma with car usage? Does not a point come when one has to say enough is enough and instead seek investment opportunities in the public transport network?

Let me deal with a few of those points. First, I do not confirm the reports in the Sunday newspapers. We are talking about a three-lane link road on each side of the M25 on one section, and I have announced one other. The important point is that it is not just the M25 around London—preventing traffic coming into London—but a major arterial route between several other motorways. It is an exceptional part of the motorway network and, in my view, needed the type of proposals that we are putting forward to a public inquiry.

We are taking a large number of steps to deal with environmental pollution. I am aware of the asthma research and look forward to seeing the results in 1994. The hon. Gentleman should not neglect the fact that allowing traffic to move freely also contributes to removing pollution from the atmosphere. If traffic is congested and stays still, it is a major contributor to atmospheric pollution; we are taking many steps to put that right.

When my right hon. Friend considers how much money to spend on investment in roads, will he consider the advantageous effect of a significant investment in local rolling stock on the railways in my constituency? Does he acknowledge that investment in the new Cotswold turbos between Worcester and London has led to a 26 per cent. improvement in revenue in the past two months on my local rail service, and will he bear that strongly in mind when considering the relative merits of road and rail investment?

My hon. Friend is quite right and I am aware of all of that. However, when considering the problems on the M25 that we discussed earlier, one must realise that whatever one does on the railway system will not substantially reduce the increased amount of traffic likely to flow on that road.

My hon. Friend mentions an important point, which enables me to emphasise yet again, particularly to those who argue that the Department of Transport is mainly concerned about roads, that 56 per cent. of the Department's spending is on roads, compared with 44 per cent. on public transport. Given that nine tenths of traffic goes by road, that shows that, if anything, we in the Department of Transport are skewing—relatively speaking—public expenditure favourably towards public transport.

Does the Secretary of State accept that his Department's estimates mean that growth in use of the private motor vehicle will need a road to accommodate demand equivalent to a 275-lane motorway from London to Glasgow? Is not his proposal to increase the M25 to 14 lanes the down payment on that crazy policy? Will he conduct a fundamental review of the road programme that will encourage people to transfer to public rather than private transport, as the only way of dealing with congestion and environmental problems? I assure him that we will vigorously oppose his plans for the M25 through the summer and beyond.

The hon. Gentleman is free to put his points to the public inquiry that I have set up, but I have thoroughly considered the arguments and believe that there will continue to be a need for a substantial road building programme such as we envisage. I notice that the Opposition Front-Bench Members have decided on a wholesale review of the road building programme and the scrapping of some major projects. They fail to appreciate that the road programme is a vital part of our overall transport strategy. I believe that to halt our present plans is to ignore the needs of industry, to ignore the right of every person to choose how to make a journey and to ignore the fact that, as living standards improve, there will inevitably be growth in road traffic. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that, as I said earlier, 44 per cent. of our current spending is on public transport.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to include the Biddulph bypass in the highways capital programme for Staffordshire.

It is up to Staffordshire county council to decide whether to include the Biddulph bypass scheme in its next bid for highway capital.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his Department considers the Biddulph bypass a very useful scheme? Is he aware that there is an urgent necessity for the bypass to reduce congestion, improve traffic safety and facilitate industrial development? As it will be on the list submitted next year, will he approve it?

I look forward to seeing the details of the scheme. It is important and I would only add to what my hon. Friend has said that I am sure that it would also be of enormous benefit to the people in Biddulph, on that very busy road between Stoke and Congleton, and that the environmental benefits will be substantial. Of course, it has featured in earlier Staffordshire transport policies and programme bids, but it has not so far been sufficiently advanced to be considered for transport supplementary grant. I will consider it very carefully and bear in mind the strong representations that my hon. Friend has made.

Is the Minister aware that a route has been proposed for the Birmingham northern relief road—a privately funded toll road which, interestingly, has a form of tolling that the Government rejected in their Green Paper?

Order. We are dealing with Staffordshire at the moment. [Interruption.]

I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Birmingham northern relief road passes through southern Staffordshire. Is he further aware—

Order. You have a Speaker who knows the region very well. It is nowhere near that area: I know that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in the sale of bus companies outside London.

Seventeen of the original 53 local authority-owned bus companies outside London have been sold. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that interest in the sale of the remaining municipally-owned bus companies remains high.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sale of bus companies is good for employees—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is good for employees because it gives them the possibility to share in the ownership of their company, which is good Conservative policy. Despite all the nonsense spoken by the Opposition, Oxford is a good example of how things can go right when the principles are correctly put in place.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is not inclined to suggest taking those bus companies back into public ownership because lie knows very well that privatisation has been a success among management and employees.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what plans he has to monitor the performance of (a) the Comptroller and Auditor General and (b) the National Audit Office.

The Public Accounts Commission considers the National Audit Office corporate plan in July each year. This year, it contained a chapter on NAO efficiency and performance overall, showed key performance measures—both targets and actual—and the impacts of NAO work, and recorded outcome against plan for the preceding financial year. The performance of the Comptroller and Auditor General in delivering more results with relatively fewer resources speaks for itself.

Will the Chairman ensure that there is a full response to the most serious allegations about the Comptroller and Auditor General in the July edition of "Business Age" magazine? Saudi-related arms deals and the under-priced sale of Royal Ordnance are two of the scandals, and while he was at the Ministry of Defence the Comptroller is alleged to have audited himself. Is not the system wrong? Should not there be better performance monitoring of the auditor and his staff? As he can be removed only by the Queen and the two Houses of Parliament, is not the state auditor in thrall to the Head of the Government instead of being independent in law, as is the state auditor in other countries?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his supplementary question. The Comptroller and Auditor General has been to see me at his own request about these matters. I heard and accepted his explanation on each of the points made in that article. It is the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, not the Government, who nominates the Comptroller and Auditor General. Secondly, the points made in that article can be and, I believe, in some cases have been investigated by the Public Accounts Committee, and could be again. Both the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and I have every confidence in the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is a devoted servant of the House.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what plans the Commission has to increase National Audit Office expenditure on cost-benefit analysis.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what proportion of National Audit Office studies are cost efficiency reviews; and if he will make a statement.

In 1992–93, the National Audit Office delivered 51 major value-for-money studies, which comprised about half the work of the NAO, and plans to continue deliveries at the same level in the future. The selection of topics for investigation is based on a systematic review of expenditure and value for money. The NAO's investigations employ cost-benefit analysis techniques where appropriate.

Does the Chairman of the Commission agree that while we know much about the cost of public programmmes, we still know too little about their impact and benefits? Does he further agree that we need to know more about the impact of public investment on areas such as family policy and crime prevention?

The hon. Gentleman has a good point. The National Audit Office is doing far more value-for-money studies than it has done in the past, using the techniques that I have mentioned. I accept that there is always room for improvement. If the hon. Gentleman has specific points in mind, I hope that he will get in touch with me and I will see that they are directed to the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, past work has been very helpful in identifying cost benefits in each of the reports produced. Has there yet been a benefit analysis of the delivery of public services across Greater London, comparing the time when there was a strategic authority with today, when that authority has been replaced by 33 local authorities? If no such analysis has been carried out, can the information be included in one of the forthcoming reports?

I will consider it. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me, I will take the matter up. If he is referring to the London residuary body, which is a matter of interest to him, the PAC has the right to call for papers and persons. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to follow that up, it could be a matter for the PAC to recommend that the C and AG investigate.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what representations he has received about health and safety training for staff of the House.

None.

That seems a fairly unsatisfactory reply. Would it not be more satisfactory if the health and safety matters of the House were brought under the auspices of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974? That would mean that such matters were properly covered and controlled by statute.

Neither I nor the other Commissioners are responsible for the fact that representations are not made to us. The hon. Gentleman's question went wider than his original one. He raises a fair point about how effect can best be given to the general desire for health and safety requirements to be applied in the House. It is the Commission's policy that they should be applied. Discussions are taking place about the means to be used to give legislative effect to that policy.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what measures are being taken to facilitate the provision of POLIS within Members' offices via the parliamentary data and video network; and when the network will be extended to the Norman Shaw buildings.

The parliamentary data and video network is at present available to Members on the lower floors of Millbank, and a small number of Members outside via a telephone link. The network has been authorised only as a pilot phase and is currently being reviewed by the Information Committee, which hopes to report later this year. Any plans to extend the network, including POLIS, to the Norman Shaw buildings, or elsewhere, will need to await approval of the service by the House following the report from the Information Committee and the provision of the necessary funds in the estimates.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his long and helpful answer. Does not he accept that the provision of POLIS to all Members of the House will help reduce the burden on our excellent Library and librarians? It will also help all Members of the House assist still further their constituents, including my own in Lichfield, Rugeley and Stone.

The hon. Gentleman makes his case clearly. It was the kind of interest that he has shown which led to the approval by the Commission of the pilot project. It is on the basis of that pilot project that the House will be able to decide whether to extend the scheme and continue it.

These new developments will obviously be welcomed in the Norman Shaw buildings, but there is a great deal to be done in this particular building. Many of the offices here only have an annunciator. It would be better to ensure that the facilities were more widely available to people in the House and to bring everyone up to a level standard.

That is the approach which the Commission has taken. It was convenient to carry out the current pilot study in Millbank because new work was being done there. Any extension of it would have to be considered by the House as a whole, but I imagine the desire to see that the facility—if extended—is available to Members generally would weigh heavily with the Commission and the House.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an unlimited expansion of the use of POLIS would lead to a substantial increase in the demand on telephone services, bearing in mind that the databank is held remote from the House? Is not the financial implication of the expansion of POLIS part of the Information Committee's remit in assessing its acceptability to the House?

Yes, it is. It will also be one of the Commission's concerns when any proposal is considered by the House. The final decision, however, will rest with the House.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what breaches in the Palace of Westminster of the provisions of the health and safety Acts have been reported to the Commission.

The Commission has received no such reports.

Is a specific Officer of the House responsible for health and safety? How can hon. Members who employ staff ensure that they are complying with the health and safety Acts when they have no control over the environment overall? Surely now is the time to end Crown immunity, so that the House is open to inspection by local environmental health officers.

Each Department has its safety representatives, who carry out the necessary work in that Department. The removal of Crown immunity from these buildings was mentioned in an earlier question, and I expressed my willingness for that to happen, but it is a complicated legal process. Discussions are taking place; in the meantime, the Commission considers it important for the House to retain its policy of seeking to comply with the requirements placed on it by the legislation.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans the Commission has to increase office accommodation for hon. Members.

Planning for the construction of the phase 2 building is progressing. The building will accommodate some 500 people, and will include sets of offices for 210 Members of Parliament and their staff. As an interim measure, the House has acquired the lease of a building at 7 Millbank. Once conversion work has been completed, that building will provide offices for some 115 Members and their staff. The upper floors of the building are expected to become available in stages between October 1993 and February 1994.

Does the Chairman of the Commission think that, in future, one body rather than two should allocate offices to both Members and their assistants or secretaries? My constituents are surprised when I tell them that my office is in Norman Shaw North, and that my assistant works in the Millbank building about 12 minutes away. Sometimes they say that, if we cannot run the House of Commons, it is not surprising that no one seems to be running the country.

I am not the Chairman of the Commission, Madam Speaker; you are.

The arrangements whereby parties use the accommodation allocated to them are normally settled within the parties. If those arrangements were put on a new footing, the parties would no doubt have to make representations to the Commission.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what was the surplus on the Refreshment Department account in the last financial year; and what amount was carried forward from previous years.

The Refreshment Department's income and expenditure account for the year ending 1 April 1993 showed an operating surplus of some £320,000, and a total surplus—including interest—of £445,000. The accumulated surplus brought forward from previous years is £2·7 million. By decision of the Commission, that is being set aside as a reserve to provide funds for the capital improvement programme required by the Department.

I understand that the House is to authorise the spending of about £19 million on updating the kitchens. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that money need not be spent on updating kitchens for good food to be provided? Would it not be a good idea to spend some of that surplus of nearly £3 million on improving the food in both the Members' Tea Room and the cafeterias? Could we not have some good west country dishes and some nice English wine? There are some wonderful west country recipes, and my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has some splendid ideas for the kind of food that could be sold here.

The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Catering Committee, and he doubtless provides such advice regularly. The Committee and the catering manager have never been short of advice from Members about delicacies from various parts of the country that could be included in our menus.

Expenditure is necessary, however, both to comply with environmental health requirements and to ensure proper working conditions for staff. It is amazing that such good food has been provided from some outlets in the House where kitchen conditions are frankly not good enough.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that some of the money will be spent on improving conditions for staff? At present, the conditions are only slightly better than those operating in Victorian times. Surely, if we are to make laws about employment, the House of Commons is the first place where we should improve facilities for staff.

Most certainly. That has been the policy of the Commission, and the Commission and the Catering Committee both want to see that policy continue.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how much tripe has been served during the past year?

Not without notice.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to bring forward proposals to amend the sub judice rule as it applies to discussions in the House.

I have no such plans. That is primarily a matter for you, Madam Speaker. Any hon. Members who believe that the application of the sub judice rule in the House should be changed should refer their concerns to the Procedure Committee.

My right hon. Friend's response may have been overtaken by the sad events of last week. Will the Lord President, in the new spirit of comradely friendship, offer his best wishes for good health and fortitude to Lord Rees-Mogg in the important battle for British freedom which he has now embarked upon?

I hope that I have always approached my hon. Friend—a fellow Essex Member of Parliament—in a spirit of comradeship and friendship, despite our occasional disagreements. I fear, however, that he may be stretching the current spirit of goodwill just a little with the latter part of his question. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noted your ruling on Thursday, Madam Speaker, that you would not be applying the sub judice rule on that occasion.

The case that has been submitted by Lord Rees-Mogg is concerned with the application by Ministers of the proceeedings, and is not a criticism or attack on the House which would have been a quite different matter. Is not it important that Ministers are subject to a judicial review of their actions if they ignore legislation that has been passed by the House and try to corrupt that legislation to support the Maastricht treaty?

The hon. Gentleman, in a way that is perhaps not unfamiliar, appears to be enticing me into something that may be in breach of the sub judice rules that are subject to your guidance, Madam Speaker. I have no intention of commenting further on the case, beyond saying that it appears to involve potentially complicated ingredients.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he is now in a position to announce the formation of a Northern Ireland Select Committee; and if he will make a statement.

As the Government have made clear on a number of occasions, both in response to the Procedure Committee's 1990 report on the workings of the Select Committee system and on subsequent occasions, that is a matter which we continue to keep under review.

I do not know whether that answer will satisfy the Ulster Unionists who, are understood to have entered into a squalid deal with the Government in connection with the advance of their position within the House. There is a serious case for the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee, in that matters relating to Northern Ireland should be put under scrutiny through the House, and the present procedures do not provide for that.

Should not the deal that was entered into have sought to persuade the Ulster Unionists to join the British-Irish parliamentary body, where they could have become involved in that body's scrutiny avenues and help in the establishment of a Northern Ireland Committee which the SDLP could be asked to join as well?

The Government have always recognised that there is a case for the established of such a Committee. That is precisely why the Procedure Committee made observations on the matter, while acknowledging a number of difficulties, in its report of 1990. That is also why the Government have responded on a number of occasions in the way which I have repeated today.

The hon. Gentleman makes further allegations of what he chooses to describe as a squalid deal. I can do no better than repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in response to a question from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on 23 July. He said:

"Nothing was asked for, nothing was offered and nothing was given."—[Official Report, 23 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 631.]

Those sentiments have been repeated by Ulster Unionist Members.

The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-east (Mr. Barnes) may be aware that the Ulster Unionists have places on the British-Irish governing body, but they choose not to use those seats for the moment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a Select Committee for Northern Ireland is long overdue? Does he also agree that the arguments that that would somehow encourage integration are rotten arguments which should be ignored?

I note what my hon. Friend says. Rather than hearing talk of what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) described as a "squalid deal", the House might wish to be reminded of the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about how he saw the future government of Ireland. One need look little further for reasons why the Ulster Unionists might wish to support the Government.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to vary the timing and length of parliamentary recesses.

I have no such proposals, although I use my best endeavours to give as much notice as possible of recess dates. Those endeavours have not been so successful this year as I should have liked.

Does the Lord President accept that, apart from the occasional Member of Parliament who has a Caribbean island, for most of us the summer recess will not be a holiday so much as a time to catch up on work that we had to put to one side during Maastricht? While I accept that the Government want to creep away and lick their post-Maastricht wounds, clearly we want to carry on the job of bringing them down, which we almost achieved last week. Does the Lord President accept that it would be better to even out our sittings over the year? While he is answering, will he tell us when we shall deal with the Jopling report?

The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question anticipates a question which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has tabled. The second part of his question was political rhetoric rather than a question. I disagree with what he said. In the spirit of comradeship and friendship in which we started these exchanges, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the first part of his question, which was about whether Members of Parliament would generally spend a large part of the recess doing work of other kinds.