To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chair of London Regional Transport; and what matters were discussed.

I last met the chairman of London Regional Transport, Mr. Wilfrid Newton, on 17 October. We discussed various issues relating to LRT's finances.

Will the Secretary of State comment on LRT's waste in pulping thousands of fare rise tickets which were scrapped because they did not have the Minister's approval? Will he assure the House that fare rises will be kept below the rate of inflation? Will he undertake to provide the substantial new public investment called for today by the London Regional Passengers Committee so that a start can be made to end the squalor on London's public transport?

I have had discussions with the chairman about all aspects of LRT's finances —its fares, investment programmes and overall finances—and the results of those talks will be announced in due course. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we plan to maintain the tradition of huge increases in public investment in LRT.

Is my right hon. Friend aware how grateful I am to hear his answer to that question? Will he stress that the provision of public transport to the east of London is among the Department's priorities, given the existing imbalance between east and west London?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. When people talk about the Jubilee line as a line for developers, they ignore the impact that it could have on the lives of the many people in east London who are looking forward to its arrival.

Will the Secretary of State admit that he has instructed LRT to produce fare increases substantially below the 15 per cent. that LRT believes that it needs? If LRT carries out his wishes, does he intend to make up the difference between that fare increase and the 15 per cent?

I have had discussions about the whole range of LRT's finances, its investment programme and. so on, as part of the public expenditure survey round. The result of those discussions will be announced shortly. I hope that if fare rises are lower than they would have been the hon. Lady will not be critical, because her hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), in his previous incarnation as spokesman on energy, was constantly accusing me of trying to push prices up. If they go down—I am not saying that they will—I hope that the Opposition will give us credit for that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how new technology is being used to improve traffic management in London.

New urban traffic control systems and traffic lights that adjust to changing conditions are planned to be installed at 700 junctions by 1993. Delays at these junctions should be reduced by about 12 per cent. Police traffic controllers use closed circuit television to monitor key locations. A large-scale pilot scheme for the autoguide electronic guidance system is being planned for 1992.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the great merit of this new technology is that it maximises existing road capacity and greatly improves traffic flow along existing roads? Will he give the House further details about the new Scoot system for improving the flow through traffic lights?

My hon. Friend is right. The Scoot system is working extremely effectively. We have already installed about 180 signals and it is our intention to install more. My hon. Friend touches on an important point when he says that new technology can relieve congestion. He is quite correct.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the growing traffic chaos in London? He surely must be. What discussions is his Department having with the Home Office to try to get some police priority for traffic management in London? Is he aware that unless there is an all-out campaign involving his Department, the Home Department and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the traffic will get worse and worse and in the end people will have to walk over the roofs of the cars because that will be the fastest way of getting along the roads?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. He will not be surprised to learn that, since taking office, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have been looking at these matters with a great deal of urgency. We hope to be able to say something about them soon.

When my hon. Friend is considering these matters, will he seriously consider a ban on deliveries between 7 am and 7 pm or 8 am and 8 pm because delivery vehicles are responsible for much of the chaos and congestion in London?

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and it is one of the maters that we shall be considering.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the new roadbuilding programme, outlined in the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity"; and if he will make a statement.

The expanded programme set out in "Roads for Prosperity" is one of the Government's priorities. We are making good progress in preparing the schemes.

I express my sympathy with the Secretary of State for being with us today. It must have been most disappointing for him last Thursday when he awaited the call that never came, especially as the Treasury is breaking all the commitments made by his predecessor. Is the Secretary of State now backtracking on the plans in the White Paper? Was not his predecessor quite wrong to believe that the private sector would always provide the necessary private finance, as can be seen by the chaos and confusion surrounding the tunnel links in the central London rail study? Is it not time for the Secretary of State to tackle the Treasury like a rottweiler rather than the Prime Minister's poodle?

I was thinking of buying a lead for my favourite rottweiler, but he is sitting opposite me and Ministers do not exchange gifts with Opposition Members. My predecessor produced an excellent White Paper. So far, we have commissioned studies and assessments on more than 40 of the schemes. I am glad to note that the hon. Gentleman is reading a better class of newspaper these days. If he keeps on reading it, he will become increasingly disappointed as the good news emerges.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need roads not just for prosperity but for safety? I had just managed to convince his predecessor to come and look at the St. Michael's bridge, which is a menace. Fortunately, I do not need to ask my right hon. Friend to come because he will know it well from his youth. Will he please ensure that Lancashire county council does not rat on us and that we get the bypass because somebody will be killed if two cars meet on that terrible hump-backed bridge?

I know the hump-backed bridge at St. Michael's, which is near my home town, and I will do my best to ensure that my hon. Friend is happy about the future arrangements.

Has the Secretary of State had any further studies done, to add to the studies upon studies, to estimate the extra cost to industry in Wales and the north-west of England of sitting in traffic jams on the M6 and the M1 which inhibit movement of goods to the Channel ports? Is the Secretary of State aware that ports in my constituency will have no benefit from the Channel tunnel unless drastic action is taken to improve communications?

I am glad to have the hon. and learned Gentleman's endorsement of the White Paper, which makes proposals for the great improvement and widening of the two roads that he mentioned. We look forward to having his support in the months ahead for the work that is to be undertaken.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the A140, which runs through Norfolk and Suffolk, is probably one of the most dangerous roads in East Anglia? This results from a staggering increase of traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles and, more sadly, has led to a large number of fatal accidents. There was great amazement and not a little anger when it was announced that the A140 would be dualed north of Scole in Norfolk, but not south of Scole in Suffolk. Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are hoping for an announcement later this year that the whole of that road will be dualed, to everybody's satisfaction?

One of the main features of the White Paper was its recognition that East Anglia has an inadequate road infrastructure. There are substantial plans set out in the White Paper to produce an improvement, and we shall honour them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the likely increase of (a) road users and (b) public transport users in London as a result of the construction of the Channel tunnel terminal at King's Cross.

The Department is examining the impact of the proposed terminal on the surrounding road network. The impact on the public transport network is expected to be small.

Does the Minister recall that when I saw him nearly a year ago I reported that the Channel tunnel and second London terminal projects would be chaotic and that political intervention would be required? Is he aware that confusion is now upon us and that we are in great danger of having three quarters of a tunnel, half a fast rail link and no second London terminal? When does the Minister intend to intervene to bring central political decision-making into the free market chaos which now surrounds us?

Decisions on all these matters will be made shortly. The hon. Gentleman is alway urging me to take a strategic view, but I believe that it should he for British Rail to propose the railway line and the terminal that it wishes to build, see whether it can get private sector participation and then take a Bill through the House. If that is not successful, it is for British Rail to consider the options. If a strategic view were to be taken, I am not sure that one would not conclude that King's Cross, with its good access to the north, would be a better proposition.

As British Rail's half-baked ideas for a Channel tunnel rail link terminating at King's Cross are now in disarray, having failed to attract any private financial support, will my hon. Friend the Minister consider the available options where there is private backing for viable plans that will serve the entire United Kingdom?

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern and the assiduous way in which he represents his constituents on these and other matters, but the project has not reached the stage that he suggests. We shall have to wait and see whether British Rail will make an announcement in the coming days and weeks about a partnership with the private sector and whether it will wish to propose a Bill. If it proposed a Bill and that measure was not successful, it would then be appropriate to consider the options. A proposal has been worked out with a great deal of time and effort and I believe that it should be considered fully.

Does the Minister agree that King's Cross is already the most congested location in London both above ground and below? Is it not sheer folly to propose funnelling a further 10 million or 15 million passengers per year through an over-congested location by locating the second Channel tunnel terminus there? Is it not time to think again and consider other options?

King's Cross is extremely well connected in terms of public transport. There are more tube lines there than in any other place in London. There are also extremely good connections to the north of England. In that sense, it is very well connected. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to traffic congestion, he should remember that that problem will arise with any site that is chosen. My Department will be giving evidence to the Select Committee on Transport on the railway proposal and to the London borough of Camden on the lands development proposal, which will be a matter for Camden to consider.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has drawn from the la test round of public consultation meetings in connection with revised routes for approaches to the proposed second Severn crossing; and if he will make a statement.

We are still considering the many helpful comments received following the exhibitions held in June and July. I hope to issue a statement shortly concerning modifications to the routes of the approach roads.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he consider with some sympathy the suggestions being made for an intermediate link between the industrial areas of the north of Bristol and the southern relief road linking the second Severn crossing to the M5, which would be welcome to industry and commerce in the area?

My hon. Friend makes a plea for his constituents and for others nearby. The plan has considerable merit. I shall be looking to local authorities and developers to provide the resources for such a link

Does the Minister agree that extra roads mean extra hazards and that this weekend we took a step that will involve extra danger on the roads when we put the clock forward by one hour? Does he recall the transport and road research laboratory saying that daylight saving, would reduce the numbers of serious and fatal accidents by 600 per year? Will he therefore impress on other members of the Government the need for daylight saving, which will mean life saving?

Such matters are for the Home Office. One of the reasons why that Department is currently involved in a number of consultations is that there are many differences of opinion—not least among trade unions and between people living in the north and those in the south. No doubt common sense proposals will come out of those consultations, and I look forward to that happening as much as the hon. Gentleman.

Is my hon. Friend aware that river pilots are very concerned about the siting of the bridge and, in particular, about its effect on access to the port of Sharpness in my constituency? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that their views will be taken fully into consideration before any decision is taken?

Yes, Sir.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning future plans for new underground railways serving east London.

We are considering the cases for schemes proposed in the central London rail study and for extending the Jubilee line to docklands and Stratford. A key factor for the Jubilee line will be the contributions forthcoming from developers who will benefit from the line.

Does the Minister agree that there is also an important cross-rail link? Does he recall that the concept of such a link dates back to the Royal Commission on London traffic of 1905? Which does the Minister regard as more important? The Waterloo to Canary wharf line is concept of Messrs. Olympia and York and essentially a developer's railway. If the Minister gives preference to that rather than to the cross-rail link, will he not be favouring the stockbrokers and providing them with seats for tomorrow, rather than seats for east London straphangers of today?

The Jubilee line is important in public transport terms and would provide an important connection to Stratford, which I thought would be welcomed by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who spoke earlier. I feel sure that the people of east London would find it of considerable value. It would be of value also in terms of regenerating the inner city, which the Labour party supports. I cannot make a statement about our priorities as between the Jubilee line and the east-west cross-rail—that decision will be made shortly—but as developers also benefit from the Jubilee line it must be right that we should attempt to secure the maximum contribution from them and to minimise the contribution that the taxpayer will have to make.

I am embarrassed to be in even partial agreement with the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), but is my hon. Friend aware that however admirable the idea of extensions to the Underground system, which I support, they are no substitute for the east-west cross-rail tunnel, which would do much to relieve pressure on Liverpool Street station and thus assist commuters entering London from Essex constituencies?

The east-west cross-rail showed up very well in the central rail study as being a decongesting railway. However, my hon. Friend will recognise that the Jubilee line also provides an important link between east London and the west end, and its extension would help to establish docklands even more firmly as a new centre of activity. That in itself could also help to relieve congestion in the central area.

Is the Minister aware that south-east London is the forgotten corner of the city when it comes to the tube system? Can he give any grounds for hope that the proposed extensions through east London will cross the river, to give hundreds of thousands of south-east Londoners more alternatives to British Rail services?

There are two proposals on the stocks. One is to route the Jubilee line through the Greenwich peninsula, but that is a more expensive option which would not provide good connections to the rest of the network south of the river. The other is a Lewisham extension of the docklands light railway, on which I recently received representations from a number of hon. Members and others—but as I have not received a formal proposal from London Regional Transport I am not in a position to comment on that scheme.

Is my hon. Friend aware that while many people living outside London view investment in its infrastructure with sympathy and hope, they too have their priorities for modernisation? I refer principally to the cross-city line in Birmingham. I hope that if my hon. Friend approves all the Underground schemes proposed for London there will be a few shillings left in his coffers to undertake investment schemes in our area.

The Government are extremely even-handed in such matters. Only last week it was my great pleasure to announce our investment in the Manchester metrolink, which I am sure is a popular decision. The proposal for the Birmingham cross-city electrification has just arrived on the desk of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and I am sure that he will deal with it quickly.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the need for a fast rail link between Scotland and the Channel tunnel.

We have received a small number of such representations.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the uncertainty hanging over the link between in the tunnel and London threatens to make nonsense of British Rail's plans to run a through service from Scotland to the continent? Does he agree that such a service is vital if Scotland and the regions are to benefit from the single market and the tunnel? Will he undertake to ensure that it will be in place by 1993, as BR plans, whatever the problems may be about private finance for the link with London?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. The position has been completely misunderstood. The high-speed link is not the only proposed link with the Channel tunnel and in fact will not be available until around the turn of the century. Arrangements are now being made, and large sums are being invested in both road and rail infrastructure, to ensure that Scotland and the regions have access to the tunnel from the day it is opened.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that a second terminal at King's Cross is vital to meet the needs of the north of England and Scotland? Will he examine the quality of service on the Newcastle-Carlisle route, which is appalling at present?

As I said earlier, British Rail is under an obligation to present its plans, and it is working hard on that. I cannot honestly answer my hon. Friend's question about the Newcastle-Carlisle line, but if he would care to write to me I will certainly look into the matter.

The Secretary of State is well acquainted with the city of Aberdeen through his previous job as Secretary of State for Energy. Will he now look particularly at the rail communication links from Aberdeen, and at the clear demand that has emerged from Grampian regional council for a scheme to link Aberdeen with Edinburgh and the Channel tunnel through electrification?

I will bring the hon. Lady's remarks to the attention of British Rail. As part of the plans for Scotland, two major freight terminals are being considered, one of them at Gartcosh; I cannot remember offhand the site of the other. The Government's whole aim is to ensure that the regions benefit from the best possible access to the tunnel.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles the expanded road programme will add to the trunk road network; and if he will make a statement.

The expanded programme will add more than 2,700 miles of new or widened roads to the trunk road network.

I congratulate my hon. Friend. Will he confirm that the increase in capital expenditure by the present Government is nearly 60 per cent. higher than that in 1978–79, the last full year of Socialist government? How much of the proportion that my hon. Friend has to spend will be spent in Yorkshire?

The expanded programme will result in 51 new miles of road in Yorkshire, together with 51 miles of improved roads. All in all, that is worth some £430 million. We put our money where our mouths are.

Is the Minister aware of the strength of feeling in the north-east about the fact that the expanded road programme does not deal properly with the upgrading of the A1, either in Yorkshire or between Newcastle and Edinburgh, and also about the failure to address the problem of a proper cross-country road between Newcastle and Carlisle? Will he review the programme to meet those concerns?

I spent all of Thursday in Newcastle talking to a wide variety of people—about the A1, among other things. They were quite satisfied with the commitment that I offered them, which was also offered in the White Paper —that we were reviewing the whole of the A1 in regard to motorway status. As the hon. Lady and other hon. Members will know, making a motorway from an existing trunk road is not as easy as it may at first appear. All those points are, however, being considered urgently.

Is the Minister aware that any delay in the expanded programme will prolong uncertainty and blight for those affected and add to the costs of congestion and later construction? Will he therefore do his best to ensure that construction is carried out as per the programme?

That is certainly my intention.

Is it true that the Minister's mouth is not big enough to take the Birmingham northern relief road which has been delayed for a considerable time while the project has been hawked around the private sector? If and when it is eventually built, will the developers pay for the cost of providing policing, ambulances and lighting services along that road, or will those charges fall on the taxpayer?

I should say that many of my hon. Friends and I are delighted with the number of people who have expressed interest in the Birmingham northern relief road. We are very pleased to have been approached by three major consortia. If that demonstrates how this scheme and many others will work, we shall be delighted. While I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's quip, I remind him that his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), is known as "Humber mouth".

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made in reducing the central Government public service obligation grant to British Rail in line with financial targets set in 1986.

The objectives that we set in 1986 called for a 25 per cent. reduction in British Rail's grant requirement by the current financial year. British Rail succeeded in achieving this target a year early, in 1988–89.

May I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's answer? Is not the way forward a combination of public and private capital? In that context, may I say how grateful my constituents are to his Department for the investment in the Manchester metrolink which will considerably improve communications between Bury and Manchester as well as in the south of Manchester?

Yes, the metrolink is a good example of how the public sector and the private sector can co-operate to produce an improved service for the citizens of a very fine city.

Is it not clear to the Minister that every time the PSO grant is cut while British Rail is asked to improve its investment in new services, and improve safety and services to the customer, the customer pays through the nose? Is he aware that British Rail is in danger of becoming one of the most expensive, but not one of the best, railway systems in Europe?

I have to admit to the hon. Lady that there is a difference in philosophy between her party and mine on this matter. We believe in cutting the grant and increasing investment. The Opposition believe in increasing the grant and reducing investment. The net result of that was ever more heavily subsidised lines getting into ever greater disrepair. We thought that that was a foolish policy, so we changed it.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that British Rail operates under the apparent inconvenience of having customers, not least the inconvenience of having customers who expect a modicum of service? When he next talks to the chairman of British Rail, will he inform him that while the first faltering steps to improve the service have been taken, there is still a long way to go before the appalling service is improved?

British Rail is certainly open to criticism, and I have received many letters. But it is quite wrong to pretend that the system is not slowly but steadily improving. A large investment is being made, and I wish that once in a while people would give British Rail credit where it is due for improvements in services—and there is credit due.

Is the Secretary of State asking us to believe that it is pure coincidence that countries such as West Germany and France, which have a higher PSO level, also have lower fares, higher quality and a safer system? That fact has been confirmed by the Government's own central transport consultative committee. As he is about to abandon the plan for the privatisation of British Rail, will he now set British Rail new financial targets that do not lead to exorbitant fare increases accompanied by a poorer quality of service?

We shall shortly announce the new objectives for British Rail. We see no point in subsidising journeys for which people are prepared to pay a fair price, but we see the case for subsidising rural areas where it is impossible to make the service pay. We think, and I repeat, that the policy of the Greater London council—the last example of the Labour party in charge of a public transport system—of increasing subsidies and cutting investment produced disastrous results for London Transport, which is why we are having to sort it out.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that British Rail's capital investment programme is running at record levels? Has he been able to approve any specific additions to it recently?

British Rail's investment programme is running much higher in real terms than it was under the last Labour Government. When the public expenditure settlement is announced, my hon. Friend will note that those figures have increased. Unlike the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), we do not dream up schemes that will never come to fruition. Since I arrived at the Department, I have approved orders for more than £1 billion worth of new equipment for British Rail, LRT and local authorities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has undertaken or plans to undertake into women and transport; and if he will make a statement.

The Department has undertaken, and is undertaking, research into various aspects of transport. The needs of women as one category of user are always taken into account.

I welcome any research into this much-neglected subject, but will the Minister give an assurance that the conclusions of the research will be properly resourced? More important, will he say why, in view of the Home Office's launch last week of a drive to make London a safer place in which to travel for women, Southern Region is cutting staff? The Dartford line may have no staff at night or at weekends. Sexual attacks have been prevalent on that line in the past.

It is important to see the whole pattern of events. The resources of the British Transport police are being increased. Network SouthEast is lighting car parks and stations and improving the environment for its pasengers. The article that appeared in the EveningStandard, on which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) leapt with such alacrity, referred to an internal consultation document that is yet to be considered even by the trade unions, let alone passengers. It was therefore premature to react to that article. There are already a number of unmanned stations on British Rail. Ticket barriers are to be phased out. Throughout the European Community, such barriers exist only in this country and the Republic of Ireland.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if he were a woman he would find what we men find when travelling on the A3 between Portsmouth and London—unacceptable traffic jams on the Guildford bypass? I hope that my hon. Friend will do all that he can to sort this out as soon as possible.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right.

Is the Minister aware that women have become not less but more fearful of travelling on public transport in London over the past few months? His recent announcements about increases in the number of London Transport police do not go far enough. What will he do to ensure a proper level of policing at Finsbury Park tube station, which many women in my constituency are frightened to use?

I recently had the pleasure of visiting Finsbury Park station, at which a new British Transport police station has recently been established, and from where it will police the Victoria, Northern and District lines. The hon. Lady said that women have become more fearful, but I must tell her that the figures are much better. For example, for the first six months of 1989, robbery on the tube is down by 42 per cent.; assault on passengers is down by 13 per cent.; and total crime on the Underground is down by 8 per cent. I attribute that to the many measures that have been taken by the British Transport police in increasing its complement, and by the fact that it has set up 42 deep-level stations, from which radio systems can now operate, thereby bringing fast response to crime.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure a more flexible approach to the planning of bus transport in London.

The restructuring of London Buses Ltd. into separate subsidiaries will encourage further competition. London Regional Transport plans to increase the proportion of the network contracted out to 40 per cent. by 1992.

Does my hon. Friend agree that ultimately an improvement in London bus services depends upon much greater deregulation, a tantalising example of which was seen during the bus strike when the Grey-Greens were able to run? In the meantime, will my hon. Friend urge on London Regional Transport a policy of listening to its new and excellent area managers, who are listening to the public and offering to provide services that the public want and will use, such as a minibus service through Battersea square? Will he encourage London Regional Transport to give such schemes the go-ahead?

I think that London Regional Tranport listens carefully to its area managers. The background to the position in my hon. Friend's constituency is that London Regional Transport has been conducting a major survey into the services that should be provided in that area. It intends to come forward with proposals for consultation in the new year. It has also announced its intention to put the new network in Wandsworth out to competitive tender during 1990. I think therefore that in every respect that meets my hon. Friend's wishes. London Regional Transport is considering proposals from residents for a minibus service for north Battersea.

To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the director of the Victoria and Albert museum to discuss the future funding of the museum's photographic collection.

I meet the director of the Victoria and Albert museum from time to time to discuss current issues, but I have no plans at present to do so specifically to discuss the future funding of the photographic collection.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the curator of the photography section at the Victoria and Albert museum on his excellent work, especially in putting on the 150 years of photography exhibition? I understand that there is strong support in the Victoria and Albert for photography. All I would ask the Minister to do in terms of funding is to ensure that there is no fall in funding for the gallery. However, while I have his ear, may I ask him whether, given that our proceedings in the Chamber are now being televised, he will support my plea to allow still photographers to take pictures in the Chamber as well?

I shall think about the hon. Gentleman's last question. On the first, I know the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in photography. I join him in congratulating the Victoria and Albert and its curator on the work that they do. There has recently been an excellent photographic exhibition and there are plans for relocating the photographic gallery, which shows the very strong support there for photography.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as photography has a proud British heritage, it is right that the Victoria and Albert should celebrate this in its exhibition? Does he agree that the museum can rely on the Government's good will for funding, especially as the revenue funding has increased by 40 per cent. in real terms and the capital programme by 50 per cent. since the Conservative party came to power?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. There is no shadow of doubt that there has been an overall increase in real resources. Resources for the V and A's running costs have increased by 28 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80. There is also, as my hon. Friend knows, an important centre for photography and television in Bradford, which is an extension of the national institution and which does much good work.

To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Museums and Galleries Commission to discuss the level of funding of national museums.

I meet the chairman of the Museum and Galleries Commission regularly and discuss a wide range of subjects, which have included museum and gallery funding.

Did the Minister discuss with the chairman of the commission its claim that the Government are grossly underfunding our largest museums? When will the right hon. Gentleman face up to the crisis in our museums? The director of the Tate has accused the Government of making their calculations on the back of an envelope. Half the Tate's British collection is in store because the building is falling apart.

I am surprised that the hon. Lady says that there is gross underfunding and that she does not welcome the recent decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to invest an extra £21 million in a major extension and redevelopment of the national museum of Wales. The hon. Lady accuses the Government of underfunding and cannot even welcome that investment. That is extraordinary. It is extraordinary also that she accuses the Government of underfunding, when in 1979–80 funding for museums and galleries was £54 million whereas today it is £158 million—a real increase of 25 per cent. If the hon. Lady thinks that the Government are underfunding the museums, what does she think that the Labour Government were doing at the end of the 1970s?

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the drain of our artistic heritage overseas as a result of the recent rise in the price of goods at auction and the inability of our museums and galleries to bid competitively to retain those art treasures in this country. Will my right hon. Friend review that situation and consider whether to review the whole procedure for the licensing of artistic exports?

My hon. Friend is right to put his finger on the fact that the dramatic increase in the prices of works of art puts extra pressure on the available resources for saving our most important works of heritage. However, throughout the 1980s, we have had the national heritage memorial fund, which has spent well over £100 million in saving important works of art for this country. If my hon. Friend intended to put his finger on the level of the purchase grant, I must point out that I said a year ago that I would look at the way in which the purchase grant was working. I ask him to be patient for a little longer, while I try to take decisions. The first priority must be to find money for the fabric, building and maintenance of our national institutions.

It is clear that the Minister thinks that he knows better than the chairmen of the five national galleries who told him and the Prime Minister in July that unless he provided enormously increased funding for those museums and galleries, the effects would be disastrous. Did the Minister give a specific assurance to the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts in January 1988, when he announced three-year funding, that if there were exceptional circumstances, such as a rise in inflation, he would reopen the books for the national museums and consider their funding again? Will he now redeem that assurance to the Select Committee, reopen the books, pay attention to what the chairmen of those galleries are saying and provide the extra funding needed?

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman does not join me in confirming the figures, which show a real increase in support for the national museums and galleries, although he knows perfectly well that there has been an increase. Having said that, it was two years ago that I introduced three-year funding. I hope that I read in the hon. Gentleman's question the fact that he does not disagree with the concept of three-year funding. It is right to say that the levels of inflation in recent months have undermined three-year funding to some extent. The Government as a whole are clearly committed to maintaining support for the arts.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the health of our museums is best shown not only by funding, but by the number of museums that have opened in recent years and the number of people who attend those museums? Will he also take the opportunity to reject the suggestion made recently by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) that there is a Government plan to introduce compulsory admission charges? Will he confirm that it is still a voluntary scheme?

On the latter point, it is wholly for the trustees to decide whether admission charges should be introduced. That remains our policy and it is the right policy. We should let them decide how best to proceed with that matter. The Government have a fine record in terms of the catalogue of refurbishment of our national institutions—our museums and galleries. There have been extensions, such as Bodelwyddan castle, the national portrait gallery and the Tate gallery in Liverpool, various redevelopments at the Tate gallery itself, the Clore gallery extension and many other redevelopments. In the past decade, about 10 galleries at the British museum have been refurbished.

To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Arts Council to discuss the level of arts funding.

I meet the chairman regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest.

I want to know what the Minister is playing at as regards the Arts Council. He makes statements in the House and statements in Select Committees. He knows full well that inflation is running at 7·6 per cent. and that the Arts Council is looking to him for additional funds, yet he offers a measly 2 per cent. What is he playing at?

rose——

I have not finished yet. The Minister should come to the Dispatch Box and say that he is going to help the Arts Council—or else I shall be having a word with him afterwards.

I shall really miss the hon. Gentleman when he retires from the House.

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

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met the Civil Service trade unions; and what matters 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. I met the Civil Service unions in June this year to discuss planned changes in Civil Service recruitment.

Will the Minister give an assurance to civil servants working at the south bank complex and in the national galleries and museums that their pay arrangements will be conducted and their pay negotiated nationally, that their employers at the south bank complex and in the national galleries and museums will honour those national rates of pay and that there will be no detriment or severance of those conditions?

The hon. Gentleman is ingenious in extending arts questions into Civil Service questions. I recognise the significance of his remarks. He rightly implies that the national galleries and museums operate Civil Service pay and conditions. Of course, the national structures continue but within that context the whole Civil Service is moving to a more flexible pay system. That is being developed not only in agencies but within the Civil Service, and the same applies to the national galleries and museums.

Was the issuing of fire certificates discussed? Has the Minister issued fire certificates or been involved in the issuing of fire certificates for all the buildings for which he is responsible, as required by the Fire Precautions Act 1971? If such certificates have not been issued, will he prosecute himself?

I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to national museums and galleries or whether his question goes wider. If he is talking about the museums and galleries, his question goes beyond the Civil Service in the broadest sense. The whole question of fire regulations is of concern. The local authorities have conducted a review of the institutions. They have given their views and they are being taken into account in the discussions.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Civil Service unions, will he draw their attention to his excellent response to the fifth report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee this afternoon, which shows that considerable progress is being made in the "next steps" programme, which under present plans will affect no fewer than 180,000 civil servants?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He will, of course, have seen the reply that has now been given to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. Since the House last discussed these issues in July, there have been further changes and more progress on "next steps". Today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is launching the Laboratory of the Government Chemist as an executive agency, while the Historic Royal Palaces Agency was launched as an executive agency of the Department of the Environment on 1 October. Moreover, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has announced five new candidates to become defence support agencies and they will be established in due course. By July next year about 20 agencies will be established.

My right hon. Friend has had conversations with the trade unions. Does he agree that at no time has there been any truth in the rumours that civil servants do not wish to move to the north of England, and that the moving of the Departments earmarked for the north of England will go ahead?

I can assure my hon. Friend that I know of no evidence of people refusing. Of course there is an option in relocation for civil servants working in London and the south-east not to go with the job if it is moved elsewhere. Only a week or so ago I opened a new headquarters for the occupational health service in Edinburgh and that service is part of the Cabinet Office. It is important to note that 34,000 jobs are under review for relocation. That does not mean to say that they will all he relocated, but that number are under review for relocation outside the south-east.

I welcome the fact that the Minister says that the issue of fire certificates is a matter of concern. He will be aware that the Home Office has responsibility for issuing fire certificates for most Civil Service buildings outside the Ministry of Defence. He will also know that there is a four-year backlog for that. As the Minister with responsibility for the Civil Service, is he concerned about that? I hope that he is. What proposals does the Minister have to ensure that that backlog is dealt with as expeditiously as possible?

Each Secretary of State must answer for his own Department. I will look into the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I will take it seriously and let him have a reply. Each Minister is responsible for his Department and the standards within that Department. In reply to an earlier question, I could respond only in connection with my direct responsibilities for national museums and galleries.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many past or present members of the Civil Service have been disciplined for incidents of political bias or breach of confidentiality since 1979; and what channels of communication are in place for civil servants who wish to make representations that Ministers are making improper use of their ministerial powers.

About 10 on average each year, but only limited information is held centrally. There are guidelines set out for civil servants for dealing with matters of conscience.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his rather partial answer. As there are two sides to the playing field, when civil servants want to make representations about a Minister abusing his power, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is a level playing field for them as there is for the Minister if a civil servant should abuse his basic right or obligation to neutrality?

Of course every Minister is accountable directly to the House of Commons and the House can hold every Minister to account. However, there are special rules and conditions for civil servants. Those guidelines, of which the Armstrong guidelines are the most recent, give civil servants the option to appeal first to their manager and then to their permanent secretary. There is an ultimate right of appeal on matters of conscience. They can go to the professional head of the Civil Service. No one, I might point out, has yet done that.

How many of those incidents have involved civil servants who have refused to carry out politically biased work for their Ministers?

If the hon. Gentleman keeps a sense of perspective, he will appreciate that there have been 10 cases of breaches of confidentiality of one kind or another out of a total Civil Service membership of 567,000. We really must keep this in proportion. The vast bulk of civil servants are loyal and impartial to the elected Government of the day. That is my experience and I am sure that that was the experience of Labour Governments.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in his campaign for plain English in, and ease of completion of, Government forms.

Since 1982 we have saved about £14 million on our review of Government forms. We have made them easier to understand and we regularly win awards from the plain English campaign. We are keeping up this pressure.

The fifth progress report on Government forms states that 40,000 Government forms have been reviewed, 15,000 have been redesigned and 9,000 have been scrapped. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to continue the momentum of that excellent work, and be particularly vigilant with the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security whose forms must be completed by the public?

My hon. Friend is right and the figures to which he referred show what we have achieved in the past 10 years in redesigning or scrapping forms. We regard that task as a relentless obligation. I am inclined to follow the advice of Winnie the Pooh by A. A. Milne when Pooh said, "Long words bother me." That is good advice when considering Government forms.

I support the Minister's campaign for plain English in Government forms. When can we look forward to a campaign for plain Gujarati, plain Punjabi and plain Urdu in Government forms? Many people speak those languages, but they are not, unfortunately, spoken by the Minister.

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman in that I cannot speak evey language under the sun. I am a great believer in keeping to plain English. That is our objective. There is a plain English campaign and we should make forms as simple as possible. We should keep the words and the language simple. That is our objective.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although long words may bother him, many of his ministerial colleagues do not suffer in a similar manner? Only last week we had an extraordinary array of words —for example, "hospitalisation"—and we heard "level playing field" this afternoon. Could every member of the ministerial team be supplied with a copy of Sir Ernest Gower's "Plain Words" and be asked to use it, mark it, learn it and inwardly digest it?

I still stick to the view of Winnie the Pooh that "Long words bother me." If everyone follows that advice, we will be much better off.

Does the Minister agree with the plain English of Lord Hailsham, who said that it was no business of the press office of the Prime Minister to undermine the authority of Ministers? Does Civil Service discipline apply to Mr. Ingham?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman asked that question about Mr. Ingham, of all people, who served the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) with great distinction in a former Government, as well as serving my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. If anyone could have shown his impartiality to an elected Government today, he has done just that.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any request from the Government concerning a statement yesterday by the Secretary of State for Health in The Sunday Correspondent to the effect that the Army has been put into preparedness, in case "some hothead somewhere" starts putting public safety at risk in the ambulance men's dispute? I am sure that you will be aware that such a move by the Government would be extremely dangerous, particularly when the ambulance men's union is merely asking for the dispute to be referred to arbitration, and that at no stage, at no time and nowhere have the ambulance men refused to answer 999 calls and undertake 999 duties. I am sure that you will agree that it is important to have a statement on this matter.

I have had no request for a statement, and I do not think that much has changed since we had a statement on this matter last week.

With the leave of the House, I will put together the two motions relating to statutory instruments.

With the leave of the House I will put together the three motions relating to European Community documents.