To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the full establishment of railway inspectors; and how many fully trained inspectors are currently in post.

The full complement of railway inspectors is 24. At present, 22 are in post, of whom six with relevant experience have been recently recruited and are undergoing short-term induction courses. With the continuing recruitment campaign, I expect the railway inspectorate to be at full strength by the middle of the year.

Does the Minister accept that there is concern that the railway inspectorate is not at full strength? Is he convinced that when it is it will be adequate, and what does he think about the observations made in The Observer at the weekend that, beginning in October, British Rail intends to abolish local health and safety representatives?

That abolition does not relate to the statutory committees, which will continue in being. The chief inspecting officer of railways has been reviewing staff resources available to him, especially in the light of the Fennell report, which recommended the use of the Health of Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to enforce measures for passenger safety. I am expecting his report to be presented to the Secretary of State shortly.

For how long has the railway inspectorate been under establishment? Was the inspectorate consulted about the removal of the one-way leg from the diamond crossing involved in the Glasgow rail tragedy, which was a carbon copy of another collision two years previously? Were the Department and the inspectorate consulted as clearly economic reasons overrode safety priorities?

The first reference that I found made to these crossing was in 1958; this sort of crossing has been installed since that time. The railway inspectorate believes that simpler crossings may be safer because less can go wrong and they are more reliable. It is content with that sort of installation. The railway inspectorate has been under strength for some time, but we have eight inspectors doing traditional railway inspectorate work—approving new works and accident inquiries—compared with five in 1979; and 14 dealing with matters relating to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act compared with five in 1975.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the north-west regional managers of British Rail to discuss the implications of the Channel tunnel for the north-west.

I meet regional managers from time to time on regional visits. I look forward to the plans for freight and passenger services from the north-west to the Channel tunnel, which British Rail is obliged to publish by the end of the year.

Is it not disgraceful that, in the run-up to 1993, the Minister cannot announce an overall plan for infrastructure in the north-west to take advantage of job opportunities and the improvement in transport infrastructure? Given his failure to make a statement, does he share Lancashire county council's commitment, which it expressed at its conference in January when it called for a bridge head between Europe and the United States via a free port at Liverpool and for the construction in the Liverpool-Manchester area of a freight terminal capable of improving links between the Channel and the north-west? If such a link is not introduced by 1993, does the Minister agree that there will be a reduction in jobs and job opportunities in the north-west and a train drain from the north-west to the south-east and Europe?

British Rail has already invested £600 million to improve services between the Channel tunnel and every region of the country. I have made it clear that the Department is happy to co-operate with the Liverpool land bridge concept. It is appropriate to produce plans by the end of the year—the tunnel will not open until 1993—because otherwise there may be a danger of plans being made too early. British Rail has make it clear that the first international site will be at Leeds and that there is a clear need in Strathclyde, Birmingham and Teesside for other freight facilities. It is also considering south Wales and the north-west.

Bearing in mind the £500 million that British Rail is spending on the Channel tunnel in Kent, does my hon. Friend agree that for only £23 million the line from St. Pancras as far as Leicester could be electrified?

I do not know whether my hon. Friend's figure is correct, but if a sound investment case were put to Ministers for the electrification of that line, or any other, Ministers would be happy to approve it.

Is the Minister aware of the traffic chaos on the M1, M6 and other roads leading from the north-west? Would it not be logical for the Government to put some money into establishing a major freight depot in the Greater Manchester area, possibly at Tameside, where the Secretary of State has seen a good site? Such investment would not only bring jobs to the north-west, but would relieve traffic congestion on the roads by ensuring that freight travelled by rail, which would be much more suitable for it.

I am not at all sure that Government investment is needed to achieve those purposes. As the hon. Gentleman says, there are already pressures pointing in that direction. Section 8 grants are available for establishing freight facilities where they would take freight lorries off sensitive roads in unsuitable areas.

Of course, every north-west hon. Member will want to endorse the plea by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) for a rail freight terminal in the north-west. However, is there not a danger of thinking that all the country's freight will disappear down the Channel tunnel? How much will be able to get down there? Is the lack of proper road links developing between the north-west and the Channel, the East Anglian ports and Immingham in East Yorkshire not an even greater danger? Clearly, all freight will not be able to get into the tunnel.

I can assure my hon. Friend that Ministers are aware of the pressures on roads and he has made a perfectly valid point. It is true that the amount of freight passing through the Channel tunnel, although significant and an important psychological change for the country, will be only a tiny proportion of the total freight moved in this country.

Is the Minister aware that British Rail's present plans allow for only four trains a day in and out of the north-west, which is equivalent of about 280 lorries a day? Does he realise that that would not effectively clear one large international container ship? Is he aware that that would displace almost no worthwhile traffic from the motorway system? What does the Minister intend to do to ensure that we have a system that will take goods and people from the north-west?

I cannot confirm the hon. Gentleman's figures and the figure of four trains a day is not familiar to me. I am still waiting for the plans to be brought forward. However, from British Rail's document on the new proposed rail link published last week, I know that in 1993 there will be 35 train paths available daily each way through the Channel tunnel and that 75 per cent. of freight using the Channel tunnel is expected to come from beyond the south-east or to go beyond the south-east.

I appreciate that the proposals are still at an early stage and that they will not proceed until 1993. However, is my hon. Friend satisfied that the King's Cross connection and terminal is the right choice, as that is the choice that the House will be asked to make early?

British Rail has made it clear that it believes that King's Cross is the right choice and a number of hon. Members from various parties have said that they believe that that is right because of the superior connections from King's Cross to the north of England. However, the investment proposal has not yet been put to the Government, so the Government have not taken a firm view on that yet.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards the provision of local rail networks in urban areas.

Urban rail services are mainly the responsibility of British Rail and the passenger transport executives, where they exist. The Government are happy to approve investment in such services wherever it offers value for money. Our general policy is explained in our response to the report of the Select Committee on Transport on the financing of rail services.

Will the Minister join me in welcoming the success of the partnership in investment created by south and mid Glamorgan in extending the rail pattern in the Greater Cardiff area? Does he agree that for areas such as the Vale of Glamorgan and the south Wales valleys, increased investment and the development of those services is essential to the future communications network? Does he agree that the Government should take the lead in providing public investment to encourage that?

One of the features of the area that the hon. Gentleman represents is that because there is no passenger transport authority covering it, the services on the provincial sector of British Rail qualify for public sector obligation grants, so the Government are involved in providing money for services in the hon. Gentleman's area. I am aware of the contribution that mid and south Glamorgan are making to those rail services and I have explained the Government's policy in my first reply.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the main concern is not about British Rail's published timetables but about the non-arrival of the trains that are due to arrive? Will he please do something about the 7.48 am from Hexham to Newcastle, which is cancelled more often than it turns up?

I hope that my hon. Friend will pursue that matter with the chairman of British Rail with his normal vigour. The Government are concerned that the highest quality of service should be provided by British Rail, and I know that my hon. Friend will take the matter up.

May I press the Minister on recommendation No. 6 in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on other provincial services and ask him whether the Government have accepted the recommendation that the services should be transferred to existing or newly formed passenger transport authorities? If so, will the Government continue to make their current financial contribution to the maintenance of those services?

The hon. Gentleman will understand that it would be premature for me to pick off a recommendation in the MMC report and respond to it. The Government will have to consider their position and reply in due course. It has been an interesting suggestion, and we shall formulate our response to it. I simply make the point—I know that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with it—that public sector sector obligation grant is not available for areas that have PTAs so there are both pros and cons in the MMC proposal.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the speed with which motorway repairs are undertaken.

We receive various representations about the way in which motorway repairs are undertaken. We aim to programme works when traffic is lightest and complete the work as quickly as possible.

Does my hon. Friend think that the public is satisfied that motorway repairs are undertaken in the minimum possible time? I accept that there has been some improvement, but does my hon. Friend intend to take any steps further to improve the situation, which still leaves a great deal to be desired?

The simple answers are no and yes. Members of the public are dissatisfied. Things may appear to have been improved in the second half of last year, as we undertook fewer motorway repairs than we expected. We now manage to complete small repairs much faster. In addition, the development of the long-term programme and the fact that we are building roads to a higher standard will contribute to an easier journey for motorway users.

Is the Minister aware that safety on motorways is related not only to repairs and to the speed at which roads are improved? Will he consider urgently the carriage of dangerous substances to see whether heavy goods vehicles are conforming to the safety standards necessary to protect other motorists?

Yes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who launched the motorway safety package, and I are determined to have the safest possible motorways. At the moment the safety records of both Switzerland and the Netherlands appear to be slightly better than ours but we are determined to overtake those countries.

Given the inevitable delays that motorway repairs cause, however quickly they may be carried out, will my hon. Friend consider carefully improving the system for notifying road users that delays are likely to be experienced? In particular, will he consider whether appropriate notices could be displayed and study the experience of Tokyo, which has a unified system for warning drivers when delays are likely?

I accept my right hon. Friend's point, and both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I want to do better. I am not sure that the system operated in Tokyo is that much better than ours, given that it takes up to four hours to travel 40 km to the airport, but we shall try to make the system better in this country.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he is making in the European Council of Ministers to liberalise freight movements by ships within European countries.

I have continued to press strongly for the liberalisation of cabotage, and substantive discussions are now scheduled for the June Transport Council.

Will my right hon. Friend list the EEC countries that continue to use cabotage to restrict trade, and tell us when he expects to take up the powers vested in him under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which will enable the red ensign to sail into all the ports of EEC member countries without let or hindrance?

My hon. Friend probably knows that the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, France, Italy, Portugal and Spain restrict cabotage, but we have an agreement with the German Government allowing access to the German cabotage trades. My hon. Friend is right that I have powers under the Merchant Shipping Act, but my primary objective remains liberalisation through a binding Community regulation. That would be very much better than using the powers, although I should certainly do so in the last resort.

Will the Secretary of State comment on the judgment by the court last Friday—

Order. The Secretary of State cannot comment on a judgment that is still before a court.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the judgment by the court last Friday overturning the Merchant Shipping Act to which he has just referred and issuing him, as Secretary of State, with an order not to proceed with regulations made under that Act? That means that for the first time in our history the courts of this country have actually ruled that a law passed by both Houses of Parliament is invalid.

The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not deal with the point that he raised. The matter is in the Court of Appeal, where the Government have launched an appeal.

My right hon. Friend will recall that, when the legislation was being introduced, its legality was challenged. The Government put forward their case, and won it on a preliminary hearing, with costs awarded in their favour. Therefore, is it not extraordinary that, after the Act has been passed, we should now be faced with a similar situation which is causing considerable doubt and confusion about where our powers really lie?

I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. As I told the House a moment ago, the entitlement of foreign beneficially-owned fishing vessels to remain United Kingdom-registered is now before the Court of Appeal so, I am not in a position to comment today.

If the liberalisation of freight were to increase maritime traffic, how confident is the Secretary of State that the coastguard service could cope, given that the coastguard union has already argued that existing rationalisation is compromising public safety at sea?

I am confident that the coastguard service could cope. It is receiving a great deal of support from the Government. I am determined to improve it to provide an even higher standard, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will see that in practice. An event today has proved the point.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the expenditure per capita on roads in (a) the south-east and (b) other regions for the last three years for which figures are available.

Over the last three years, my Department's average annual expenditure on national roads has been £1814 per head in the south-east, and £17·68 per head across the country as a whole.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although those figures show that the south-east is marginally better off than the nation as a whole, many people in the south-east believe that our region does not get as much money as other regions? Bearing in mind the large level of commuting in the south-east, does he think that there should be better roads in the south-east'? In particular, when does he expect the Rayleigh weir underpass and the Rochford-Southend relief road, the 1013, to be finished?

As my hon. Friend will know, more than £1 billion has been spent in the past three years on building, improving and maintaining roads in the south-east and East Anglia. That represents 40 per cent. of total expenditure on national roads in that period. We are planning to spend over £ ½ billion next year alone on roads in that area.

We in the south-east are quite happy if the right hon. Gentleman wants to switch expenditure on roads away from this area and to the north. It seems strange that those who want to use public transport in the south-east are now being expected to pay for that investment, whereas those who want roads will find them being provided out of general taxpayers' expenditure levels.

The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that the motorist pays in vehicle excise duty and petrol tax much more than the cost of the roads. He is on a false point. On the question which concerns him about roads expenditure in London, he should not confuse the different issues of Greater London with the general issue of the need for roads in the south-east. Expenditure in London, which is a different matter and which I should be delighted to debate on another occasion, is much lower.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one problem which causes delays in the provision of an adequate road network in the south-east, which is crowded, and in other areas, is the slowness of the planning process? From the time that they are visualised, roads can take as long as 12 years to come to fruition. Will my right hon. Friend seek to find ways of speeding up the planning process, while still giving a right to be heard to those who are directly affected?

I certainly think that the process from start to finish is still too long. I am not sure whether much can be done in speeding up the planning process. I am determined to speed up the long procedures before roads get to the planning stage. We can probably manage to speed up that process by as much as three years. That will make a great difference to the roads programme.

The Secretary of State is not doing very well in the east midlands region. Will he look seriously at the expenditure provided for the county councils which are responsible for the roads? The roads in the east midlands are shocking and it is high time that money was found for repairs to be done properly. The right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic is supposed to be interested in safety on the roads and the east midlands' record is appalling. The Secretary of State should wake up and do something about it.

The hon. Gentleman has done his best to make me wake up in his typical way and with his kind and courteous understatement. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the east midlands, as indeed in other parts of the country, maintenance of a large proportion of the road network is the responsibility of the local authorities. He will also be interested to learn that the outturn on national roads expenditure in the east midlands in 1987–88 has now reached £83 million. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman would like to see it higher, but I believe that the figure speaks for itself.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to seek further to deregulate passenger air transport in Europe.

Yes. The Community Ministers will be adopting further liberalising measures by June 1990. We have already given the Commission our views on what the measures should include, and copies of the paper have been placed in the Library.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that, despite welcome advances, made in recent years, as of today the single fare for a flight from New York to Washington is £56? The single fare, however, for an identical distance in Europe—namely from London to Paris—is £88. Does that not show that we still have some way to go in deregulation?

Most certainly we do. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I expect that it is common ground throughout the House that European air fares are far too high. Our priority is to bring them down. We need much more real competition among airlines. However, several lower fares are available as a result of strenuous activities over the years. For example, the fare that Air Europe can offer from London to Paris is 12 per cent. lower than was previously available. We have other liberal bilateral arrangements with Ireland and the Netherlands and we hope that more will proceed shortly.

In encouraging deregulation and, obviously, an increase in air traffic, will the Secretary of State accept that safety must go hand in hand with that increase? In the light of the fire on the aircraft at Manchester airport, does he accept the need for smoke hoods on aircraft?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that safety must remain the top priority. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority and I understand that it is making a statement on all those matters this afternoon.

My right hon. Friend is currently engaged in discussions with the American Government about flights from Manchester to Boston and New York. Does he appreciate that north-west people want to fly direct from Manchester and not to have to come into Heathrow and Gatwick, and that they would prefer to do so via a privatised Manchester airport?

I think I agree with all that my hon. Friend has said. I hope that further negotiations can take place about that matter. However, I was asked about deregulation of passenger air transport in Europe.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the studies of deregulation in the American air services have shown that fares have been reduced, but sometimes at the expense of the quality and safety of the service? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that economic and commercial pressures from the operators and the plane producers have combined to weaken the Government's power of enforcing safety? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the same pressures are more than evident in today's much delayed report on the Manchester inquiry, which shows that economic pressures for more seats reduced the possibility of safe exit from the plane? The report of the inquiry has been delayed for far too long. The accident involved 55 deaths and that must justify our demands that the Secretary of State should now consider that his Department and the CAA are completely inadequate to deal with matters of safety and that they should be passed over to the Health and Safety Executive.

The hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the fact that we are not responsible for aviation safety, anyway. The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for aviation safety which, if the hon. Gentleman had done one moment's homework he would have realised before he asked his ridiculous question.

The report is to the right hon. Gentleman, and the CAA is answerable to the right hon. Gentleman.

It is from the air accident investigation branch. The hon. Gentleman has done no homework on the subject at all.

It is the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility.

The hon. Gentleman has just read out his own brief of which he has not troubled to check the accuracy. He has not consulted his hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should resign—[Interruption.] Beneath the bombast and rhetoric of the hon. Gentleman lies a serious point that has been answered by the CAA. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman has had time to read the Manchester air crash report, he will realise that as a result of what has been recommended the three and a half years spent on it will yield greater increases in safety.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the London road assessment studies.

A number of representations have been received, including several from the hon. Gentleman.

Is the Minister aware that his Department is spending about £4 million on road assessment studies in London and that thousands of people have made representations, the majority of whom strongly oppose any new road building in London and resent the idea of a great deal of public money being spent on road building which can result only in the destruction of a large number of homes in my constituency and about 20 others? Does he acknowledge that the Department's current policy is, essentially, to subsidise the private commuter motorist through tax relief and road building and to punish public transport passengers, who account for 82 per cent. of commuter journeys, by making the fare-paying passenger pay for the new investment in public transport? In the circumstances, would it not be better to abandon the assessment studies and concentrate solely on improving public transport in London, diverting freight vehicles around London and improving the environment for Londoners rather than appeasing the road builders and the freight transport lobby?

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman seems to have little idea about what is going on in London. London passenger transport is growing faster than in any capital city with the exception of the opening of the underground in Hong Kong. During the past five years Underground passenger journeys have increased by 70 per cent. and the number of British Rail season ticket holders has increased by 20 per cent. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman listened with his ears rather than his mouth he would learn that the number of people commuting by car into central London has dropped from 190,000 per day to 160,000 per day. The hon. Gentleman should therefore be applauding the Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that any assessment of London roads must take into account the safety of children crossing those roads? Is my hon. Friend aware that it is virtually impossible to get lollipop ladies in my constituency and other parts of London because the pay is much too low? Will he see what he can do about increasing the pay levels for lollipop ladies and gentlemen?

Yes, Sir. It would also help to try to separate through traffic from residential areas and to have safe routes to schools which do not require children to cross busy roads. Although that cannot be achieved everywhere at once, it is a worthwhile aim, whether in Haringey, Ealing or anywhere else in London. The casualty rate in London is higher than it should be. If we can go on with through roads and through traffic, which the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will not like, and try to go for a partial exclusion of traffic and an emphasis on residents in some areas, we shall achieve mobility, access, environmental improvements and a reduction in casualties.

Despite the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), will he acknowledge that the road assessment study proposals are meeting total opposition from local groups, from residents and even from a number of Conservative Members? Will he admit that the money being spent is an absolute waste because wherever the capacity of roads is increased in London it will simply mean an increase in car and lorry traffic? The Minister has said that he does not want that, so will he put an end to those foolish reports and get on with providing even more public transport in London and giving priority to buses on the roads rather than to private car users?

That is very interesting. If the hon. Lady had come with me by train to Wandsworth town about an hour ago, she would have seen how one of the objecting councils, Wandsworth, has just put four lanes of traffic into the southern end of Wandsworth bridge, paid for with public money. She might also have seen that one can go by bus from Cheyne Walk to Shepherds Bush, a journey which takes between 10 minutes and 40 minutes. If the western environmental improvement route proposal goes ahead it may be possible to achieve improvements for bus passengers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on the central London rail study.

Relatively few as yet. It is still too early to expect many considered responses.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency we have the busiest rail junction in the world, Clapham junction, but that it is not linked to the Underground system? Is he aware that the only part of the Underground system that runs through my constituency is the most inadequate bit of the whole system—the southern end of the Northern line—which, according to all the reports, cannot be improved? Will my right hon. Friend therefore respond to the genuine concerns and hopes of my constituents that the central London rail study will bring the Underground system south of the river to Clapham junction and beyond and thus provide a new link for local people and relieve the congestion on the Northern line?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his general support of the central London rail study which, on the whole, has received a good reception. In spite of the present investment in London's rail services, more still needs to be done. We need to develop our plans to improve rail services and to cater for the demand that is forecast for the end of the century. The report has been published and I hope that hon. Members will let me have their views on it. We shall decide in the summer what is to be done.

With regard to Clapham junction, the west London road assessment studies and the proposed west cross route, would it not be a good idea to electrify the line from Clapham junction to Willesden junction, which serves a number of important locations and was electrified before the war? Why does not the Secretary of State consider this in relation to the central London rail study? When is the closing date for observations? When the railways are built, what proportion of the cost will have to be met by passengers in increased fares—I believe that they should not bear any of the cost—and how much by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

The exact way of costing these improvements—if we decide to go ahead with them—has yet to be decided. The cost will be met from a mixture of fares and—I hope—some contribution from the developers. Because of road congestion and for other reasons, some Government grant may be provided, but that is yet to be determined.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement with regard to the Waterstock to Wendlebury section of the M40.

My right hon. Friends have decided that this final section of the M40 should go ahead as proposed. It will be built as a dual three-lane motorway. Subject to the remaining statutory procedures, we hope to start construction later this year for completion in 1991.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the announcement that the route of the final section of the M40 has been agreed will be greeted ecstatically throughout Oxfordshire and the west midlands, where the announcement has been awaited for many years. It is also exceedingly good news that it is to be three lanes throughout. It will be recognised that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues have taken infinite care in considering the inspector's report and deciding the right route. As regards any possible time gap in the opening of the M40, will my hon. Friend confirm that, following representations from me and from other hon. Members, there is to be a meeting next week at which we and other representatives of the community can put forward suggestions to ensure that the inconvenience caused by any time gap is kept to an absolute minimum?

I welcome my hon. Friend's reaction and I know that he speaks for all those in the affected area. We have largely accepted the inspector's recommendations. We did not accept three of the recommended modifications because we were satisfied that their disadvantages—including delay—outweighed their advantages. As my hon. Friend said, he and other colleagues are concerned about the time gap. We are consulting hon. Members and county council members on the measures recommended by consultants to mitigate the effect on the trunk roads by completing the northern section first. I hope to make further announcements later.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are proposed for improving driving standards.

The biggest improvement would come if everyone drove as carefully and considerately as surveys show that they think they do, and nobody as badly as the same surveys show that they think other drivers do. There are good courses, videos and books available on how to improve techniques. The Institute of Advanced Motorists, for example, has just republished its motorway driving manual, which is full of practical advice.

I thank my hon. Friend for his impressive list of measures. In the spirit of his reply, would he agree that if some of those who drive on the roads were as sober as they believed that they were rather than as drunk as they believed others to be, the roads would be much safer and there would be less death and injury on them? Will my hon. Friend welcome, as I do, forthcoming legislation which will make the retaking of driving tests compulsory for those convicted of serious offences?

Yes, Sir. Although we have the best record in Europe—I would argue that it is the best in the world in terms of population—we must still recognise that 5,000 deaths per year are too many. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set a target of cutting deaths and injuries by a third by the year 2000.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the recruitment of magistrates.

My responsibility for the appointment of magistrates covers the shire county of Lancashire and the districts within the metropolitan counties of Greater Manchester and Merseyside.

Does the Minister accept that, especially in the Stockport part of my constituency and to a certain extent in the Tameside part, it appears that magistrates are not fairly appointed from all the wards in the local authority areas but tend to come from the more affluent areas? What steps will he take to ensure that there is proper representation on the bench in wards such as Brinnington and north and south Reddish?

The hon. Gentleman will understand that although we are anxious to have a proper geographical, social and occupational spread of magistrates we cannot force people to serve. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been some difficulty in obtaining enough recommendations from some parts of the area with which he is concerned. I am grateful for his efforts to put forward or encourage recommendations over the years. A substantial number of the suggestions that have come from or through him have led to appointments. If the hon. Gentleman can give us any more help, it will be most welcome.

How many of the magistrates appointed wear little aprons and roll up their trouser legs? What percentage of them are freemasons? Instead of appointing magistrates, why are they not chosen by ballot?

I do not know how many of the magistrates in that or any other area for which I am responsible are freemasons. I certainly do not think that they should be ruled out on those grounds.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what deductions are made from clerical stipends to take account of Easter collections; and what estimates have been made of such amounts for the current year.

Easter offerings are an integral part of the clergy's stipend, the total figure for which is fixed by the diocesan authorities having regard to the recommendations of the central stipends authority. No deductions of stipend are made in consequence of the receipt of Easter offerings, though to the extent that income is received in this form there is relief on the diocesan funding of stipends.

May I remind my right hon. Friend of the happy and splendid tradition in the Church of England according to which members of the congregation could put money on the plate on Easter Sunday as a direct gift for the vicar or rector? Is it not sad that that tradition has now become so muted? What can be done to ensure that vicars receive a present from their parishioners in the old way? How about an Easter egg for the vicar?

If the Easter offering went directly to the incumbent, it would be taxable. To that extent, it is better that it should be treated like all other weekly church collections and taken to the diocese, where it avoids tax. I would rather not comment on the subject of eggs for the Easter offering.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the progress of the building work at No. 1 Millbank.

Work is progressing well, and the new accommodation for commercial letting is expected to be complete by the beginning of 1990. The commissioners have recently accepted an offer for the tenancy of that accommodation and it is hoped that the Church of England pension board will take up its new accommodation in the Millbank complex in May this year.

Will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to my previous question about moving Church Commissioners' offices to areas of high unemployment? Will he ask those responsible for security whether No. 1 Millbank would be of use as secure accommodation for Members of Parliament with fears about security?

My hon. Friend will understand that the leaders of the Church of England, whether lay or ordained, clerical or episcopal, need to be relatively close to the centre of state power. It is, after all, an established Church. My hon. Friend might start a systematic programme of questions to see whether we might relocate Parliament and Whitehall, but until he succeeds in that respect we must leave the Church Commissioners where they are.

Might not the Government take the Church more seriously on the need to rebuild the inner cities if it moved its headquarters to such a site?

No. 1 Millbank could be entirely rebuilt if it were possible to evacuate both the pensions board and the Church Commissioners to a location such as Church House, but Church House as at present constructed is not large enough to accommodate the General Synod as well as the pensions board and the Commissioners. For that reason, it would be difficult to find a building into which to decant the present occupants while No. 1 Millbank was reconstructed. That is the basic problem.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, whether the Church Commission has received any proposal for the reorganisation of benefices affecting the parish of St. Leonards, Swithland, in the county of Leicestershire.

Yes, Sir. The commissioners have published a draft scheme based on these proposals and, having received representations, are consulting the diocesan bishop.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that Swithland rectory in the constituency of my necessarily Trappist hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) was donated to the Church less than 30 years ago so that the incumbent could live there? Given that a thousand ages let alone 30 years are but an instant in the sight of the Almighty, is it not unseemly for the rectory to be alienated so soon against the wishes of the benefactor?

This is one of the complications that have arisen as a result of the proposed reorganisation scheme. It will have to be considered actively by the pastoral committee and the board of governors when they consider objections to the scheme.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Commission is due to meet next; and what topics will be discussed.

Neither the date nor the agenda for the next meeting has yet been fixed.

Will the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission comment on EEC fraud, which is now running at some £6 billion including CAP and other cross-border frauds? Does he feel that the National Audit Office is adequately equipped to meet this particular and growing challenge?

Strictly speaking, this is more a matter for the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee but I recognise that this is a most serious matter. In considering the National Audit Office estimates, the Commission has to satisfy itself that the NAO has the capacity to carry out the tasks given to it by Parliament. I understand that the NAO has provided written evidence to the European Parliament budgetary control committee for a public hearing on preventing and combating fraud in the European Community after 1992, and that the NAO joins in regular meetings with representatives of the national audit bodies of the other Community countries, at which this is one of the matters discussed.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the continuing consternation in all parts of the House that he is not permanently on the Treasury Bench? As he is seated below the Gangway, can he arrange to answer questions more frequently in the House?

That is not a matter for me.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will list those public bodies whose accounts are audited by the National Audit Office; and if he will list the audit fees charged in each case.

The National Audit Office at present audits some 470 accounts. I will write to my hon. Friend giving him the list that he requires. The Comptroller and Auditor General has informed me that, under section 5 of the National Audit Act, in 1987–88 the National Audit Office charged a fee for the audit of 142 accounts. The total income from fees in that year was £3·8 million.

I thank my hon. Friend for not reading out the entire list, which would have run the risk of filibustering my supplementary. Accepting that the National Audit Office is entirely independent, could my hon. Friend not arrange with the Comptroller and Auditor General to fix a level of employees, expenditure and audit fee below which the National Audit Office would normally employ a private firm of auditors?

I will pass on my hon. Friend's interesting idea to the Comptroller and Auditor General, but an increasing amount of work is carried out by private sector firms on behalf of the National Audit Office. Additional provision is made in the 1989–90 estimate for that purpose.

Will the hon. Gentleman give general circulation to the information that he has undertaken to supply to his hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) so that all hon. Members may know which bodies are audited by the NAO?

I will certainly consider that and pass the request on to the Comptroller and Auditor General as it is a little difficult to list all 470-odd bodies in Hansard.

To ask the President of the Council if he will list the topics covered by those reports of the Procedure Committee which have not been debated by the House.

All Procedure Committee reports since 1979 have been debated with the exception of the first report of 1984–85, dealing with the printing of oral questions to the Prime Minister, which was the subject of a ruling by Mr. Speaker on 15 April 1985 and implemented with effect from 30 April 1985. and the special report on Government replies to reports from the Committee which was published only last Tuesday.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that those outstanding matters are considered? Will he also consider something which is not directly within the remit of the Procedure Committee—bringing forward for early discussion the reports on private Member's Bill procedure?

I will see that a reply is given to the outstanding report, and I will seek to have any further reports that are received debated at the most appropriate time.

May I ask my right hon. Friend a more fundamental question about this whole matter? Is there any means by which we can debate topics which are most important to ordinary people but which are seldom debated here, such as immigration and capital punishment?

The business of the House is arranged to meet many eventualities. Hon. Members on both sides of the House press subjects on me which they believe to be important. No doubt they have consulted their constituents about those subjects. I do my best to meet as many of their requirements as possible. I very much regret that it is not possible to arrange debates on all the interesting subjects which are proposed, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes).

Further to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction in the House about the way in which we handle private Members' Bills and that a combination of frustration and misunderstanding among our constituents is in danger of bringing parliamentary procedures into disrepute? Is it not important that we have an early opportunity to debate these matters and to consider in detail the specific proposals put forward by the Procedure Committee to try to tackle the problem?

I believe that the Procedure Committee is now having another look at those proposals. I recognise that there is dissatisfaction in some quarters about the way in which private Members' Bills are handled in the House. With regard to the last report, even the Procedure Committee, while making some suggestions for improvement, recognised that it was not always possible for everyone with a private Member's Bill to get it through the House, even if there was a majority in favour of it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the handling of private Bills which may be highly contentious but which are not amended in Committee? The fact that they are not amended means that the Report stage is avoided entirely and only insubstantive verbal amendments can be taken on Third Reading. That does not make those Bills any less contentious, as we know is the case with one Bill which may be before the House before long. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the present rule with regard to the abandonment of Report stage?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that any Bill, however contentious, must come before the House and that there must be an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to express a view and vote on it, whether or not it is amended. It is a wide question, and one directly relevant to the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure. I have undertaken to arrange a debate on that Committee's report soon after Easter.

What procedure does my right hon. Friend suggest should be used to ensure that the issue of abortion law reform is properly, effectively and perhaps finally addressed? Is he aware that the current procedures are bringing the House into contempt with the public as well as wasting a great deal of private Members' time?

The Government's view is that that subject is best dealt with by the private Member's Bill procedure. I recognise that Bills in recent years have not been successful. That was due to a number of reasons. It has been suggested to me that the Government should consider the matter and perhaps take steps themselves to deal with it. I have not committed the Government to doing so, but I am considering the suggestions that have been made to me.

To as the Lord President of the Council if he will consider taking steps to increase the use of Westminster Hall.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on 31 October last.

That is very helpful. I remind the Lord President that in the 18th century, Westminster Hall was humming with life and vitality. It is sad to see it being so underused. Indeed, it is bordering on the criminal to leave that space in its present state. Will the Lord President consider a number of proposals for bringing life back into Westminster Hall? Shops could be opened there. Has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to study a proposal by the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee which I read in a newspaper, that the souvenir kiosk should be moved there and its range of facilities and items for sale extended? Will the Lord President consider that proposal very seriously so that a little more life can be brought back into Westminster Hall?

It may be helpful to the hon. Gentleman if I make it clear that in my previous reply I pointed out that responsibility for Westminster Hall is vested jointly in the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Speaker. The principles which govern their decision as to its use require the hall to be used only for parliamentary functions, royal occasions, a ceremony in honour of a head of state, or for events with a clear historical connection with Parliament or with the Great Hall itself. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), was of the opinion that the infrequency of the Great Hall's use contributed to its character. I share that view. If the hon. Gentleman has any proposals, I suggest that he puts them to the Chairman of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that a plaque should shortly be installed in Westminster Hall commemorating the visit of Her Majesty the Queen last year to receive the Addresses of both Houses in regard to the Bill of Rights—an event of great interest to schoolchildren, or at least to some of them, who visit the House?

I will certainly ensure that that suggestion is considered by those responsible for such matters.

The Lord President's comment about infrequency of use has its novelty interest, but that is not a very practical approach to one problem that exists. The right hon. Gentleman has probably never had to wait in the pouring rain with visiting parties of constituents, many of them elderly, who may have travelled several hundred miles and have to wait up to three quarters of an hour before gaining access to the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at early-day motion 133, signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, requesting that the hall be used for the benefit of constituents who travel long distances to the Houses of Parliament, possibly just once in their lives, and who should be able at least to wait in the dry and to pass through security screens in the dry?

I recognise the problem. The point has been considered but there are a number of difficulties, not least in terms of security. In the first instance, this is a matter for the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.

To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he is able to announce the date for the televising of the proceedings of the House; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. This is a matter for the House to decide on the basis of the report of the Select Committee.

Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that the Budget debate will not be televised tomorrow? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech last year that that would be the last untelevised Budget debate. Has he got it wrong again? He got the balance of payments deficit wrong—it was to be £4 billion and has reached £14·3 billion. He got interest rates wrong; he got mortgages wrong; he has got nearly every sum in his book wrong. Who is holding up the television job? Is it the Prime Minister?

If the substance of the hon. Gentleman's complaint against my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is that he said that the Budget debate would be on television but that it is not to be televised the hon. Gentleman must be short of something to say. I believe that the truth is that he cannot wait to become a television star himself. Perhaps I should remind him that there is a vacancy for the part of Dirty Den in a certain television soap opera.