To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the figures for British Rail of passenger train miles and passenger seat provision in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

I have arranged for the available information to be published in the Official Report. Broadly, this shows that passenger train miles increased by 5 per cent. between 1983 and 1987–88. British Rail is trying to match the capacity that it provides to demand.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that although new stock has been brought in, it will result in fewer seats for passengers? Will this not lead to excessive overcrowding and a lowering of safety standards?

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will be pleased to know about the large amount of railway investment that is going ahead. In real terms it is at its highest level for over 25 years, and by the end of the decade British Rail will have renewed over 85 per cent. of its diesel passenger trains and will have electrified 60 per cent. of inter-city routes.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the standing passenger is more vulnerable to accident and to causing an accident, even to sitting passengers; and is not getting "fare" value? Will he look at this issue with particular regard to the design of carriages, the separation of standing and sitting passengers and the availability of seats at peak hours on main lines? Will he look into the feasibility of the issuance by the guard of part refund vouchers to passengers who have had to stand during specified stages of the journey? Is he prepared to make recommendations to British Rail about these matters?

Most of what my hon. Friend says, although not all, is a matter for British Rail. I understand his point about "fare" value. New rolling stock is now needed to meet agreed standards. It has been and will continue to be approved and, as my hon. Friend knows, an enormous investment programme is going ahead in British Rail. I know that my hon. Friend, among others, welcomes that.

The Department of Transport's publication last week of the study on London transport shows that in 1985–86 there was a 36 per cent. increase in the overloading of trains and that in 1987 there was an 8 per cent. further increase in overloading on the Department of Transport's agreed targets. Is the right hon. Gentleman not also concerned about the safety risks that the existing rolling stock may present to passengers?

The House agrees that overcrowding is unsatisfactory and the hon. Gentleman asks about its implications for safety. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the report on that that I received last year from the chief inspector of railways. We are anxious to have a far better quality of service in terms of overcrowding and punctuality. We are setting British Rail very serious and difficult targets and I am determined that they should be reached. As I have said, there is a massive programme of investment to achieve those aims.

The serious and difficult targets to which my right hon. Friend refers are, of course, the targets set by his Department for the investment criteria. Will he seriously reconsider the need completely to evaluate the investment criteria for road versus rail? For example, is he aware that I have failed to obtain from the Home Office—because it does not know the figures—information about the time that the Metropolitan police and other county police forces spend on work connected with roads, such as on accidents, administration, court cases, and so on? That has to be set alongside the fact that British Rail has to provide its own police force. Is it not nonsense to exclude police time, health costs and other matters from these assessments? If they were included does he agree that a completely different pattern would emerge that would enable the Government to provide investment funds to British Rail based on reality and not fiction?

My hon. Friend and I have corresponded about this. There is not a great deal of difference between the criteria, or between the bases for deciding on investment in road or in rail. If necessary I shall of course write to my hon. Friend again. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the planned investment, at 1988–89

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding trunk roads in East Anglia.

We receive a wide variety of representations, both in the context of the statutory procedures for trunk road proposals and otherwise.

Is my hon. Friend aware that East Anglia is one of the fastest growing regions of the country and consequently has been experiencing great pressure on its road system? Is he aware in particular that the Al2, which passes through my constituency and links the east coast towns of Felixstowe and Ispwich with London, the M25 and the Dartford tunnel, is in urgent need of a third lane in each direction and the completion of the central safety crash barrier? Will my hon. Friend give sympathetic consideration to these possibilities?

Yes, yes and yes.

Why will the Secretary of State not give a proper answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie)? Is is not a fact that while passenger train miles are increasing, the number of seats available is falling? Does that not have an impact on both comfort and safety? What justification is there for the constant round of swingeing price increases in real terms for travelling on British Rail?

As I tried to explain to the House, British Rail is achieving much better use of its trains—[Interruption.] I am surprised that the Opposition do not wish British Rail to be efficient. I am amazed that they think that it would be better for British Rail to be inefficient than efficient. We are getting a far more efficient service out of British Rail, and the level of investment in British Rail under a Labour Government shows that a great deal of what they say is humbug.

When will a final decision be made on the A120 project, which links the M11 with the A12, and which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo)? Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that the line of route suggested by Essex county council has almost unanimous support from all the parties, such as the parish councils and the environmentalists? Surely it would be folly to depart from it.

It is encouraging when local people and local authorities work together with the Department. There is not much point in us agreeing on something that they do not like because it would then take much time to resolve differences. My hon. Friend asks about when we can solve the problems of the A120. That will take time as it is a long road, but we are dedicated, both in this region and others, to ensuring that our roads eliminate congestion, provide environmental relief and cut casualties.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce proposals to improve road links between Bristol and the south coast ports.

The published trunk road programme contains 10 schemes to the value of over £45 million for the improvement of the A36/A46 route between the M4 and M27 motorways. Dorset and Wiltshire county councils have also included several schemes in their transport policies and programmes on the A350 from Poole to connect with this trunk route.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that full reply. Has not the need and desire for a fully upgraded link between Bristol and the south coast ports been around for some time, as this will, not least, enable shipping lines to consider again the port of Bristol? Will my right hon. Friend have early discussions with the county authorities in order to develop this idea further?

Yes, Sir. I shall be meeting representatives of Dorset and Wiltshire county councils later this afternoon. It is an example of the Department working with local highway authorities that we are having discussions not only today, but have had them over the past year or so, to see whether we can upgrade this route. I can say to the regional CBI that now that the Warminster bypass is open, the bicycle will not beat the lorry in future.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the traffic that requires access to the midlands from the south coast ports does not want to travel via Bristol? Will he consider favourably a further improvement of the A417/A419 link between Swindon and the M5 at Gloucester?

Yes, but I think that it is better to try to get some of the routes upgraded as a whole so that strategic considerations can be completed and we can pick the routes that do not involve villages and unsuitable towns. My hon. Friend is right to say that, without sacrificing the countryside, we need links that can spread employment and provide environmental relief and casualty reductions throughout the country.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many motor cycle casualties there were in 1986 and 1987.

Too many. In 1987, there were 45,807 casualties among users of two-wheeled motor vehicles, 12 per cent. fewer than the 52,280 casualties in 1986. It is encouraging that the casualty rate is falling. The numbers are also influenced by the reduced level of motor cycling.

I commend my hon. Friend on those figures which show a continued downward trend in the number of motor cycle casualties. Does he still intend to introduce the statutory fitting of leg protectors? Is he aware that some members of the motor cycling fraternity are worried that such protectors could be counterproductive as they might, for example, restrict the ability of a rider involved in an accident to jump clear?

Perhaps it would have been better if I had found ways of making the issues more relevant during the past two years. We intend to work with the motor cycle industry on the development of leg protectors and research, but it is worth emphasising that 90 per cent. of motor cycle injuries occur in crashes at speeds of less than 40 miles per hour and normally involve hitting another vehicle. In those cases, throwing oneself away from a motor cycle does not help; it is too late.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is perhaps further scope for legislation in this field, not least in respect of motor cycles weaving in and out of moving vehicles with very short distances between them? Is it not absurd that firms operating courier services should be allowed to employ people who have passed no test whatsoever?

The answer to my right hon. Friend's second question is yes; it is absurd. The idea that someone who has not demonstrated basic competence should be paid money for riding around on a motor bike with L plates strikes me as ludicrous and I hope that anyone employing such people will stop doing so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the Channel tunnel.

Construction progress is a matter for Eurotunnel. I understand that, following some early delays, better progress is being maintained.

The Minister will be aware of the comments on 11 January of the construction director of Transmanche Link who said that, at the English end alone, the project is running two months behind after its first year. Although we are mindful that conditions at the French end are much more severe and have been compounded by the collapse of a sub-contracting firm and late deliveries, what chance is there now for the Government to meet the advertised date of 15 May 1993 for completion of the tunnel?

It is not for me to comment on that, but the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the tunnelling is only one aspect of the project. There is also the work at either end on the major construction sites. He will know that progress at the Cheriton terminal and at the BR freight inspection facility at Dollands Moor, Castle Hill tunnel portal and Holywell Coombe cut and cover tunnel is satisfactory.

If the Channel tunnel is to succeed, the benefits must be nationwide. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is concern in the north of England that its development will increase the south-east drift? What can my hon. Friend say to my constituents who have expressed concern about that?

I am aware of that concern and I am as concerned as my hon. Friend to ensure that every region of the country benefits from the Channel tunnel. That is why the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 contains a section that requires British Rail to prepare a plan by the end of next year for its freight and passenger services to every region and why consultation on that is proceeding.

Is the Minister aware of the strategic significance of the location of the second terminal for the Channel tunnel? There is much regret on both sides of the House that British Rail has decided that it will be at King's Cross and not at Stratford in the East End. Is he further aware that there is considerable support for Stratford and, therefore, opposition to King's Cross by Camden, Islington and the London borough of Newham? Is it not appropriate for the Minister, as I know that he is a reasonable young fellow, to call in British Rail's decision and to hold a proper inquiry, both with regard to the location of the second London terminal and the route through Kent?

There are divided councils, both Conservative and Labour-controlled, and some Labour Members as well as some of my hon. Friends have been lobbying in favour of King's Cross, having taken the view that it provides better facilities for the north of England. I do not intend to hold an inquiry. British Rail's proposal that King's Cross should be the second terminal is subject to the approval of Ministers and to that of Parliament because of the requirement that a private Bill be put into effect.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the considerable concern expressed by Kent Members over the failure of British Rail to provide for the future of an adequate rail link between the Channel tunnel and the rest of the country. The rail service to north Kent is depressingly slow, dirty and expensive, and the prospect facing commuters from north-east Kent of an additional four trains per hour coming into an already overloaded south-London system is quite frightening. When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he impress upon him the need for investment in the north Kent line, and especially for proper provision of a link to the tunnel?

I understand fully the point that my hon. Friend makes. It is one that has been considered extremely carefully by Kent county council, which understands the risk of proceeding with a Channel tunnel service without improvements to the existing lines or without the provision of a new line. I say to my hon. Friend that the darkest hour is just before dawn—

I wish that I had thought of that.

I believe that British Rail has some important plans affecting the north Kent line.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that freight traffic from non-south-eastern regions has competitive access to the Channel tunnel.

I expect British Rail to address this question in the plan which it will be publishing later this year in compliance with section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act.

Will the Minister assure the people of north Staffordshire that they will not be neglected? There are fears in Stoke-on-Trent about problems affecting the railway. Many of my constituents complain about the inadequacies of the service. These include having to stand while travelling from Stoke to London and from London to Stoke. They fear that the rundown in the passenger service signals a rundown of other services that run through Stoke. There are fears for the future and I ask the Minister to address himself to the issue.

The hon. Lady's original question was directed to what will happen once the Channel tunnel comes into operation. I ask her to address herself to that, and I say again that section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act requires British Rail to consult in every region so that by the end of the year it can produce its exact plans for freight services to the regions and for passenger services. British Rail is involved in working parties in every region, including the one which the hon. Lady represents in part.

Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the ways of assisting the regions to benefit from the Channel tunnel is the establishment of freight trans-shipment centres? In the event of any proposals being put to him, will he bear in mind that Northamptonshire is especially well placed, being well set with rail communications and being on the main route across the country to Felixstowe by road?

My hon. Friend is right to say that the provision of freight terminals and inland clearance depots needs to be examined in the consultation process to which I have referred. I hope that my hon. Friend will involve himself in the consultations and make the good point that he has made to me to British Rail so that it can include it in its report by the end of the year.

Has the Minister seen the representations by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and myself to his distinguished predecessor that the ideal site for a freight trans-shipment centre for the Strathclyde region would be Kilmarnock? If he has seen the representation, he will recall that his predecessor promised that he would discuss the matter with British Rail. Have discussions taken place? If so, what is the outcome?

If my predecessor gave such an assurance, I am sure that it would have been put into effect. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), if the hon. Gentleman has a strong case in favour of a certain site, he must ensure that it is taken into account by British Rail by making representations or by ensuring that local authorities and others make representations.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail: and what matters will be discussed.

I shall be meeting the chairman of British Rail on 23 January to discuss a variety of rail matters.

If there is time, could my right hon. Friend tell the chairman how honoured Southend-on-Sea is that one of its Members is now Secretary of State for Transport? Will he explain that we feel that this might provide an appropriate opportunity for early action to be taken on the modernisation of the Fenchurch street line, which has been neglected for such a long time?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and it is a great treat to answer his question, especially as it concerns something about which I feel very strongly and with which I completely agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and I are very pleased that British Rail already has in hand a large programme of resignalling, new rolling stock and new electrical equipment. I am determined that there should be progress on the Fenchurch street line and I am glad to say that the chairman of British Rail agrees with me.

When the Secretary of State next sees the chairman of British Rail, will he convey to him the strong feelings on both sides of the House about the access of freight from the Channel tunnel to the north of London? Will he ask the chairman of British Rail whether the existing links across London, namely the west London line and recently re-opened Thames link line, which will have to go through the proposed King's Cross terminal, will be adequate for that traffic? Would it not be wise to consider a tunnel under the Thames further east, connecting the proposed freight traffic interchange at Stratford to the Channel tunnel as an additional link across London?

I have no doubt about the widespread feeling in the House about that matter. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's suggestion will be the final solution to the problem, but I will draw the attention of the chairman of British Rail to his remarks.

As the Government have invested £3,000 million in British Rail since 1979, and I understand have plans for the same sum for the next three years, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Rail will he raise the point that with such sums behind it, British Rail should at least keep accurate timetables? Should we not be informed how many trains arrive on time? My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport has been unable to give that information to the House.

I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend about that. Of course, we have standards for quality of service. Punctuality and reliability, particularly on Network SouthEast, have improved during the past year. Quality varies between lines. It is excellent on some lines, but on othe lines there is still a considerable way to go. I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend.

Will the Secretary of State also ensure that some of his discussion is devoted to vital questions surrounding the continuation of services in the northern region? Is he aware of the widespread concern in my area about proposals to close the Aberdeen to Inverness rail line in preference to bus routes? That is a totally unacceptable development in our area. Will he assure us that he will discuss those matters and the need to electrify the lines north of Edinburgh and Glasgow?

I have seen no such proposals. I have an awful feeling that this may be a case of self-inflicted rumour.

Will my right hon. Friend impress on the chairman of British Rail the urgency, for reasons of comfort and safety, of providing longer trains and therefore longer platforms? Will he also stress the fact that if there are good reasons for having rules about the number of standing passengers in excess of the number of seats for people travelling beyond 20 miles, there are equally good reasons for such rules for people travelling less than 20 miles?

We must make progress in that matter. I hope that the large investment programme in British Rail will enable improvements to be made on inter-city lines, provincial lines and Network SouthEast. My hon. Friend has raised some very important points, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). The large investment programme, at record levels since the 1960s in real terms, will lead to major improvements in British Rail as time passes.

When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of British Rail, will he discuss the conclusion of the report produced by the central transport consultative committee that the Government's policy of reducing the public service obligation by £270 million has reduced the quality of rail service? Will he reconsider further cuts of £200 million in the PSO which will mean a railway system with the highest fares and the lowest quality in Europe? Is it not time that the fare structure met the needs of the travelling public and not the Treasury?

As usual, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I have explained to the House that major improvements are being made to British Rail and that massive investment is being undertaken. Right hon. and hon. Members who are reasonable know that great steps are being taken to improve British Rail. The PSO is being reduced because British Rail is more efficient—[Interruption.] It is the level of investment that is important. The hon. Gentleman never questions me about the investment level—and I am not surprised, because he has good reason to be ashamed of his party's record.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further proposals he has to facilitate the transport of the disabled in London taxi cabs.

As I announced on 13 December, following discussions with the Metropolitan police, who are responsible for day-to-day taxi licensing questions, from 1 February 1989, all newly licensed London taxis will need to be able to carry a passenger in a wheelchair, and from 1 January 2000, every taxi operating in London will be required to take wheelchairs.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He must know how grateful the disabled people of London will be for that news. Will he confirm that London is the first capital city in the world to have wheelchair-accessible taxis? Will he encourage our EC partners to move towards better access for the disabled to taxis in their cities?

I believe that ours is the first city in the world, capital or otherwise, to require that taxis must be wheelchair-accessible. I am proud of that. Encouraging other European countries to follow suit would be a suitable topic to raise. Certaintly I intend including it on the agenda of the European Council of Transport Ministers, of which the United Kingdom is President this year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the cost to industry of traffic delays on the motorway system.

The strong economic growth brought about by this Government's policies has resulted in increased demand for transport, and some delays are occurring on motorways. If our industry is to keep pace with foreign competitors, good roads are vital. Therefore, we are planning to spend more than £4 billion over the next three years on measures to improve trunk roads and reduce congestion.

The Minister will be aware that freight operators claim that traffic delays on the M25 alone cost them up to £1,000 per vehicle, and that total congestion costs are almost £3 billion per year. Does he agree that British industry should not be permanently disadvantaged because policy is determined by the Treasury and not by the Department of Transport?

I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support. I have just announced that we are spending more than £4 billion over the next three years. There is increased spending on the roads programme, and it is nice to have the Labour party's support for increased roads expenditure. I shall treasure it and remember it with pleasure.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) and I have nagged for years, because although there are excellent motorway links to the north-west, we lack a motorway link. We are most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving one the go-ahead. Many thanks.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend.

How can an ordinary passenger travel to London on motorways when they are blocked by traffic hold-ups, and how can he travel to London by train when the standard class on the Carlisle to London British Rail route is like a cattle truck? Is the Secretary of State aware that hon. Members throughout the north-west are besieged by the public complaining that there are no seats available on British Rail trains? Does he not have a responsibility to do something about that?

The question relates to roads expenditure. I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support for the steps we are taking to improve the motorway system.

Given that only this morning, about 5,000 vehicles were locked on the M25 for more than a hour and were unable to move, does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a need, when designing motorways, to consider the provision of emergency exists for use in such circumstances and of more ordinary exits? On the M26-M25 route, there is one stretch of more than 25 miles where there is no exit from the motorway.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He raises two important points. I am expecting the consultants' report on the whole of the M25 in the next few weeks. I shall bear his comments in mind when I receive it.

Does the Secretary of State accept that while it is necessary to invest in improvements to our motorway network, it may be more cost-effective and environmentally better for the Government to take a more positive attitude towards British Rail, by getting long-distance freight back on to the rail system and linked to the Channel tunnel? Is not that the approach which the Government should be taking at this stage?

As I explained when answering the previous question, we are making a larger investment in both British Rail and roads. Therefore, I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I am grateful to him for his question.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to introduce payment by tolls in the motorway building programme.

None at present.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in France and elsewhere private and business motorists have a choice between congestion-free toll roads and state-run trunk roads and motorways? Can he confirm his intention to publish a Green Paper on ways of tackling our worsening road conditions? If so, will he include in that Green Paper a detailed analysis of Europe's privately funded toll roads, and also perhaps a list of prime candidates in this country, including the proposed east coast motorway to relieve the A1?

I await proposals on the east coast motorway, which I understand are to come forward shortly.

Will the Secretary of State resist the current Conservative fashion of delving into ancient history to resurrect past practices? We have had quite enough with the poll tax and the possibility of the indentity card without further measures such as the toll turnpike and toll booth.

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should take that philistine attitude to history. It is most unlike him, with his teaching background. I see no reason why we should not examine all good ideas, whether they are new or old.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that if there is a choice between congestion and paying a toll, many people who use the M4 motorway every day between Maidenhead and Hammersmith will be more than willing to consider the latter alternative?

I find that an increasing number of people take that view. I think that the attitude has changed completely in the last couple of years.

Does the Secretary of State accept that Britain has the smallest and most congested motorway system of any developed economy? It is one third the size of that in Germany, and we have an expansion programme one fifth of the size of Germany's.

The hon. Gentleman may have misheard what I said in answer to the original question. I said that I have no plans to introduce tolls at present, so a good deal of his question is aimed at the wrong target.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the people of Winchester will be particularly interested in the answer that he gave to the original question? They look forward to the speedy completion of the M3. Will my right hon. Friend please assure the House that when he has looked at the inspector's report he will spend sufficient money, including privately raised finance, to ensure that the internationally very special environment around our historic city of Winchester will be fully protected?

I note what my hon. Friend has said, but in view of the present position I think that it would be unwise for me to comment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new initiatives he intends to take to improve road safety.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on road safety.

Our target is to cut road casualties by one third by the end of the century. Over the year ahead we will be concentrating our efforts on vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, pedestrians, cyclists and motor cyclists, as well as on dangerous groups such as drinking drivers and selfish and aggressive road users. Engineering, education, enforcement, exhortation and example will all play their part.

I welcome the Minister's initiatives, but when he considers such road safety measures will he do so in the context of an integrated package and try to get more people to use public transport, particularly rail and buses? Will he bear that in mind especially as British Rail is considering closing a number of rail routes, in particular one near my own constituency, the Grimsby-Gainsborough line?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that in many parts of the country the growth in the use of public transport, especially on London Underground and British Rail, greatly exceeds the movement of commuters in cars, where numbers are falling. Across the country we are likely to see a growth and an improvement in public transport and road links.

May I refer the Minister to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) about unlicensed motor cyclists who are employed as couriers, particularly in London?

Order. A question on road safety please.

It is on road safety, Mr. Speaker. I usually know what I am asking. Will the Under-Secretary accept that as he is a Minister, it is possible for him to legislate on the matter? What will he do other than exhort employers? Exhortations are no good.

It is possible to propose legislation to Parliament. The use of the road by unlicensed motor cyclists is illegal. I hope that, besides the point on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and I agreed, we can direct most parliamentary attention on areas where most lives are to be saved. It is worth remembering that 14 people today will lose their lives on the roads—5,000 a year. We may have the best record in the world, but there are still far too many deaths.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what funds he has made available for the maintenance and refurbishment of museums and galleries.

I am continuing to give high priority to the building and maintenance programmes of the national museums and galleries. I have made a series of increases bringing annual expenditure to £55 million by 1991–92, an increase of-53 per cent. since 1987–88.

My right hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the excellent imperial war museum redevelopment, which was in a sense a precursor of his incentive funding scheme. Could not the incentive funding scheme be more generally applied to the refurbishment of museums?

My hon. Friend is right. There has been an element of incentive funding with the redevelopment plan for the imperial war museum. That new mechanism is being used for other areas and other museums. For example, there is joint funding for the Clore gallery at the Tate—the capital funding comes from the Clore Foundation and the running costs from the Government. A role is being played by the Government in the national gallery's Sainsbury wing. At the British museum the refurbishment of galleries for the display of Roman material is being funded through the generosity of the Wolfson Foundation, and Government funding is also being made available.

Is the Minister aware of the Public Accounts Committee report which repeated what the director of the Victoria and Albert museum said in connection with its manuscripts and printed matter? She pointed out that the way in which they were being looked after was a national disaster and that to put right the deterioration at the present rate of progress would take 200 years. As they are a national asset, should we not regard this as a matter of the highest priority?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are due to reply to the important report of the Public Accounts Committee as soon as possible. Without pre-empting what they wish to say, I do not underestimate the seriousness and importance of conservation and the condition of our national museums and galleries. For that reason, in the new three-year funding policy, we have allocated an extra £13 million for the new third year—at least half of which must be allocated to conservation, storage and other matters. That will have a strong bearing on what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Has my right hon. Friend considered the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) that funds for the maintenance and repair of existing collections should be increased, instead of spending funds on purchasing grants, which should be phased out?

I have read with great care and interest the pamphlet written by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart). Considerable additional resources have already been made available through mechanisms other than the purchase grant system to help preserve objects of great importance to our heritage. For example, last year an additional £20 million was given to the national heritage memorial fund. The acceptance of items in lieu of taxation allows important objects to be preserved in this country. I have undertaken to review carefully the working of the purchase grant system to see how the money could be better deployed. In the meantime, an extra 53 per cent. of resources will be made available over the next four years for the building and maintenance of our museums and galleries.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to increase investment in English national museums and galleries in response to the March report of the National Audit Office.

Last November I announced the grant-in-aid allocations to the national museums and galleries that I sponsor, rolling forward the three-year funding settlement introduced in 1987 to the year 1991–92. I have made increases specifically to help the national institutions in tackling their priority concerns.

The Minister seems complacent about this matter. Has he not read the two reports of the National Audit Office, which outline the appalling problems facing our national museums, the root cause being the cut of at least 9 per cent. in the budget of the Victoria and Albert museum and the 5 per cent. cut in the budget of the British museum between 1979 and 1987? Will he support today the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee calling for a specific fund to deal with the accumulated conservation problems in addition to the existing allocation of national funds going towards conservation? The Minister must act today to ensure that conservation work is maintained in our national museums.

As I have said, the Government have not yet replied to the Public Accounts Committee and when we do reply, the hon. Gentleman will see what importance we attach to the issue. I do not need to wait until then to reinforce the point that the chairmen and directors—almost to a man—have made in representations to me over the past two or three years about the priority that they attach to building, maintenance and conservation. For that reason, over the four-year period 1987–1988 to 1991–92, I am increasing those overall resources by 53 per cent. That does not show complacency; on the contrary, it shows the priority that I attach to the matter.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will continue to listen closely and talk to the directors of museums and galleries, so that he can go on getting it right? When he talks to them, will he also ensure that one added priority is that museums bring forward a programme for opening their establishments at times when the public want to visit them, such as bank holidays and weekends, when young people, in particular, can attend?

I appreciate the final point that my hon. Friend made. Clearly, it is important to attract as many people as possible to our museums and galleries. This is Museum Year, so there is a sustained campaign, sponsored by The Times and run by the Museums Association, to attract greater participation and attendance at museums. It is estimated that about 80 million people will go to museums this year and, if the campaign is successful, attendances may increase to 100 million. Flexibility in opening hours is one part of the marketing policy to create greater public interest in museums.

Will the Minister accept that the disgraceful state of our national museums, as detailed by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, is a direct result of his Government's policy of neglect and underfunding of our great museums? Does he not understand that that is now a national scandal and that, although we welcome the sums that he has announced today, if he dared to have a national audit of the needs of the museums in building and maintenance—let alone in conservation and other areas—the sums would be revealed to be wholly inadequate for the crisis into which his policies have plunged the museums?

I suppose that I should expect the hon. Gentleman to use such colourful language, as he regards it as part of his job. However, that is not the real perspective. Our magnificent institutions are doing a fantastic job. They are lending out a great deal and far more is on display than when Labour was in office. New galleries are open and we have seen the development of the Clore gallery at the Tate, the Tate gallery extension in Liverpool, the redevelopment of the imperial war museum, the extension of the national gallery through the Sainsbury wing, the opening of new galleries at the British museum and an extension to the national portrait gallery. How can the hon. Gentleman say that everything is stagnating?

To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the future of the facsimile department of the British museum.

The day-to-day running of the British museum and decisions on the future of the facsimile department are matters for the director and trustees of the British museum.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the British museum has one of the most valuable collection of original moulds for the making of plaster casts of the most celebrated statues in the world? Does he agree that there is a worldwide potential for a casting service and is he satisfied that it is profitable? If it is not, will he privatise it?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the service that has been offered in the past by the British museum. At the moment the British museum faces certain pressures and problems, as a result of which the trustees are now considering the future of the department and how it should operate. I know that privatisation is one very serious proposition that the trustees are considering.

Does the Minister recognise that the facsimile department may be much overused, because if he does not act quickly on the recommendations in the Public Accounts Committee report many of our great treasures will fall apart? Will he give a guarantee now that the three-year programme that he has introduced will meet all the points that were noted in the Public Accounts report?

Of course I attach importance to what is said in the report and the House will look forward to the Government's reply. In the meantime, I believe that I have already demonstrated the importance that I attach to this problem. I have said that in the new third year, 1991–92, I shall be increasing resources to museums and galleries by £13 million—in addition to the overall increases that I am giving now—to give particular priority to the conservation and maintenance of their buildings.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what instructions he has given to the Civil Service to prepare for the demographic changes likely by the year 2000.

Information about the demographic changes in the 1990s has been disseminated to all Departments. The overall number of school leavers will drop sharply. Like all employers, we need to retain good staff and attract recruits from all sections of the labour force. The Government are approaching this with flexibility and imagination.

My right hon. Friend is obviously aware of the reduced number of school leavers in the 1990s and of the need for the Civil Service to recruit more women, including women with young children. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to recruit more women, both full-time and part-time?

My hon. Friend is right to focus attention on that point. It is estimated that the number of school leavers will drop by 30 per cent. by 1993, which suggests the scale of the problem and the need to take whatever action we can to improve recruitment and retention in the service. As for part-timers, it is important to take into account the changes in working patterns in the country as a whole. The Civil Service is doing that. There has been an increase in the number of part-timers in the service. A number of measures are being taken to recruit more women. Flexible working hours, career breaks, the reinstatement of civil servants and the provision of child care facilities will help to improve the recruitment of women to the Civil Service.

If the Government are to recruit from a shrinking labour force of young people, will not they have to improve pay and conditions at many levels of the Civil Service and reinstate the concept of a non-partisan Civil Service that is not the creature of any one Government?

To respond to the hon. Gentleman's last point first, there is no doubt whatsoever that we have an outstanding, loyal and impartial Civil Service. That was reinforced by the views of an all-party Select Committee in 1988. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that various policies on pay are already being developed. They include more flexible pay schemes to deal with recruitment and retention problems that concern specialist groups and particular areas. Flexible pay schemes, involving special pay additions, performance pay—which is being increased in various areas—as well as a 14 per cent. increase in London weighting from July 1988 are all designed to help to recruit and retain staff.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he intends to take to speed up the agency programme.

Since I last spoke to the House on This subject on 5 December 1988, Her Majesty's Stationery Office has been launched as an agency, bringing the total of agencies that have been set up to three. Around 30 other candidates for agency status have been announced as under active consideration, and I expect more to be announced.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that one of the best ways to speed up the agency function is to ensure that the chief executive, and not the appropriate permanent under-secretary, is the accounting office? Will he place a list in the Library of those agency functions where the permanent under-secretary is still the accounting officer?

I appreciate the importance of my hon. Friend's question. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee said forcefully that accountability policies should be clarified and that the chief executive of the agency should carry responsibility for day-to-day operations as accounting officer. The Government have agreed with that, in their reply. The HMSO was recently launched as an agency. It is the first example of a chief executive being accounting officer. I shall respond to the other part of my hon. Friend's question.

Does the Minister agree that the purpose of agencies is to introduce regional pay and, therefore, to reduce the relative pay of civil servants outside London? That is precisely what is likely to happen in the HMSO, the headquarters of which is in my constituency. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is widely thought that another intention behind the agency programme is to make political appointments to head the agencies? Can he satisfy the House on that anxiety as well?

The suggestion that, as a result of the establishment of agencies, there will be a cut in pay is a total and utter misconception. If regional pay is introduced, it will not lead to a cut in some people's pay. It is concerned with catering for certain circumstances, such as those found in the south-east, or for professional groups such as administrative officers or scientists, by providing a flexible pay system.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he proposes to take any initiative to improve morale in the Civil Service.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he proposes to take any initiative to improve morale in the Civil Service.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will meet the Civil Service unions to discuss measures to improve morale.

Like other employers, the Government attach great importance to ensuring that levels of morale are maintained and improved.

Is the Minister aware that morale is extremely low in north Staffordshire, where civil servants are very angry that two of their colleagues at GCHQ Cheadle have been sacked for having the temerity to want to belong to a trade union? If he is serious about improving morale in the Civil Service, will he at least allow civil servants to belong to a trade union?

The hon. Gentleman knows the position with regard to GCHQ. He knows that the very first consideration is the need for continuity of service and a high standard of service at GCHQ. He also knows that, between 1979 and 1981 a total of 10,000 working days were lost, as a result of which the important services provided by GCHQ in the interests of the security of the nation were undermined. Since the decision about trade union membership was announced in 1984, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has painstakingly dealt with individual problems of people who work at GCHQ.

Does the Minister agree that today's announcement that more than 1,000 Civil Service jobs are to go from London's Department of Social Security offices means a rough, raw deal for civil servants in those offices? Does he further agree that it will mean a worse service for the public? Will it not mean that staff in the offices will be unable to provide a decent service and that their morale is likely to sink to rock bottom as a result?

The House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has announced that more than 1,000 jobs are to be created in Belfast, Wigan and Glasgow. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is aware of our recruitment problems in London, does not welcome such a decision.

Will the Minister tell us on what basis he would allow free trade unions back into GCHQ?

The position has been made absolutely clear that in institutions that deal primarily with intelligence and security matters, there should not be representation by national trade unions, although there is a staff federation of which at least 50 per cent. of the people who work at GCHQ are allowed to be members. In answer to an earlier question I said that the reason for that is that we must have a higher standard of service at GCHQ which cannot and will not be undermined by industrial disruption.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of raising or maintaining morale in the Civil Service would be to provide a service at a time that is convenient to the public? I very much hope that he will follow his other pioneering moves by making it easier for Civil Service offices in many Departments to be open when it suits the public rather than the civil servants.

My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point which is linked to the development and creation of agencies, which are designed not only to improve the performance of the Civil Service above its present excellent standard but to ensure that the service to local people is as good as possible.

Given the alleged concern about security at GCHQ and elsewhere, is it not unusual that the Government did not introduce the polygraph testing that was recommended by the Security Commission so many years ago?

That is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who studied the matter very carefully and reached the conclusion that it should not be introduced. I said earlier that there must be a continuous service at GCHQ and we cannot allow it to be jeopardised in any way.

Does it not strike my right hon. Friend as extraordinary that Labour Members, who profess to be worried about the regions, are bemoaning the moves to produce more jobs in the north? Many young people in the north are better qualified, more competent and a great deal more enthusiastic to serve the Civil Service. Therefore, the measure is most welcome.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In previous Question Times I have repeatedly been asked questions by the Opposition about the need for more civil servants to move to the north. Now that exactly that is happening, there is silence from the Opposition. The House must make its own judgment on that.

The Minister has not excelled himself with his proposals to increase the morale of civil servants, at least today. Perhaps it would befit him to consult civil servants before deciding their future. How does he square the abolition of free association in GCHQ—which his Government carried out five years ago—with article 23 of the United Nations declaration of human rights which states that everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests? How does he square it with convention 87 of the International Labour Organisation which states that workers have the right to establish and join organisations of their own choosing?

The hon. Gentleman may not realise that the European Court has already passed a judgment in favour of the Government's decision on GCHQ. I can only continue repeating the basic reason for that decision. The most important aspect of our security and intelligence institutions is to have a regular and continuous service. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that if that is jeopardised we are not carrying out the duty of the Government of the day to the security of the nation.