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

Road pricing is often suggested as a way of using road space more efficiently in urban areas. It has some attractions, and I do not wish to rule it out for the future, but there are some serious practical problems, and it clearly could not be an immediate option.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that no remotely economic way of road pricing has yet been demonstrated anywhere in the world and that the chances of this wild idea becoming a reality remain very small?

I agree that there is nowhere on a comparable, or even approaching comparable scale to London—in respect of which road pricing is often mentioned—where anything is in place. The problems of congestion, for example, are much in the minds of all hon. Members. The issue needs careful study but, as I have said, road pricing could not be an immediate option. There are serious practical problems associated with it.

As the Treasury will collect approximately £17 billion in motor taxation during the current year and as less than one quarter of it will be spent on roads and maintenance, is it not diabolical that the Government should even consider imposing additional taxation on the motorist?

I do not think that I accept the hon. Member's figures in their entirety, but his general point is well taken. Motorists pay a great deal in taxation. It is a bit early for the hon. Gentleman to say that we are being diabolical because, as I said a few moments ago, road pricing could not be an immediate option. There are serious practical problems with it, and nothing could be done without a great deal of study. It is a bit too early to accuse us of all these appalling crimes.

rose—

Hear, hear.

It is nice to be back. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have, somehow, to lower the density of traffic in our city centres? Taxation as a way forward would enable buses and taxis to move faster through our city centres and give people more of a chance to get about.

My hon. Friend raises several important matters. There are other questions on the Order Paper on which the subject of road expenditure may crop up. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government propose to publish a roads White Paper in the not too distant future. I shall bear what my hon. Friend has said in mind.

To ask the Secretry of State for Transport if, when considering proposals for privatising local authority transport operations, he will give full consideration to the desires of employees to participate in buy-outs.

Yes. When a company is sold by competitive tender, we encourage the vendor to give the employees a reasonable opportunity to acquire a controlling interest, and we have been prepared to consider some sales by single tender to employees.

My hon. Friend knows that Nottingham City Transport was the largest municipal undertaking which was affected by the Transport Act 1985. Is he aware that that undertaking has confounded the prophets of doom as it is now a successful company which pays a dividend to its owners in the city rather than one which milks the ratepayer? The staff and employees of that undertaking want to share in the success. Above all, they want to secure their future. They are concerned about the future and they want to buy a stake in the business that employs them. What help and advice can my hon. Friend offer?

I am very pleased with the success of the company and that the prophets of doom have been confounded. I see no reason why local authorities should want to own bus companies. I suggest that the staff should try to persuade the local authority to prepare a proposal for privatisation which includes employee participation.

Has the Minister seen the report on the future of West Midlands Travel, prepared by Peat Marwick McLintock? Does he agree with its conclusion that the breakup of West Midlands Travel would be generally disadvantageous to the travelling public?

I have not seen the report, although I am aware of the seminar on the subject that was organised last week. We have sent a proposal to the passenger transport authorities requesting their response to a suggestion that the companies might be split. I look forward to reading their responses and shall consider them carefully.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority, having decentralised the operation of Greater Manchester Buses at the time of decentralisation, is now recentralising it, not for the sake of efficiency, but to make it more difficult for employees to indulge in buy-outs? Is he aware that there have been great successes? For example, the southern division has taken on enormous competition from the private sector, yet it is carrying more passengers than ever before? Is he aware that the engineering division will have to sack people because it has been forbidden to carry out private sector work?

I am distressed at what my hon. Friend tells me. Greater Manchester is in very much the same position as West Midlands Travel in that a proposal letter has been sent by my Department and we are now receiving responses from the PTA and Greater Manchester Buses about the suggestion that there might be a splitting of the company. We shall consider their responses very carefully.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the condition of stations and rolling stock where British Rail serves passengers arriving at Heathrow and Gatwick.

The upkeep of particular stations and rolling stock is a management matter for British Rail. I am sure that it is aware of the commercial advantages of providing high-quality services from airports.

Is my hon. Friend aware that British Rail does not seem concerned about other circumstances? For example, Gatwick is the darkest, greyest of stations to welcome people, yet it provides an excellent service. At Heathrow, London Underground is intolerable in every way, and the route to the south-west is via Reading station, which is always dirty, where there are no seats, the buffets are awful and there are no porters, as on most of our stations. Does my hon. Friend agree that if British Rail is to survive as an economic entity it must do something about putting passengers as well as patients first?

I am very disturbed by what my hon. Friend says, particularly about Reading, because I understand that £20 million has been spent on the modernisation of Reading station. However, I know that the management takes these matters seriously and I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to their attention.

When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Rail, bearing in mind that tourism is Britain's fastest growing industry, will he discuss with him the possibility of an incentive scheme for his staff, as tourists to this great country expect at major stations such as Gatwick the services of a porter and the ability to understand which train leaves any particular platform? Those facilities are almost non-existent, as are the trollies at Gatwick and at Victoria. That is a national scandal.

My hon. Friend makes a series of interesting points, not least that the way in which British Rail is judged depends on the performance of every individual member of staff as that is its point of contact with passengers. I know that British Rail is most concerned to improve the standard and quality of the service that it provides to its customers. The shortage of trollies is partly a matter of passenger behaviour, and unfortunately many trollies go astray.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to avoid overcrowding on London buses, trains and London Underground; and if he will make a statement.

The only long-term cure for overcrowding is to increase capital investment in public transport. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that investment on London railways is now at record levels, and that London Regional Transport alone will be investing well over £1 million a day in London's transport systems.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that investment is at record levels. However, is he aware that on London's bus, train and Underground services at most hours of the day and night people cannot move because they are so overcrowded? Is he further aware that it is predicted that within a short time surface traffic will come to a standstill if nothing is done and we will be unable to move either above or below ground? Will he initiate new underground lines and more trains and will he get rid of one-man operated buses and bus lanes and do everything that he can to get London's traffic moving?

I cannot agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. However, I agree with him entirely about the need to improve London's rail services, whether Underground or Network SouthEast. He will be pleased to learn that Underground investment is now about twice as high in real terms as it was in 1984–85, the last year of the Greater London council. I am sure that he will also be pleased to learn of the enormous investment in Network SouthEast since 1983—some 16 major schemes together worth over £500 million—and there is much more investment to come. The central London rail study and the east London rail study, about which my hon. Friend will know, show that much more improvement is necessary in London, which the Government are prepared to make.

Is the Secretary of State aware that London Transport has confirmed to me that there are fewer trains running in peak hours on some Underground lines than there were 50 years ago and in the early 1950s? Is he aware that there are fewer trains arriving at Westminster on the District and Circle lines than there were 50 years ago, to the disadvantage of people living in places such as West Ham and Plaistow? Does he agree that, as a matter of urgency, some of the investment of which he speaks should be spent on restoring the signalling arrangements that used to be available for those trains so that more trains can be run on existing lines?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that recent investment approvals include the provision of extra trains and the Central line modernisation, which is running at over £700 million. It is an enormous scheme. They also include the reconstruction of Angel station, enlarged ticket halls and escalators at Liverpool street, new ticket halls at Tower Hill and a massive expansion of investment in London Underground all over London.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an urgent need for more and longer trains and for new lines on the overground such as the opening to commuter services on the west London line, and on the Underground such as the long overdue link to Clapham junction?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a need for investment. He pointed out the need for investment on the Underground and I know of his constituency problems about that. I have described that investment to the House. There is also a need for investment in Network SouthEast. My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn—I am sure that he knows already—that over £2 billion of investment on electrification, signalling and rolling stock has taken place on British Rail in the past few years. I have recently approved another £60 million, or thereabouts, for Network SouthEast, new rolling stock for the Chiltern line, and the Cambridge-King's Lynn electrification. We also have large British Rail renewal programmes which are likely to increase.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the biggest complaint on transport matters that hon. Members on both sides of the House hear arises from the installation of the ludicrous ticket barriers throughout the Underground system, which is giving rise to a great deal of congestion on the stations? Is the Secretary of State interested in the fact that I intend to introduce a Social Crimes (People's Tribunal) Bill soon and that when I have arraigned before the people's tribunal the idiots who got rid of trams and trolley buses, I shall then try to arraign those who introduced the ludicrous and unacceptable ticket barriers? If the Secretary of State does not want to appear before the people's tribunal, will he ensure that London Transport gets rid of those barriers because no one wants them?

It is particularly appropriate, 200 years after the French revolution, that the hon. Gentleman should start to be the Robespierre of London by introducing people's tribunals. It is typical of him.

Whatever steps my right hon. Friend takes, will he please not deregulate London taxis or license mini cabs to ply for hire because if he does so, he will destroy one of London's biggest assets?

I take note of what my hon. Friend says. We have no plans to license mini cabs in the way that my hon. Friend describes. I note the strong views of hon. Members about taxis, which we shall consider carefully.

The Secretary of State has spoken mainly of trains, but as improving the railway network will take much time and as a substantial bus programme could be implemented quickly, will he instruct London Buses to put on the road the 30 Routemasters that are roadworthy but sitting unused in garages? Will he support proposals to strengthen bus lane rules to prevent lanes being clogged by cars? Will he instruct the traffic control support unit to step up its programme of bus priority at traffic signals, which is enormously beneficial and could be implemented within six months?

I am not sure that I agree with all the hon. Lady's remarks. There is considerable controversy about bus lanes; many hon. Members believe that in parts of London they have been put in the wrong places. I shall consider what the hon. Lady said about that. She will be pleased to learn that bus miles have increased significantly and that a further increase of 5 per cent. is planned for this year. Reliability is improved and we shall have more high-frequency mini bus services. Tendering has much improved bus services in London, and I shall welcome her support for all those measures.

Can the Secretary of State do anything to persuade London Transport to open the Piccadilly line at Gloucester Road? Many travelling interests, especially those using Heathrow airport, wrote to London Transport about the problem as far back as a month ago. Fairclough, the main contractor, is showing no sign of urgency. Is it not deplorable that visitors from overseas arriving at Heathrow are treated to such a demonstration of incompetence?

I shall certainly look into what the right hon. Gentleman says. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks show that there are bound to be short-term problems while a large investment programme is going on. I shall consider specifically the point that he brings to my attention and write to him about it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Dartford crossing will be opened to the public.

Good progress is being made on the new bridge between Dartford and Thurrock, which is due to open early in 1991.

My hon. Friend would probably like to know that the people of north-west Kent are looking forward with considerable enthusiasm to their deliverance from the current heavy traffic james of one or more miles every day north and south waiting pass through the Dartford tunnel. Will he give details of the steps that are being taken to ensure that approch roads to the Dartford bridge will be adequate?

Approach roads to the bridge at Dartford and Thurrock will be increased to four lanes, the A13 southwards and A2 northwards.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement is most welcome? None the less, there are serious problems combining a need to improve the infrastructure and roads leading to the tunnel and the opening date, bearing in mind that every day the people of Dartford experience serious congestion problems? The fact that we can move forward to the opening will resolve that problem in part. I welcome what my hon. Friend has said.

It is important to get the necessary infrastructure in place so that the economy can continue to develop and so that places that need special relief from congestion and extra jobs can benefit from investment, such as in this case, from the private sector.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if a date for the commencement of the construction of the second Seven crossing has yet been decided.

The timing depends on the proposals that we shall receive later this year from tenderers, and on approval of the necessary legislation by Parliament.

Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State for Wales has said that the second crossing will be in place by 1995, whereas his colleague the Minister of State, Welsh Office recently told the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs that there is no guarantee that the second crossing will be in place by the year 2000. Given that our governor-general, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), does not have the ear of the Prime Minister, who is telling the truth?

If I were concerned, I would say that it would be difficult to have an extra crossing before 1995, even on the best of assumptions. The hon. Gentleman and many others on both sides of the Severn will be interested to know that we hope to invite tenders in the next week or two. The date of construction of the bridge will depend on the result of those tenders. We are moving forward and that should unite hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is glad that he asked that question.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a second Severn crossing will substantially increase traffic on the M4 as more and more constituents of the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) travel towards London? Will my hon. Friend therefore look, in conjunction with those proposals, at improvements to the road network nearer London between Maidenhead and the end of the M4 to ensure that the hon. Member for Newport, East is not back here in a few years demanding further improvements so that his constituents and mine can get to central London on the M4?

Yes. Perhaps the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) will have to talk to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who seems on occasion to have different views. It is worth remembering that the English Stones site was chosen for the second bridge because about 60 per cent. of the traffic coming across the Severn from Wales head south rather than towards London.

Given the comments by the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), will the Minister assure the House that his Department and the Welsh Office co-ordinate closely on this matter? Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that as the scheme goes ahead there will be co-ordination in terms of the spin-off requirements and planning of employment opportunities so that there are opportunities on both sides of the channel for work on the scheme?

Those job opportunities are coming and that is generating the extra traffic. Better infrastructure means more economic growth and more economic growth means more traffic—they go together in a cycle.

Does the Minister's Department fully agree with the Secretary of State for Wales, who says that there is inadequate expenditure on our transport infrastructure and that 35 of the 51 programmes decided for 1985 have been delayed? Will the White Paper review the situation, especially the iniquitous toll system that the Department intends imposing on traffic over the Severn estuary?

Is that not very interesting? Suppose we ran a sweeptstake on which party introduced tolls on the Severn bridge? The Labour party was responsible. The hon. Gentleman turns away in Opposition from what he supported in Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of work on the completion of the M40.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the M40 extension to be completed.

Construction of the motorway north of Wendlebury, remains on target for completion by the end of 1990.

Does the Minister appreciate that everyone in the Oxford area remains deeply concerned at the prospect of chaos on local roads due to the mishandling of this matter by his Department? Will he confirm that, even on that timetable, there will be a period of eight to 12 months when an additional 9,000 vehicles a day will be piled on to the existing congested local roads? What additional financial support will the Government provide the local highway authority so that it can provide at least some protection to local pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and motorists from that chaos? Local resident in Headington, Risinghurst and north Oxford deserve better treatment than the Minister is giving them.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been listening during the past two or three weeks. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he wanted all the stops pulled out, and issued similar clear instructions, to ensure that the gap was as short as possible, not as long as possible. [Interruption.] If the period which I have announced today is still too long, the hon. Gentleman really has trouble.

Is my hon. Friend aware that since the completion of the M25, traffic on the M40 has increased considerably and, with it, the noise that local residents have to put up with? Does he agree that when the motorway is completed all the way to Birmingham, there will be a further substantial increase in traffic, especially in heavy goods vehicles? Will my hon. Friend come along to Gerrards Cross and discuss with the residents the problems of noise, or could we come to the Department to discuss what we are going to do about it?

Yes, Sir.

Will the Minister ensure that all future specifications for new roads more than meet the volume and traffic flows—

Order. That is a bit wide of the M40.

Will the Minister ensure that the next extension more than meets the specifications made for the previous section and will he ensure that the delays and traffic hold-ups are cut to the minimum?

We will do the best we can. My right hon. Friend has said that he wants to end the inter-urban congestion. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are building the M40 as dual three-lane, which will help the traffic north of the west midlands as well as the west midlands itself. There is a problem for the Opposition. If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is properly reported, he seems to be against the building of roads this week.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I have lived by the M40 since it first started? As the route progressed, I moved further out, but the motorway always caught me up. Now the wrong route has been chosen and the butterflies have been preferred to local residents. Can we please clear up the mess as soon as possible?

Yes, Sir. However, as my hon. Friend will have noticed, our leader has instructed us to be environmentalists and is leading us in the right way.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies have been undertaken by his Department as to the likely annual cost to industry of traffic congestion on Britain's roads.

The costs of road congestion are clearly substantial, although there are no reliable estimates of the total costs.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that the industrial community has estimated that traffic congestion in this country is costing British industry about £6,000 million per annum, which illustrates how difficult it is for companies in the north of England and which are trying to export. Against that background, does my right hon. Friend agree that one solution is an accelerated construction programme, but that another is a review of planning methods, which seem to allow a minority to hold up infrastructure expenditure for far too long?

On the first point, it is right to review the roads programme which, as my hon. Friend knows, is done every two years. We will come forward with proposals in the next few months. I hope that they will be to his satisfaction and to the satisfaction of most other hon. Members. On planning permission, there is a difficult balance between allowing people to have their democratic rights and not having unreasonable delays. Rather than concentrate so much on planning delays, I have been concentrating on the internal procedures, which take a considerable time—and have done for many years—before a road reaches the planning inquiry stage. I have identified ways of cutting that time by a considerable margin and I look forward to roads being built far more quickly than in the past.

Is it not gross complacency for the Secretary of State to base his projections on what he himself says are unreliable statistics, especially against the background of looking forward to the 1992 European market? Is it not extremely important for our industrialists in all areas of the United Kingdom to ensure that they have adequate communications and to ensure that export-led industries are not disadvantaged? His own proposals pale into insignificance when we consider the projects being undertaken at present by the French Government.

It is a bit early for the hon. Lady to accuse me of complacency. I have already announced that we shall have a roads review and a programme announcement in the next few months and when the hon. Lady has studied that, she will be in a position to decide whether she thinks it is adequate. I strongly agree with her that it is in the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom that we should have a decent roads programme so that people can get their goods from the United Kingdom to the continent—[HON. MEMBERS: "And railways."] We must also improve the railways, but the hon. railways, but the hon. Lady's question concerned roads, and I agree with the thrust of her comments.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is not his opinion that the only way of dealing with congestion on the roads is to build yet more roads?

It is not my only way of dealing with congestion on the roads. I am extremely anxious—as, I know, is my hon. Friend—that the advent of the Channel tunnel should lead to a substantial increase in the amount of freight carried by British Rail. I look forward to British Rail's report and its proposals for achieving that north of London. We shall receive that report some time this year. I am certain that, if British Rail handles the matter correctly—as it must and will—substantial opportunities will be created for businesses in the north and elsewhere to send their goods economically and, above all, reliably, to the continent. That will benefit both BR and the road user.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the Secretary of State for Wales that there is insufficient expenditure on our roads infrastructure, and does he agree with the CBI's estimate that insufficient expenditure is costing industry £15 billion? After 10 years of this Government will he now agree that average expenditure on roads in real terms has been higher under Labour than under the Conservative Government?

I certainly do not agree with the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I am surprised that he makes that boast. No doubt he was wrongly reported in the Morning Star, and that is very understandable—

Do you read the Morning Star?

Yes, every morning, that is where I find the hon. Gentleman's most authoritative speeches. According to the Morning Star, he is against all this expenditure. I am glad to learn that that is not the case and that he is in favour of it. I agree that we must have an adequate road infrastructure to meet the challenges of 1992 and the turn of the century. I have not read the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to which the hon. Gentleman referred but I seldom, if ever, disagree with my right hon. Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in improving the trunk road systems in the north-east of England.

The A1 between Newcastle and Morpeth and the A69 between Newcastle and Hexham are now dual carriageway throughout.

The Minister's disappointing reply will not go down well in the north-east of England. Will he consider instituting a full-scale survey of the A69 east-west and the A1 north-south as the Romans did 1,900 years ago?

We shall review the whole length of both stretches of road. I do not want to prejudge the conclusions.

Will my hon. Friend undertake to look again at traffic flows on the A69 west of Hexham, as there is clearly an urgent need to dual that road all the way to Carlisle?

A review of the traffic on that stretch of road does not suggest that a dual carriageway is justified, but we shall see what we can do by widening and providing overtaking stretches, which is just as important.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many (a) deaths, (b) major injuries and (c) minor injuries there were in non-movement accidents during 1988 on British Rail property in Great Britain.

Full railway accident statistics for 1988 will be published in the chief inspecting officer of railways' annual report later in the year. The information presently available shows 17 deaths, of which 14 were those of trespassers or suicides, 310 major injuries and 3,864 minor injuries.

I am grateful to the Minister for those figures. Is it not clear from the recent inquest on my constituent Paul Elvin, who died at Euston, that British Rail does not enforce the rules governing the employment of contractors on its premises and that it does not comply with the rules that require it to ensure, for example, that there are circuit breakers to turn off the mains cables if there is someone on the line? Will he guarantee that the railway inspectorate will prosecute where there is clear evidence of criminal failure by British Rail and others working on its property, as that has not happened often enough in the past?

I am not familiar with the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, although I shall definitely look into it. These are matters for the Health and Safety Commission and the railway inspectorate. In the broadest terms, I can confirm that both those bodies have the power to prosecute when it seems appropriate to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of road assessment studies for London now under consideration by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

None. Consultants have been engaged to carry out assessment studies in four parts of the capital with very severe transport-related problems. They are currently assessing and testing a wide range of options which contain some road elements. Their reports are expected later this summer. We have also commissioned a study of the area around Heathrow and south-west London.

Is the Minister aware that, whatever he may say, there is growing concern among constituents in many parts of London about the potential development of major "road improvements" in their area because they will not be improvements of the environment in which many of our constituents live; they will be problems? Will he give an assurance that, before there is any major road development in London, if local residents call for a public inquiry, he will support it?

Yes. I go further than that and invite the hon. Gentleman to go to the Rochester Way relief road, which was the last road built in inner London and started by the GLC under the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and supported by a Labour council. The hon. Gentleman will see the environmental relief, the casualty reduction, and the opportunity for more jobs. I wish that the hon. Gentleman and others would spend as much time being concerned about the nearly 500 people who die every year on London's roads —the equivalent of a Sheffield Hillsborough every 10 weeks—and the thousands of people in London who are injured on our roads. Those issues need to be tackled with public transport and some road changes as well.

To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Arts Council; and what was discussed.

I met Lord Rees-Mogg on 21 March and we discussed a number of matters of mutual interest. I shall be meeting Mr. Palumbo in his capacity as the new chairman of the Arts Council shortly.

I join my right hon. Friend in thanking Lord Rees-Mogg for his seven years of dedicated work for the Arts Council and welcoming Mr. Palumbo, who has some important but difficult decisions to make. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the principle of arm's length funding for the arts will continue?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to Lord Rees-Mogg for his outstanding seven years as chairman of the Arts Council and for wishing Mr. Palumbo every success in his new task. I strongly reaffirm that we shall continue to allocate funds within a given total to the Arts Council and that the arm's length principle will continue.

Will the Minister point out that, according to the Government publication, British Business, nearly £4 billion comes from the arts and overseas earnings, and that £1·5 billion of that is from cultural tourism? Will he point out, further, that it makes economic good sense to continue subsidies at a much higher level and that is he aware that that article in a Government publication should prompt him to press the Treasury and the Government for more money for the arts?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out the important contribution which the arts make to the economy. Those findings emerged principally from the Policy Studies Institute, which partly funded that study. The arts world is expanding successfully with many new audiences, not just with taxpayers' money but joint partnerships in which the private sector is playing a leading role.

Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the chairman of the Arts Council the funding of the royal national theatre? Is he aware that, despite greatly increased subventions to the Arts Council, funding for the royal national theatre has seriously fallen behind the rate of inflation and that that is a serious threat to the artistic standards of one of our greatest institutions? Will he consider direct funding by his Department along the lines of that for the British Museum?

On the latter point, I must make it plain that I wish to continue the arm's length policy. It is not right that civil servants and Ministers in Whitehall should take specific decisions on the allocation of funds to the arts. It must be for the Arts Council and regional arts associations to do that.

When the Minister next meets Mr. Palumbo will he discuss with him the enormous cultural contribution that is made by the British Broadcasting Corporation? At the moment, that cultural contribution to this country is being jeopardised by the Governmen is White Paper proposals on broadcasting and the hypocritical, provocative action of top management of giving themselves a 30 per cent. pay hike, while offering BBC workers a pay cut. Will he comment on that?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his temporary role as Opposition Front Bench spokesman on arts. However, he has not done his research because broadcasting is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. There is no doubt that broadcasting will play a key role in the arts. Under the White Paper and the proposed reforms, it has an even bigger role to play, with a wider range of choice.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that while he must not necessarily give directions in the allocation of funds, he might give a hint that when the Arts Council is giving money to American sculptors to produce a tipsy bottle as a memento of Captain Cook's discovery of Australia, he might bring some pressure to bear and not agree with the outgoing chairman that that was perfectlly appropriate spending of British money?

It is for the Arts Council to judge and for hon. Members to express their views if they like or dislike a particular form of support. However, this gives me an opportunity to say that the most important role of the Arts Council—the expenditure of money—is to strengthen the standards of excellence in the arts. That must be a priority both in London and outside and I am glad that Mr. Palumbo stressed the importance of that in his opening remarks when he first came to the Arts Council.

To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Greater London Arts Association to discuss the structure of arts administration in London.

I meet the chairman of the Greater London Arts Association from time to time. A variety of matters is discussed.

Will the Minister ensure that as the Wilding inquiry into the structure of arts administration in London and elsewhere gets under way, part of Mr. Wilding's consideration will relate to the threat from property development to many arts enterprises and organisations in inner London? Will he do so particularly in the light of current pressures in the Tottenham Court road area where an actors' agency, two theatre groups, two film production agencies and the Directors Guild are all threatened by development proposals currently under appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment? Will he ensure that those issues involving a major threat to the life o f valuable arts institutions in inner London will form part of Mr. Wilding's inquiry?

I take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments and I will look into it. However, I am not convinced that that is necessarily part of Mr. Wilding's terms of reference for his review, which is to look at the relationship between the allocation of money from central Government to the Arts Council and in turn to the regional arts associations, the coherence of funding for the arts and to improve the structural procedures for the disbursement of arts money.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the director of the Greater London Arts Association, will he express robust support for the new lady director of the Victoria and Albert museum in her efforts to restructure staffing at the museum in the interests of the museum and its visitors?

I recently had the opportunity last Monday to visit the Victoria and Albert museum. I am full of of admiration for the work carried out by the director, the staff, curators and administrators.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has had with the Arts Council on the allocation of funds for the rehearsal of contemporary British music by the London orchestras.

The allocation of funds to the London orchestras is a matter for the Arts Council. While I do not seek to influence the council's artistic judgments, I fully support its policy of encouraging artistic excellence, including the performance of well-rehearsed contemporary music.

Is the Minister aware that while it is sometimes relatively straightforward to obtain sponsorship money for the first performances of contemporary British music, it is more difficult to keep that music in the repertory? If that music is to enjoy success, it needs additional assistance. While recognising that that is primarily a matter for the Arts Council, will he at least undertake to consider discussing the matter?

That really is the reason for the answer that I have just given. Of course it is true that much sponsorship goes to the traditional arts, although there is increasing evidence that sponsorship is going towards innovative or experimental arts. That is one reason why the Arts Council has decided to use taxpayers' money to encourage the four London orchestras which play some contemporary music.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to encourage dance.

As with all art forms, I look to the Arts Council for advice about the development of dance. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Arts Council is currently considering a wide-ranging report about the future of dance.

Will my right hon. Friend take a brisk two-step, first to the Arts Council to discuss with it the criteria by which it allocates money for the arts, and to express the concern of this House that there might be some risk of the council not including a solution to funding for the Northern Ballet? Will he then take a brisk step on to the chairman of British Rail and discuss with him his recent statements that he may be considering withdrawing the entertainment express contract, which, of course, gives great support to touring companies, including dance companies?

On my hon. Friend's latter point, I note the concern that has been expressed by many people in the arts world. I have been in touch with the chairman of British Rail to draw his attention to the widespread anxiety about that matters and I hope that he will take these views into account.

Did the Minister discuss with the chairman of the Arts Council the details of the Northern Ballet, Manchester, which tours more than any other company, and for which there is very deep affection throughout the north, and, indeed, in a much wider area, so that its continuance can be assured?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have drawn very strongly to the attention of the chairman of the Arts Council the views of this House, which have been widely expressed, about the value of the Northern Ballet. It is, of course, for the council to make the decision. I should point out that it is not a final decision, that this is just one of a number of options that have been put forward in an independent report, which the council will have to consider shortly.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met leaders of the Civil Service trades unions; and what matters were discussed.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service trade unions; and what subjects were discussed.

I have meetings from time to time with representatives of Civil Service trade unions, both centrally and during visits to Civil Service establishments. A wide variety of matters is raised.

Has my right hon. Friend had any discussions with leaders of trade unions about regional pay? Does he agree with me that earnings in the private sector vary widely from region to region, and that similar market conditions ought to prevail in the Civil Service? Does he agree that the fact that there is not regional pay is one of the greatest obstructions when it comes to Civil Service Departments moving to regions of high unemployment?

My hon. Friend must be right to draw attention to the importance of flexibility in pay in order to cater for the problems of recruitment and retention in different areas—different in terms of skills, or geographically. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced very recently that the maximum rate of the London pay addition will be increased to £1,000 per annum. Of course, the rates have to be negotiated. I understand that at the moment they apply to 50,000 civil servants. The recruitment and retention problems of particular areas have to be taken into account, but a degree of flexibility is now developing.

Has the Minister discussed a 10-point code of ethics for press officers with the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, whose members are opposed to becoming political hacks? Should a Government who claim to support individualism be operating a Ministry of Propaganda from 10 Downing street?

On the question of Government publicity, there are very clearly laid down procedures. The hon. Gentleman referred to a code of ethics. I do not know whether he was referring to individual civil servants or to the question of publicity as a whole. If he was referring to individual civil servants, I would point out that in December 1987 very clear guidelines were laid down as to what steps individual civil servants may take if they have grievances.

Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the Civil Service unions the essential importance of honesty among public servants? Will he warn them of the long-term consequences of breaches of confidence concerning documents in their possession, and of the effect of such breaches on democracy and democratic control as a whole?

My hon. Friend must be right to draw attention to this matter, which is of concern. It is only a tiny minority of civil servants who are doing a grave disservice to the rest of the Civil Service which provides an outstanding service to the elected Government of the day and will continue to so do.

Will the Minister advise civil servants what they should do if they form the view that their ministerial head would not mind if they leaked certain correspondence, such as letters from the Solicitor-General?

The position is absolutely clear. There are disciplinary procedures which the permanent secretary of the particular Department can take. If a civil servant disobeys the rules, disciplinary proceedings can be taken.

Will my right hon. Friend take a fresh look at the possibility of introducing an entirely independent assessment of disputes in the limited number of cases, sometimes involving principle rather than large sums, where Ministers have been unable to resolve the matter to the satisfaction of hon. Members and their constituents?

I am not absolutely certain to what my hon. Friend is drawing attention, but if he can provide me with further information, I shall look into the matter.

Does the Minister agree that in the past there was no need for a code of practice for information officers but that with the present incumbent of 10 Downing street the position is different? Does he agree that it is wrong of Mr. Bernard Ingham to tell the police who its director of public affairs should be and wrong of any Minister to ask any information officer to enter the political arena? Will he, therefore, pursue the establishment of an impartial and mutually agreed code of practice for information officers and ensure that there is no victimisation if it is invoked by any civil servant?

The procedures are clearly and carefully laid down and there are no difficulties with them. Each Department has a clear understanding of what they are. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is worried about.

To ask the Minister for the Civil service how many civil servants have a legal qualification.

There are about 2,500 lawyers in the Civil Service.

As only two of those lawyers are allocated by the serious fraud office to deal with the House of Fraser-Lonrho affairs and as one of them advised against and was overruled only by the assistant director, Ms. Chase, could we have a few more Government lawyers put on this case so that at least they can begin to get round to interviewing the leading protagonists? Obviously, with only two on the job, they have not got round to doing that.

I have enough questions to answer in the House and I will not be drawn into answering on the Lonrho case. Although we have had some success in recruiting lawyers for the Government legal service and the Crown prosecution service, we are still short of a large number.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he intends to change the procedures for recruitment into the Civil Service; and if he will make a statement.

In the light of current developments in Civil Service management, Departments will be free to carry out their own recruitment to all except the senior grades and their fast stream feeder entries, subject to rules laid down to safeguard the principle of selection on merit by fair and open competition. I announced these plans on 13 April 1989 in a written reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).

While I am sure that the Departments would welcome the greater freedom and responsibility thus imposed on them by the Minister, how will he assure the rest of us that the quality of service, seniority and qualifications will be ensured so that throughout the country we may maintain the level of service and the morale of the Civil Service?

I hope that in general the concept of delegating more authority to individual Departments to carry out the bulk of their recruitment policies is the right. one. They are in the best position to judge what recruits they need. Nevertheless, I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point about the need to maintain the highest standards. It will be up to the commission to recommend to the Minister for the Civil Service rules that should be followed by all Departments relating to such matters as, for example, fair and open competition, selection on merit and the impartiality of the service.

Is the Minister aware that there are difficulties in appointing civil servants? I remember the Minister coming to the Dispatch Box and telling me that he had been to their annual conference. I asked him what the morale was like at that conference. It was not very good. That was because of the Government's massive cuts in local government. Why do the Government not back off and make the money available? Then we would get the right people for the jobs?

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman believes that I have responsibility for local government as well as for the Civil Service. I visit Civil Service offices around the country, so I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the vast bulk of the Civil Service is doing an outstanding job and its morale is good. It is a slimmed-down, highly professional and very impartial service.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many Civil Service agencies have now been announced; and whether he will make a statement.

Five executive agencies have now been established following the launch last week of the National Weights and Measures and Warren Spring Laboratories. Around 30 more have been announced as candidates.

In thanking my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply about progress so far, may I ask him to tell the House what other candidates are at present under active consideration, and when he will be in a position to make a further statement?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have undertaken to give regular reports to the House on the progress of Civil Service agencies. Within the next two or three months there should be statements about a number of other areas, including the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, the Department of Social Security's resettlement units and the employment services. There may, of course, be others, too.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will arrange for Mr. Charles Powell to give a lecture at the Civil Service college.

There are no plans to do so.

How about a title such as, "Recent developments in Civil Service ethics, which allow a principal private secretary to the Prime Minister to authorise and to give approval to the unauthorised disclosure of a Law Officer's letter"? If that title is not good enough, how about, "The role of a principal private secretary to the Prime Minister in preserving the Prime Minister from a position of having misled the House of Commons and the consequences of misbehaviour"?

I am not sure how many times over the past three years that the hon. Gentleman and I have had exchanges across the Floor.

Seventeen.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing me with that additional information. It feels like 17. The position is absolutely clear. We have made statements time and again in the House. I am glad to say that Mr. Powell, who served me in 1980 when I was Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with responsibility for Africa, is an outstanding civil servant.