To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the total cost of re-equipping the Central line.

The Central line is to be re-equipped with new trains that will carry more people, it is to have new signalling to enable more trains to be run and it will be thoroughly modernised. This investment will cost about £720 million.

My hon. Friend's answer shows that the Government are fully committed to improving the Central line, and it will be much welcomed in my constituency of Wanstead and Woodford. My hon. Friend has dealt with the long-term solutions to the problem of the Central line, but does he accept that short-term interim improvements are needed, particularly to the signalling and track? Is he able to give any good news about that?

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I agree with him that my answer demonstrates the Government's long-term commitment to improving the Central line. We have brought forward the order for trains to the earliest possible date so that they will be running in 1992. More staff and trains need to be available to improve the reliability of the service. More staff will be available on stations to look after passengers. I am particularly keen that the escalators should be available for use more regularly. That point is covered in the objectives that have been set for London Regional Transport.

As the Minister knows, the Central line rattles through my constituency to Stratford station, and more often than not stops there. How much of the new investment is Government money as opposed to internally generated LRT money? Furthermore, will the long-awaited and much-welcomed proposals to improve the Central line take into account the possibility of Stratford being used as the site for the second London terminal of the Channel tunnel link?

If Stratford became the second London terminal, there might have to be some reappraisal, but the hon. Gentleman knows that a further £1 billion is to be invested to extend the Jubilee line to Stratford. There will, therefore, be additional capacity at Stratford in any case. It is also one of the candidates for a new railway line in the shape of the east-west cross rail link. The hon. Gentleman's point about Government subsidy gives me the opportunity to say that over the next three years Government subsidy to LRT will rise by 113 per cent. As a former chairman of the Greater London council, the hon. Gentleman will know that already the investment on London Underground is double what it was in his day as chairman of the GLC.

Is my hon. Friend aware of press reports that Central line and other London Underground drivers have been asked to switch off electricity to save it, thereby saving money? Will he confirm whether those press reports are true? If they are true, how much money is saved, who gains it and is it safe to switch off in that way?

I read the reports to which my hon. Friend referred, but I am afraid that I cannot help him. I do not know whether the reports are accurate. I am not responsible for the day-to-day management of London Underground. The plans for the Central line include a 16 per cent. increase in capacity and a 12 per cent. reduction in journey times. Whatever may be going on at the moment, electricity is being saved. The long-term objective is to carry more passengers more quickly on the Central line.

Does not the Minister acknowledge that LRT would have liked substantially more money to be made available to it by the Government? Is it not a fact that the investment plans for the Central line and other parts of the Underground system may be delayed or cancelled because of the lack of and the cuts in Government support, as is happening currently over the investment that British Rail has sought but has failed to get from the Government?

The hon. Lady surprises me. There has been no cut in Government support for LRT. There has been an enormous increase. I repeat, in case she had difficulty hearing me a few moments ago, that there will be a 113 per cent. increase in the Government grant during the next three years. LRT may wish more money, but it must recognise that those are record sums. Any child who goes into a sweet shop learns that what he wants is not what he can have. The Government have been generous in providing extra money to LRT.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department invested in London Regional Transport for 1989–90.

Government grant to London Regional Transport for 1989–90 is £287 million. That will enable LRT to invest approximately £400 million—a 60 per cent. increase in real terms since 1984 when the GLC had responsibility for funding.

Those are impressive figures. In view of the unprecedented increase in the number of passengers carried by LRT in the past few years, will my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department will make further sums available to LRT, so that it may enhance and improve services to the people of London in the next few years?

Yes, in our present plans we have announced an investment programme of more than £2·2 billion for the next three years, and we have announced that, as a result of the central London rail study, we shall come to Parliament with proposals for another line in November this year. Therefore, the figure of £2·2 billion excludes the substantial investment that is likely to take place in additional lines. That makes an all-time record of investment for London transport.

Is it not a scandal and a disgrace that, after 10 years of Conservative Government, the situation on the Underground is so bad that fares are being deliberately pushed up by well above the rate of inflation to discourage people from using it, which is pushing more people on to the congested roads? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not invest in cross-rails from north to south, and east to west, and a line from Heathrow, through Paddington and Oxford Circus, to Stratford in the east end of London?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the central London rail study made three suggestions. The first was the upgrading of the existing lines—£1·5 billion has been earmarked for that over the next three years. Secondly, it suggested an east-west cross-rail link. Thirdly, it said that a line from Chelsea to Hackney should be considered. As we have already told the House, one of those lines will go ahead, and we shall come forward with proposals in the autumn. We have also pointed out—and if the hon. Gentleman took a little more interest he would know—that we do not believe that London can stand the simultaneous construction of the Jubilee line, the east-west cross-rail and the Chelsea to Hackney line. They might make London a better place in 10 years, but they would make it impossible in the intervening period.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals to shorten the period between the announcement of a road and its construction.

We have set targets for reducing the average time taken to progress a scheme from start of preparation work to opening for traffic by four years. In introducing the changes, we have taken care to ensure that the rights of interested parties will not be affected.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that one of the ways in which implementation can be brought forward is by the earliest possible consultation with all interested and affected parties, rather than waiting for the inquiry? Does he agree that one way of bringing forward the Avonmouth relief road in my constituency would be to instruct the Department of Transport to talk to the owners and tenants of houses affected by the overhead section at the earliest possible date, in the hope that an alternative route might be found?

As my hon. Friend knows, the consultation period on the Avonmouth relief road has ended. We expect to make an announcement on the agreed route of the proposed road in the spring. After that, statutory procedures will have to be followed because it is vital that people whose rights may be affected should have the right to make representations. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend knows that I shall bear his comments in mind.

May I remind the Secretary of State that it is nearly 20 years since the Government announced their intention to build a motorway around the east side of Manchester, in which time less than half of it has been built? It now finishes in Denton in my constituency and does not continue to Middleton, which is causing difficult conditions for people on the old road. Will he speed up its completion and ensure that we have a motorway around the east side of Manchester as soon as possible?

I shall look into the point that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I thank him for underlining something that does not always seem to be understood by many Labour Members—that roads will play a vital part in Britain's future transport infrastructure.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the present arrangements for compensating those whose property values are affected by the announcement of a preferred route are grossly unfair? As I understand it, at present, those who are in the line of a route cannot claim compensation until two years after the road has been completed. Is that not totally unfair and unjust, and what will my right hon. Friend do about it?

My right hon. Friend has touched on an important point. I am not convinced that the present arrangements are satisfactory. I believe that there is great concern among those who could be affected, and we must find better ways of dealing with the problem than we have at present. I have the point firmly on board.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the total value of the extra fuel used by motor vehicles in the United Kingdom due to delays in 1989.

While accurate estimates are not possible, road congestion clearly increases fuel consumption, which must be a wasteful use of resources.

Does the Minister accept that the volume of fuel consumed by stationary or almost stationary vehicles must soon equal the total that was consumed by freely moving vehicles not all that many years ago? Will he study the matter to arrive at an estimate of the cost of those delays and the other consequencies of traffic congestion and traffic thrombosis, which are experienced on almost every long car journey throughout the country?

I defer to the hon. Gentleman's mathematical genius in doing such a calculation. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said earlier, that demonstrates the need for improved, wider and, where necessary, new roads, which is part and parcel of the Government's policy.

My hon. Friend recently visited the north-east—we were very pleased to see him—so I am sure that he is aware of the amount of fuel that is wasted by drivers travelling from London to the north-east on the A1. Can he offer me and my constituents any hope that the A1 will be improved to motorway standard within the foreseeable future?

My hon. Friend is a doughty supporter of the new requirements for the A1, and I give him credit for that. He will know that we are devoting much time, effort and commitment to improving the A1 and that we are giving much consideration to its conversion to a motorway between London and Newcastle. As he well knows, the problems involve several local people on either side of the A1, and they must be taken into account. My hon. Friend was right to raise the matter in the terms that he did.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and what was discussed.

I last met the chairman of British Rail on 13 December, when a wide variety of rail topics were discussed.

Will my right hon. Friend tell me what British Rail's investment plans are for the next few years? Does he believe that its provision is adequate nationally and in the north-west?

Over the next three years, British Rail plans to invest £3·7 billion in the network, which, as Sir Robert Reid mentioned in his very interesting speech, represents a doubling of investment from when he began his job. It is a record level of investment, and, in his own words, is,

"practically as much as we can manage."

Does not the Secretary of State accept that rail commuters, wherever they live, are entitled to parity of services? Is he aware of British Rail's ludicrous proposal in my area to remove the Super Sprinters from the Inverness to Aberdeen route, to resolve some little local difficulties elsewhere in the network? Does he therefore accept the need for investment to cover the whole country, to ensure that some regions do not benefit at the expense of others? Will he look into that ridiculous proposal?

I shall happily look into that matter on behalf of the hon. Lady and write to her. One difficulty has been that much of the new rolling stock has failed to perform. British Rail has found itself in substantial difficulties, with new trains that do not meet the required specification.

Was there not something of a discrepancy between the recent speech by the chairman of British Rail and press reports of it? Given one of the points that the present chairman made about the need for assistance to complete an environmentally acceptable link from London to the Channel tunnel, can my right hon. Friend tell me whether the Government are unwilling to provide assistance or whether they believe that section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 precludes them from doing so?

My hon. Friend has noticed what even The Observer noticed yesterday: the report of the speech and the speech bore little resemblance to each other. Sir Robert said that, at the end of his period as chairman, British Rail was in an unprecedented position of strength. His speech was widely misreported.

Does the Secretary of State accept that, according to the interpretation of at least such well-known Left-wing newspapers as the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph, Sir Robert Reid's recent speech was a denunciation of the Government's investment policy? What proportion are the Government providing of the billions of pounds that are soon to be invested in British Rail? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, if he used the same cost-benefit analysis that he uses to justify the Government's road programme in order to electrify and modernise our railway network, Britain could have a railway system that is desirable as well as profitable?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the whole speech. He will find that Sir Robert pointed to the tremendous improvement in British Rail—69 million more passengers and record investment—and said that his successor would inherit a rail system that was infinitely better prepared for the 1990s than it was for the 1980s, when he took over. The Government will put in substantial parts of the programme.

How much?

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has today tabled a question on that matter to the Treasury, and I shall not anticipate the answer. By the way, I should like to know where the hon. Gentleman is—this is the second Question Time in succession that he has missed. Perhaps he does not approve of televising the proceedings in the House and is making his protest. When the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) sees that answer, he will find that the investment is substantially funded from the public purse.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any representations on the implications of the traffic assessment studies for London on traffic congestion in the outer London boroughs following his Statement on 14 December 1989, Official Report, columns 1184-1202.

Not yet, but any such comments received by 28 February will, of course, be considered carefully.

I thank my hon. Friend and the Department for handling this matter flexibly and creatively. Does my hon. Friend agree that, after so much waiting, hesitation and uncertainty, it is essential that we proceed rapidly? Does my hon. Friend further agree that we could call Marsham street Robert Atkins avenue if he said that the period of consultation would be completed as rapidly as possible?

My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the proceedings have gone on too long and that there should be early completion of the consultation. I am grateful to him for his kind remarks, but of course I should defer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in these matters.

The Minister will be aware that the proposals in the east London assessment study for a major highway from Archway through the heart of my constituency to King's Cross are causing my constituents enormous concern. Can he assure me that the consultation exercise, which ends on 28 February, is not simply a cosmetic exercise, that the Department will listen to the representations that are made and that, if it becomes obvious that the overwhelming majority of people in my constituency are opposed to the road going past their doorstep, he will abandon the proposals?

The hon. Gentleman is to raise the matter on the Adjournment later this week, and I look forward to debating it with him in detail then. He may or may not know that the Archway road saga and related developments have been going on since 1947, if not before. As someone who served on that local authority, I understand only too well the concerns about the Archway road. The hon. Gentleman's point about consultation was well made and I can assure him that any representations will be listened to most carefully and that, depending on what the consultations show, we shall take appropriate action.

Would not traffic congestion on the west side of outer London be increased by the construction of a fifth terminal at Heathrow?

I know that that subject is dear to my hon. Friend's heart. He could possibly tempt me into making a long comment about it; suffice it to say that his views are well known and that we shall consider them carefully when we consider the question overall.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail concerning freight facilities in south Wales.

In December Ministers were given a presentation on British Rail's plans for rail services between the Channel tunnel and every region of the country. Those plans envisage a major terminal in south Wales.

May I draw the Minister's attention to the importance of the area bordering the proposed second Severn crossing? Does he appreciate the fact that local interests are now calling for the reopening of closed railway stations and for more extensive use of existing stations, for park-and-ride facilities, for a rail terminal and for the electrification of the main lines from Paddington to south Wales? Will the Minister assure the House that he fully realises the importance of the area stretching all the way along the coast to Newport?

Certainly, British Rail recognises the importance of the area and that is why, in its plans for the Channel tunnel, it has included a freight terminal somewhere between Newport and Cardiff. The exact location is yet to be determined. British Rail recognises the importance of the development for passengers, too. It envisages services connecting south Wales to Waterloo to give passengers an easy interchange with the international services and so that there can be night passenger services direct from south Wales to the continent. In all those respects, British Rail recognises the vital part that south Wales has to play in the post-1992 European structure.

Pembroke dock in my constituency, at the end of the west Wales railway line, is conducting an increasing amount of trade with Ireland and Spain. Will the Minister bear in mind the merits of a terminal in that region so that we can take advantage of the increasing trade in 1992?

My hon. Friend would expect me to reply that, if private sector elements wish to develop the dock further and if trade is available from Ireland, through Wales to the United Kingdom, we shall look favourably on investors coming forward with proposals. I am sure that British Rail will want to play its part in any such venture.

Did the Minister note reports published over the weekend of a Belgian study showing that the older industrial areas of the United Kingdom, such as south Wales, could become increasingly marginalised as a result of European Community developments unless there is major investment in infrastructure? Will the Minister look at the implications for new freight terminals and acknowledge that the regional implications of European Community developments are properly a matter for central Government and not just British Rail, and that central Government should be co-ordinating regional arrangements to deal with the impact of the EC?

The whole of the United Kingdom is at one extremity of the European Community and the issue therefore arises about our becoming peripheral in some sense to Europe. As the hon. Gentleman knows, train services between south Wales and the south-east of England are extremely good. He may know also that Britain has more train services running at more than 100 mph than any other European country except France. We already have a very high standard of infrastructure use and British Rail has expressed its wish to develop that further.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much Network SouthEast plans to spend in the next three years.

Network SouthEast has plans to invest some 1.2 billion between 1990–91 and 1992–93. This represents an increase of about 30 per cent. in real terms over the previous three-year period.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the long-suffering commuters of the south-east are entitled to a much fairer deal than they have received in recent years in terms of restraints on prospective fare increases and travelling in comfort? With regard to the latter, when can we expect delivery of the new rolling stock that we have long been promised?

In August I approved an order for £257 million worth of new rolling stock for the north Kent lines. The first of those trains will come into service in January 1992. I expect to receive an additional application for further investment for the 471 series trains which will serve my hon. Friend's constituency, and they will come into service a year later.

In considering Network SouthEast, will my right hon. Friend undertake to make representations to British Rail to the effect that all interested parties should be involved in the process of policy and decision-making leading up to the final delineation of the high-speed link through Kent to south-east London so that there will be no loss of service in Network South East as a result of the development of that link—if and when it takes place?

British Rail recognises that its early handling of that issue and consultation with the public: left something to be desired. It also recognises that Network SouthEast is one of the fastest-growing networks in terms of passengers, with a 25 per cent. increase over the past five years. British Rail recognises that additional capacity will be needed, and that is one reason why the high-speed link is under consideration.

The Secretary of State did not answer the question about the price of developments in the south-east. It is clear that passengers will not continue to pay high fares for poor accommodation. Will the Secretary of State accept that too many passengers throughout British Rail's network are paying for almost the entire investment programme?

The hon. Lady's latter assertion is not true. During the past five years, the subsidy has been reduced, the income of the system has risen and investment has increased enormously. We now have more passengers while the system is less heavily subsidised, and passengers are using an improving service. I believe that that is the right way forward, not the Labour party's policy of subsidies to passengers and no investment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to auction aircraft slots at Heathrow and Gatwick airports to the highest bidder.

My right hon. Friend has no such plans. He is awaiting advice from the Civil Aviation Authority on how the price mechanism might be used to make the most effective use of airport capacity.

In the light of the link-up between Air France and UTA at the weekend, which will give Air France control over all domestic flights in France and regional and international flights, and in the light of the non-aggression pact between Lufthansa and Air France, is my right hon. Friend aware that two blocs will emerge —Air France and Lufthansa together and British Airways, Sabena and KLM—which will control 60 per cent. of the slots at Heathrow? Is he also aware that, as a result, British Midland Airways, which was granted seven licences by the Civil Aviation Authority to fly to Europe, cannot use any of them because of the absence of slots at Heathrow? What will my right hon. Friend do about that in connection with the Government's competition policy?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are addressing ourselves to the matter, and we have asked the CAA to advise us so that we can ensure that smaller airlines receive equal opportunities to some of the larger ones.

To ease pressure at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, what progress are Ministers making in their negotiations with the United States about more transatlantic flights to and from Manchester airport? Is the Minister aware of the considerable urgency of that important issue?

Indeed, I am. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Secretary Skinner last week, and we are hopeful of the outcome of that meeting. We are aware of the important role that regional airports can play. During the past 10 years, the Government have made a considerable amount of money available to regional airports. There is nothing to stop regional airports attracting private sector involvement. which would provide greater user potential. Both Manchester and Birmingham airports issue scheduling rights.

Whatever the CAA might propose, will my hon. Friend assure the House that he has absolutely no proposals to increase the number of flights allowed out of Heathrow, or to do anything to increase night quotas or relax noise controls at Heathrow airport?

I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently said that we will not increase the number of night flights from Heathrow. My hon. Friend's other two points are in our minds when we make decisions on practices at Heathrow airport.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a Statement on the development of rapid light transport railway systems.

Light rail systems can play a part in improving public transport in some of Britain's cities. We will consider making available central Government grant to those which are expected to bring about reduced road congestion, environmental improvements and economic development.

Does the Minister agree that restrictions on section 56 grants hamper progress on light railways? Does he further agree that light railways are required in our cities and towns, and required quickly?

I cannot agree that our section 56 criteria are inhibiting investment. Only in October last year the Government were able to agree to the Manchester Metrolink, which is a £110 million project, financed and operated in the private sector, and which is likely to enjoy a Government grant of about £40 million. Last year, we were also able to authorise investment in building a case for the South Yorkshire supertram.

My hon. Friend should be aware that my constituents would not wish him to be distracted by light railway systems from ensuring that the traditional Network SouthEast services are improved to their absolute maximum rather than building unnecessary roads in the London area.

I assure my hon. Friend that I will not be distracted by light rail systems, but I hope that I will give them the consideration that they merit. Certainly, the fact that there will be a £1·2 billion investment programme in Network SouthEast over the coming three years suggests that we will not be distracted.

Order. Would the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) please not read a newspaper?

Have not the Government shown a rather belated recognition of the important part that light rail has to play in places such as Croydon and London docklands? Is the Minister aware that, about two years ago, I approached his predecessor but two asking that the docklands light railway be extended to Barking and Thamesmead, and that I was turned down? Is it not stupid to build a six-lane highway across the River Thames, irrespective of the merits of doing so, and not extend at least one line of the docklands light railway across a new bridge to Thamesmead?

The hon. Gentleman cannot sustain the accusation that we have been behind the game with light rail in London. After all, the docklands light railway was constructed when many Labour Members thought that docklands would enjoy no success and that the establishment of the docklands light railway was a waste of money. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Croydon. I am told that there is a plan to deposit a Bill in the House in November 1991. A proposal is being formed for an extension of the docklands light railway to Lewisham. We do not yet know how that will be financed. When we know that, we can consider whether to allow London Regional Transport to deposit a Bill next November.

Does my hon. Friend agree that at long last a number of encouraging schemes for light rail transit are coming forward? Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), is it not true that in the capital such schemes are not as well advanced as in other of our major cities? Would not the expedition of such schemes do something to allay increasing congestion on London's roads?

May I welcome my hon. Friend back and say how pleased we are to see him here? The schemes are progressing apace in London and throughout the country. Many schemes are being talked about now, but not many of them have been brought to the point at which an application for Government grant has been made. However, we expect to hear shortly from Avon and West Midlands, and there is a long list of other authorities which may or may not apply for grants in due course.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he plans to visit the county palatine to discuss the impact of the uniform business rate.

I shall visit the county palatinate on 1 and 23 February. On 1 February I shall be speaking at a dinner of the Manchester chamber of commerce and I am sure that there will be ample opportunity to discuss the enormous benefits accruing to businesses in the county palatinate from the uniform business rate.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the uniform business rate is the most effective instrument of regional policy since the war? Will he reiterate the Government's willingness to reconsider the transitional arrangements for small businesses?

On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, the answer is most certainly yes. There are substantial benefits to businesses in the north—in the whole of the north, not just the north-west—as a result of the uniform business rate. The yield of business rates in the north-west will fall by about £300 million over the coming years, with substantial reductions of about 44 per cent. for factories, 16·5 per cent. for shops and 35 per cent. for offices.

When the Chancellor visits the north-west, will he talk to Mr. Duffy at his grocer's shop in Adlington, which is in the constituency of Chorley, as the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) is telling him? Mr. Duffy faces almost a doubling of his local tax under the scheme, which is the right hon. Gentleman's own work. When Mr. Duffy's poll tax is added, he will face an increase in his local taxes in excess of 100 per cent. Even allowing for the transitional arrangements, he is likely to pay a minimum of 25 per cent. more, which will be about £500 per year extra. What will the Chancellor say to Mr. Duffy?

I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what I should say to Mr. Duffy; that if we had kept the rating system, as a result of the overspending plans of Lancashire county council the rates this year would have risen by over one third, which would certainly be a great problem for Mr. Duffy, both as a small trader and an ordinary taxpayer. There is no doubt that this is a fairer and better system of local taxation for businesses and for ordinary community charge payers.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in future businesses in Lancashire will be protected from the appalling weight of the burdens thrust on them every year since Lancashire county council fell under the control of Labour, which is probably why the Labour party did not do too well in the by-election in Blackpool on Thursday? As my right hon. Friend has observed, under the old system, the increase this year would have been very nearly one third.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The advantage of the uniform business rate to businesses not only in the north-west but across the country is that local variations, which are largely due to overspending by Labour local councils, will be a thing of the past. In the Labour-controlled local authority of Manchester, which is one of the jewels in the Labour party's local authority crown, the rate poundage has increased over 10 years by 240 per cent. compound which, after allowing for inflation, is 44 per cent. That is an enormous burden upon businesses in Manchester.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much time he has spent on official duties since he last answered oral parliamentary questions.

I have spent up to a quarter of my time carrying out my duties as Chancellor since I last answered oral parliamentary questions.

That does not seem to be a heavy workload. The right hon. Gentleman's job seems about as relevant as that of court correspondent for the Exchange and Mart. Is this not just a con—a way to get the British taxpayer to pay him a salary of £52,000 so that he can sit in the Cabinet as chairman of the Conservative party? Would it not be better, because of his role as the Josef Goebbels of the Conservative party, for Central Office, rather than the hard-pressed British taxpayer, to pay his salary?

I receive no Ministerial salary. The hon. Gentleman should be the last person to attack me for having two jobs because he used to have two jobs. He was chairman of the Greater London council while representing Newham, North-West in the House. I deprived him of his first job in 1986 and I shall do all that I can to deprive him of his present job at the next general election.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what recent discussions he has had with the National Audit Office; and if he will make a Statement.

I met the Comptroller and Auditor General and the head of the National Audit Office and his deputy at the meeting of the Public Accounts Commission on 12 December 1989. In addition, I have regular informal contacts with the Comptroller and the Auditor General and his staff.

When the hon. Gentleman next meets the officers, will he say to them that there is continuing disquiet about employers not handing over to the Exchequer national insurance contributions that are collected? According to one civil servant who has blown the whistle, an estimated £1 million a day that is collected from low-paid workers in this way is not handed over. Will he tell the officers that it is high time that they used their powers at the National Audit Office to investigate this serious complaint? If the Government can have officers running round all parts of the country investigating people who have received £30 from the Department of Social Security, they should be investigating this matter.

That is an interesting question, but unfortunately it is not one for the Public Accounts Commission. It sounds to me like one for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, I shall write to the Comptroller and Auditor General to see that the hon. Gentleman gets a reply.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Public Accounts Commission last met; and what matters were discussed.

The Commission last met on 12 December 1989 when, among other subjects we discussed the Estimates for 1990–91 of the National Audit Office and the Northern Ireland National Audit Office, and the corporate plan for the National Audit Office to 1994–95.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, last week, statutory instruments relating to the Official Secrets Acts were before the House but were blocked. Hon. Members blocked them because of a condition relating to the National Audit Office, which is that those who work for the office could be described as Crown servants and could therefore fall under the ambit of the Official Secrets Acts. Will the hon. Gentleman reassure the House that National Audit Office staff will be free to continue their work on behalf of the Public Accounts Commission to examine all papers relevant to the pursuit of public money? Will he make those assurances publicly?

I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office will be able to pursue their duties, as they have always been able to, under the new legislation affecting the Official Secrets Acts.

Will the Public Accounts Committee look into the massive £2,000 million net contribution that we made last year to the European Community, which I understand is a major—

Order. This question is about the Public Accounts Commission, not the Public Accounts Committee.

Indeed, the Commission is even better than the Committee. Could it look into that matter and see whether we can get more of our money back?

I am not sure that the Commission is any better than the Committee. The matter is more properly for the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee than for the Public Accounts Commission.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is unacceptable, on an issue where the Public Accounts Commission could make representations, that the Public Accounts Committee is unable to—

Order. The same rules apply. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, so he should know.

I am referring specifically to the Commission's relationship to the Committee and the fact that it can make representations to the Committee. The PAC does not have access to information about State expenditure on the security services and GCHQ. That is shown as a single sum in the Vote and we are not allowed in any way to investigate the areas of expenditure covered by those headings. Members of Parliament may want more information, although not wishing to interfere in the operational work of that department.

Although that is another interesting question, I fear that it is not one for the Commission, whose remit in these matters is limited.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to invoke the use of the provisions of Standing Order No. 10.

I have no such plans.

The Lord President will be aware that Standing Order No. 10 which related to the possibility of adjourning the House and resuming on a morning sitting has been in disuse for nearly 20 years. It was introduced by one of his predecessors, Richard Crossman. After that 20-year gap, does he consider that it is time to look again at the relevance of a similar Standing Order, either by revamping or reinstituting Standing Order No. 10 or by some similar measure, so that hon. Members can proceed with business more rationally?

It is unusual for the hon. Gentleman to express such enthusiasm for a matter on which there has already been an experiment which failed. Standing Order No. 10 was introduced in 1967—

I was at school then.

The hon. Gentleman may have been at school then—

Primary school.

So much the better for the hon. Gentleman. The Standing Order has not been used since 1969. It was found to be inconvenient, not just by Ministers but by hon. Members on both sides of the House to reassemble the House the following morning. It broke the continuity of the debate and did not work. I see no case for re-examining it.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend resist any suggestion to adopt the policy advocated by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), because of the pressure that that would place on Members who represent provincial constituencies a long way from London to base their families in London? That would break the link that many Members find important of living in the communities that they represent rather than in this all-too-dominating capital city?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. No doubt it was one of the many that led to the disuse of the Standing Order 20 years ago.

To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he is ready to announce what changes he proposes to the private Bill procedure; and if he will make a Statement.

No, Sir, but I hope that it will be possible to announce before too long how we intend to take this matter forward.

I hope that the Leader of the House will make a better fist of this than he did last week. When he introduces any alterations, will he bear in mind last week's unseemly behaviour when the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill received its Third Reading? During those proceedings there were never fewer than 50 hon. Members opposed to the Bill present in the House. Yet at 10 o'clock there was a sudden traffic jam outside when Ministerial cars packed to the roof with Ministers came rolling in to secure the Aye vote. They argued that they were not on a three-line Whip, but they were led by the Prime Minister. Is it not a scandal that the Government promoters and, in this case, the South African authorities which wish to bring coal into Britain, are abusing so-called private Bills?

I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman is such a bad loser in that and many other matters. The Bill commanded substantial attention from both sides of the House for a long time. It is not surprising, therefore, that it received a substantial vote in its favour last week and was safely enacted by the House.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the simplest reform of the private Bill procedure advocated by the Procedure Committee which relates to the means of objection and which is supported by both sides of the House? The mumbling behind hands and behind Order Papers in order to object to a Bill is unseemly and does the House no good.

I shall certainly take account of that point among the many recommendations of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure. It is clear that the House wants the private Bill procedure to remain an effective force, but it is equally clear that significant changes must be made to it. I shall consider them all.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals for an institutional link between the House and the European Parliament.

I have no plans at this stage to bring forward proposals for a formal link of this kind, but I am giving careful consideration to the Procedure Committee's important discussion in its recent report of the other possible aspects of this matter.

Does the Leader of the House agree that Members of the European Parliament are not elected to be a mouthpiece either for this House or for the British Government? Nevertheless, because of the nature of the subjects and the interchange of legislation between the European Parliament and this House, some type of institutional connection would be valuable to all concerned, whether they be elected for the governing party or the opposition parties. At least that would save the time of the chairman of the Tory party, who last week called in dissident Tory Members of the European Parliament and threatened them with expulsion from the Tory party because they were not toeing the line in Europe. We do not want that type of confusion; people should be allowed to speak freely. We in this House should have the means of input with Members of the European Parliament when they get to grips with that end of the legislative operation.

The hon. Gentleman's case does not need to be supported by unjust accusations against my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Procedure Committee has made recommendations for developments in this area. In recent years there has been a steady series of changes, informal and formal, so that Members of the European Parliament increasingly attend Back-Bench meetings of both major parliamentary parties. Certainly the European Democratic Group meets regularly in the Palace of Westminster. There are a number of initiatives, including that taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to inrease such informal contacts and there will be others. They all deserve to be considered sympathetically.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the cause of many of the difficulties that we have had in recent years with the European Parliament is that Members of that Parliament are in a political vacuum? That arose largely because the House agreed to the direct election of Members to the European Parliament. Would it not have been better to have had indirect elections of Members of this House who could have served in Europe by rota? All of us would have had the experience of exercising responsibility towards the European Community.

My hon. Friend is entitled to advocate such an approach, but it is not required by or compatible with the arrangements made with the EC. Most people believe that it is difficult to combine both jobs, and one consequence of trying to maintain the dual mandate was that we moved to direct elections.

Is the Leader of the House aware that the problem derives from the fact that, under the treaty of Rome, Members of the European Parliament have no control over the legislation and, under the prerogative, the House of Commons has no control over the Ministers who go? Therefore, both the European Parliament and the House of Commons are impotent observers of decisions taken in secret by the Council of Ministers on the instructions or the advice of the Commission, which is elected by nobody but appointed by Governments.

That is a very compact oversimplification of the position. As a result of the Single European Act among other things, Members of the European Parliament have a significant role in legislative matters coming before the European Parliament. As a result of hon. Members' continued consideration of the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee and others, hon. Members also have a significant influence on the position adopted by Ministers in the Council of Ministers.

The Lord President rightly says that there are growing party and personal links, but is not part of the equation missing if we do not have the institutional links suggested by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)? We need the formal linkage of membership to, for example, a Select Committee for the Members of the European Parliament, and MEPs should have facilities such as telexes, a fax room and telephones as are provided in other national Parliaments.

I cannot comment in detail on the Select Committee's recommendations on this. However, my hon. Friend will remember that the report recently submitted by the Select Committee concluded that there were no strong arguments for recommending formal links such as he suggests. There is certainly a case for looking at the improvement of physical communications by post as well as telecommunications.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the take at the souvenir kiosk in December 1989.

Gross takings in the kiosk for the month of December 1989, including VAT, were £171,325.

I thank the Leader of the House for that information. Will he convey the thanks of the House to the staff who work in the kiosk for the enormous work that they do before Christmas? Would it not be appropriate for them to receive a hefty bonus for that work? It seems from the figures that the path to reselection is paved with Victorian House of Commons mints and tins of humbugs and fudge. Would it not be appropriate to relocate the kiosk to Westminster Hall, where members of the general public could get to it and purchase some of the excellent commodities on sale? That would also improve the profitability of the House.

There is certainly a case for examining the possibility of extending this facility, but such matters must always be considered in the light of the limited accommodation available in the Palace of Westminster. I hope that, as the hon. Gentleman seeks reselection, he will find it convenient to make use of House of Commons fudge in large quantities.