To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he will take to increase the efficiency of the administration of the coastguard service.

Her Majesty's Coastguard is generally recognised as one of the most modern and efficient marine rescue co-ordination services in Europe. All coastguard rescue centres are being progressively fitted with updated communications and a computerised data handling system. Coastguard training has recently been reviewed to meet current requirements, and improvements will be implemented later this year.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer and for coming to north Devon to meet the coastguards who work along our coast. Does he accept that we consider the quality of the men, both full-time and auxiliary employees, to be unbeatable? Can he assure me and my hon. Friends with constituencies in the area that there will be no repetition of the two unfortunate deaths as a result of apparent faults in the chain of command and procedure and will he be prepared to answer an Adjournment debate, should one be sought?

My recent visit to north Devon was most useful, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having accompanied me on the visit. The two incidents to which he referred were very serious and those tragic deaths were to be regretted. It is worth emphasising as we come up to the period when people take their holidays on the coast that the coastline, although attractive, can also be very dangerous. Everyone should bear it in mind on all occasions that safety is paramount.

Is the Minister aware that the closure of the Isle of Man Ramsey coastguard station leaves 4,000 sq m of water without protection? What protection is provided for the resorts on the north-west coast, covering 300 miles of coastline?

I wholly reject the idea that any area of the coastline is unprotected and is not covered by the coastguard service. Our intention is to provide an effective and co-ordinated service, and that is exactly what the coastguard service does. Our objective is to ensure that every area is covered by the most effective means.

Will my hon. Friend examine the regulations governing small ships sailing near the coast? Recently we nearly had a tragedy in the north-east of England as a consequence of a boat drifting out to sea. It had no means of getting in touch with anyone. It was only through the good offices of the Royal Air Force that there was no loss of life. There are no rules and regulations requiring small ships to carry any means of communication. Will the Government consider introducing regulations to require small ships to carry radio equipment?

My hon. Friend has asked an important question concerning people who go to sea without the necessary experience of and respect for it. On many occasions, that can lead to tragedy. I shall examine closely the incident to which my hon. Friend refers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the electrification of the railway between Leeds and Bradford; and if he will make a statement.

We have received more than 200 letters and representations from the passenger transport authority and five local hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, favouring electrification of the Leeds-Bradford railway. We are still considering the case.

The new Forster square station in Bradford, paid for by the local authority, has opened today, and a new platform has been built at nearby Shipley to foster and develop inter-city services to Bradford. Does the Minister accept that the Labour majority and the Conservative minority on the council, the rail unions and the railway management, together with the chamber of commerce, support the electrification of the 10 miles from Leeds to Bradford? Electrification is important for operational standards and ease of operation to ensure that the premier city of Yorkshire, Bradford, has adequate and proper inter-city services. The £6·5 million is a good investment, provided that a decision is made in the near future.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House of the great value of electrification. I agree with him about the electrification of the east coast main line, which cost £450 million and which I was glad to inaugurate two weeks ago. I am mindful of the arguments deployed in favour of electrification. I plan to visit the West Yorkshire passenger transport executive shortly, and I hope to meet the hon. Gentleman on that occasion, together with other hon. Gentlemen from Yorkshire who have been supporting the scheme.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the east coast electrification is the biggest-ever electrification scheme in the United Kingdom? It means that people like me can travel from Leeds to London in under two hours in great comfort? Does he agree that at the end of the day it is for British Rail management, based on business decisions, to decide whether other lines should be electrified or should retain diesel traction?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observations on the value of electrification on the east coast mainline. Of course he is right; two hours to Leeds, three hours to Newcastle and four hours to Edinburgh are impressive speeds over that line. I agree that it is for British Rail to decide which further lines should be electrified, and the Government await proposals from British Rail with interest and with underlying support.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to provide Government financial support to ensure that any channel tunnel terminal at Stratford is linked to King's Cross.

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that all the regions should be properly served by freight and passenger services to and from the channel tunnel.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his and the Government's bungling and mismanagement threaten the high-speed link and the channel tunnel? Will he give the House an assurance that the Ove Arup proposal for a high-speed link to London will be allowed to be negotiated with British Rail, and will he join the Opposition in repealing section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, which prevents public money from going into such schemes, at the earliest possible opportunity so that my region can benefit from 1992 and the single market?

In 1993 when the tunnel opens British Rail will be putting into service 3 million seats a year from the regions; 70 per cent. of all the freight going through the tunnel will come from the regions, and proper arrangements are being made. The Government are in the process of modernising and improving the railway system that the Labour Government so shamefully ignored.

Is not it true that what really counts is not the time taken on a journey but that the journey is faster, more comfortable and more convenient than the competition?

I agree with my right hon. Friend. May I point out to Opposition Members, especially the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who talks about 45 mph journeys from London to the tunnel, that trains will run at 100 mph? British freight trains run more quickly than continental freight trains, most of which are restricted to 60 mph. Will he stop giving the impression that the TGV is a freight train?

Does the Secretary of State agree that any route from Stratford to King's Cross would be more economical if it were combined with the cross-rail which he is now considering? Does he recall that a few weeks ago he replied to a question from me asking why he would not apply the Victoria line cost-benefit analysis used by the late Mr. Ernest Marples to any part of the channel tunnel route? Will he apply the formula used by Mr. Marples for the Victoria line to any lines in London, and why does he refuse to use it for part of the channel tunnel link?

Because the House of Commons, in an Act passed with the full support of the Labour party, made it illegal for the Government to subsidise any fast tunnel link, on the ground that it would create unfair competition for ships, road freight and airlines. When we consider London Underground provision, we use precisely the same analysis as was used by the late Lord Marples. No underground line in London could be justified on economic grounds. The House of Commons decided that the channel tunnel link should not be subsidised, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman voted for that clause.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is deep anxiety in north-west Kent and south London about the rumours that the channel tunnel rail link project might be shelved? Shelving the project will simply allow the confusion, rumour and blight to continue, with adverse effects on my constituents. Is he further aware that some people are demanding the use of taxpayers' money for a project capable of being financed by private capital? Will he continue to resist those demands?

Yes. My hon. Friend is saying that this is an extremely complex issue which needs careful consideration, and that is precisely what the Government are giving it. When the Government reach their decision, the House of Commons will be the first to be informed.

Is the Secretary of State aware that if section 42 had applied to any of the existing European high-speed links, they would not have been built because they all involved public money or public guarantee? Does he accept that since both sides of the House passed the provision in section 42, the fear of unfair competition has receded due to the doubling of the cost of channel tunnel, faster ferries and congestion at our airports? That fully justifies the repeal of section 42, for which I offer the Secretary of State the fullest support. It will be essential if Britain is to have a high-speed network so that our economy can prosper in Europe.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that constructive and helpful intervention. I do not wish to blight his prospects, but I thank him for that constructive suggestion. But there were good, sound reasons for section 42. We shall debate the Commission's proposals tomorrow. It is no part of its proposals that Europe's rail lines should be subsidised. The thrust of the Commission is to make Europe's railways competitive and to get rid of subsidy, and that is precisely what the Germans and others are considering now.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if regions such as Yorkshire are to receive the full benefit of the massive investment that has already gone into rail electrification, trains that originate in our region must have rapid transit by whatever route through London and the south-east on to the continent and that decision must be made soon so that work can begin as quickly as possible?

I have good news for my hon. Friend. The work has already begun. Work is in hand, huge investment is already being made and orders have been placed for the modernisation of lines, for improved rolling stock and for new freight centres. From the day the tunnel opens my hon. Friend's region and others will be properly served and will have access to all aspects of the tunnel.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the transport of radioactive material within the United Kingdom.

The transport of radioactive material in the United Kingdom is governed by the regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency. These regulations are kept under continuous review; major revisions take place every 10 years, and the most recent one was in 1985.

Will the Minister confirm that at present it is permissible to carry nuclear waste on passenger ferries and that it is the Government's policy to permit high-level nuclear waste to be taken through the channel tunnel? Do not the Government consider it a grave dereliction of duty that routes for nuclear waste are entirely a matter for the carrier and have nothing to do with the Government? May we have an announcement of a review of both policies so that people can be assured that nuclear waste is carried on designated, publicly known routes on which it will produce the minimum risk to the safety of members of the public who also use those routes?

I was under the impression that the question was about the transport of radioactive material within the United Kingdom, not outside it. I assure the hon. Gentleman, whose new-found interest in the matter I discovered recently—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I draw it to the attention of the House that the Radioactive Materials (Road Transport) Bill recently passed through the House in one-and-a-half minutes and that the Liberal party was completely unrepresented [Interruption.] The serious answer to the question is that the Government take, and for many years have taken, great interest in these matters. We abide by international regulations which are reviewed regularly and we are as satisfied as anyone can be that the regulations are effective, efficient and brought up to date at every opportunity.

If the Government are determined to pursue the ludicrous policy of turning the United Kingdom into the nuclear dustbin of the world, does the Minister accept that he has a clear responsibility to ensure that the routes that will be used are reviewed, particularly against the background of the recent statements of the chief executive of British Nuclear Fuels plc that high-level nuclear waste may be disposed of at Sellafield and Dounreay? Will the Minister, therefore, undertake to put pressure on the authority to ensure that the routes are published and that details of the quality of the vehicles used are known to the public?

I hesitate to give the hon. Lady lessons, but there is a difference, of which people should be aware, between nuclear waste and the reprocessing of used nuclear fuel. We have an efficient and effective industry, part of which is in the constituency adjacent to mine and others. Hon. Members should be aware of the regulations that apply when such material is shipped round the country. The safety of the regulations has been demonstrated on more than one occasion, not least in 1984 when a train travelling at 100 mph crashed, causing no damage whatever.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to revise his Department's policy towards bus deregulation.

No. Deregulation has resulted in greater diversity of service for passengers and more bus mileage at lower costs.

Is the Minister aware that the figures clearly show that since bus deregulation traffic congestion on the bridges over the River Tyne has increased greatly and that deregulation has caused great difficulties for our previously excellent, integrated transport system? Will he cast dogma aside and make urgent proposals to exempt areas such as Tyne and Wear from this crazy policy?

The hon. Lady may know that highway authorities already have the power to prevent bus operators from using certain streets or parts of their area if there is congestion. Obviously, congestion on the bridges over the Tyne begs the question whether there should be further infrastructure investment in roads and bridges over the Tyne. That is not a matter for the passenger transport executive, but next time I visit Gateshead and Newcastle I shall look into congestion, specifically on the bridges.

Does my hon. Friend agree that bus deregulation has greatly improved bus and coach services to the general benefit, but that it is important that competitive pressures should not lead to bus drivers being encouraged to break the speed limit? Will he look carefully at the present arrangements for examining tachograph records and provide for a general survey of them to ensure that the speed limit is not broken?

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's comment that deregulation has brought many benefits to the travelling public. Naturally, there has been innovation. About 7,000 minibuses have been introduced in more than 600 places. I shall make inquiries about tachographs and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his advice.

The Minister's answers on deregulation are not only complacent but misleading. Does he accept the Association of Metropolitan Authorities' report that since deregulation the number of bus trips has fallen by between 100 million and 200 million more than would otherwise have been expected? Does he accept that significant among the negative factors affecting the public is the much-reduced availability of common ticketing and abnormally high levels of passenger service changes, exemplified in Greater Manchester where 90 per cent. of the services were changed within 12 months? Finally, is he aware that, on present trends, the average vehicle life of a conventional bus will be 43 years, whereas before deregulation it was 16 years?

The hon. Lady selects her statistics carefully. Bus deregulation has brought many benefits to the travelling public, including more bus miles run—some 18 per cent. up—more choice and innovation and a better service.

Although I recognise the benefits of bus deregulation in other parts of the country, will my hon. Friend be cautious about any increase in that policy in Greater London? Will he assure the House that any bus deregulation in Greater London will have an eye to the present problem of buses being one of the less-used parts of the public transport system? They need to be more fully and effectively used if we are to deal with the problem of congestion in Greater London.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's cautionary note. No decisions have yet been reached about the timing of the deregulation or privatisation of London buses.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chair of British Rail to discuss improvements in rail services.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chair of British Rail to discuss investment in rail services.

I have regular meetings with the chairman of British Rail.

In those discussions have the right hon. Gentleman and the chairman compared the expected travelling time between Calais and Lyon and between Dover and Darlington in five years' time? Can he assure our citizens that the services available to them will be comparable with those available to the citizens of France?

The hon. Lady makes the mistake of joining the gang who find every country attractive but their own. Outside France, Britain runs more trains travelling in excess of 100 mph than any other country in Europe. We have our own ways of dealing with our problems and we shall continue in that manner.

Will the Secretary of State now try to answer the question? Will the same quality of service and trains travelling at the same speed be available to us in the north-east in five years' time as in the rest of Europe? A straight answer would be much appreciated.

The hon. Lady should not need to ask that question. She knows that the answer is no, because we have not chosen to go down the TGV route. We are making our own arrangements by road, rail and air and through improved, deregulated ports to ensure that our goods and people have good access to worldwide destinations.

As my right hon. Friend is already aware of the appalling state of the Fenchurch street to Southend commuter line, which carries a vast number of passengers daily, and which has caused London employers to doubt the wisdom of employing young people from my part of the world because of the unreliability of that service, at the next meeting he has with the chairman will he impress upon British Rail the necessity not merely for improvement, as that is promised in the years ahead, but the necessity for improvement forthwith?

Who could resist an instruction like that? I shall attempt to convey to the chairman of British Rail the ferocity with which my right hon. Friend expressed his view. His line is an important part of Network SouthEast, in which more than £1,200 million will be invested in the next three years. That will result in considerable improvements for all commuters, including his constituents.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been a welcome revival of local services all over the country, often using the Sprinter trains that are manufactured by my constituents at British Rail Engineering Ltd? In his discussions with the chairman of British Rail, will he raise the proposed new Ivanhoe line that will join Leicester, Loughborough, Burton upon Trent and Derby, thereby enabling us to bring passenger traffic into the Toyota plant without clogging up the roads?

I shall raise that matter with the chairman of British Rail when I next meet him.

When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he discuss the possibility of the closure of a number of Speedlink freight services announced last week? Is he aware that that is due to the extra financial targets that the Secretary of State has placed on the freight industry, as against the £50 million section A subsidies, thus forcing more traffic to go from rail to road, and adding to congestion and pollution? Is not it time that he acted as a Minister responsible for Transport instead of as a servant of the Treasury?

Only the hon. Gentleman, without knowing the facts—which he rarely does—would criticise the new chairman of British Rail, who has discovered that he owns a business with an income of £45 million and outgoings of £75 million, which is losing £30 million a year and which handles less than one tenth of 1 per cent. of our freight. The hon. Gentleman thinks that the chairman is not following a sensible pattern in examining whether those losses are necessary. Any sensible person would examine those losses, including the hon. Gentleman if he ever got into a position of power, which he will not.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road schemes are currently in preparation; and how many of those are in Dorset.

A total of 472 trunk road schemes are currently in preparation, of which 11 are in Dorset.

Will my hon. Friend find time in his busy calendar to come to Dorset to look at the appalling roads there? I understand that he did not find time in his busy programme to come down, but I hope that he can confirm that it was not the terrible tales that I have been telling him about how long it would take him to get there that put him off.

My hon. Friend will know full well that it was through no fault of my own that the visit to Hardy country, which I was looking forward to, was delayed. He will know that both he and my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) and for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) place substantial pressure on me to ensure that the roads in Dorset are kept up to their present high standard—of course, they are always capable of improvement.

Why is it that when the Government consider roads in Dorset, they at least give some consideration to the environment, yet when they consider roads in urban areas such as Leyton, they do not give a toss about the environment, housing or people there?

The hon. Gentleman has an unfortunate turn of phrase. I know that if he reflects on those matters he will realise just how much attention my Department gives to the environment and that, just because I am where I am, it does not mean that I have lost my interest in and concern for environmental matters, in whatever part of the country. The Landscape Advisory Committee takes a great deal of interest in where the roads will go and in their effects on the local—and urban—environment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will withdraw his implied slur on my efficiency.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about proposals to relieve congestion on the M25.

We propose to widen the M25 to dual four lanes, and will announce our response to the consultants' report in the near future.

Does my hon. Friend accept that merely to widen the M25 to four lanes is wholly inadequate and bears no relationship to future road flows? When can we look forward to an M25 relief road?

My hon. Friend will realise the important difficulties relating to environmental matters, consequent to the previous question. There are enough of my hon. Friends sitting in the Chamber, not least the Secretary of State, whose constituents might have views on widening the M25 beyond four lanes. However, I appreciate the point about congestion, and we are treating congestion on the M25, as well as on many other motorways, as a matter of urgency.

Has not the M25 become a standing joke—almost literally in traffic terms—and a sort of circular car lot? Would not it be better if the Government, instead of looking at ways of taking up more space by widening this monstrous road which is not working, put more money into the transport infrastructure of railways within the M25 area to relieve congestion on that road?

How dare the hon. Gentleman suggest that the M25 is monstrous? There are plenty of people in this part of the south-east of England who thank God for it, in terms of —[Interruption.]

Order. Mr. Atkins. [HON. MEMBERS: "Blasphemy."] Order.

—in terms of the relief given to nearby villages and towns by removing congestion from them. Ironically the M25 is a victim of its own success, which is why we shall widen it to four lanes and why a great deal of attention is being given to it. The hon. Gentleman ought to reflect on the success that is the M25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met his opposite number in Germany to discuss airline security.

I meet the German Transport Minister regularly at the EC Council of Ministers. Our officials also meet regularly to discuss aviation security, within the International Civil Aviation Organisation, within the European Civil Aviation Conference and elsewhere.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but does he accept that despite all these frequent meetings, at Easter my wife and I flew from here to the middle east via Frankfurt, and when we boarded the plane, having gone through all the security checks, we found my wife's seat occupied by a stowaway who had gone on board without a pass and without going through security? Subsequently he was arrested and taken away. Has security at Frankfurt improved?

I am answerable in the House for all aspects of British transport but not for German transport arrangements. However, when I see Dr. Zimmermann I shall bring that to his attention and report our exchange to my hon. Friend.

Did the Secretary of State note that last week a Pan Am jet was diverted to Prestwick after a terrorist scare? Is he aware that two jets were diverted from Glasgow airport to Prestwick because of crosswinds at Glasgow? I am sure that he will know that all the NATO Foreign Ministers and his good friend the Prime Minister flew in and out of Prestwick airport for the Turnberry summit last week. All that underlines the importance of Prestwick airport, yet in Saturday's Glasgow Herald the British Airports Authority talks about mothballing Prestwick during the winter. Will the right hon. Gentleman talk with Sir Norman Payne and ensure that he lives up to the promises that he gave the Secretary of State that Prestwick will remain open?

I shall not refer that matter to the German Transport Minister when next I see him, but I shall tell the hon. Gentleman that when we changed the policy, we opened up all Scotland's airports for traffic. I believe that Prestwick is extremely well equipped to attract traffic; new airlines have been going there recently; there is a great deal of interest in expanding it as a freight terminal; and I deplore anything that appears in any way to downgrade the importance of Prestwick.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet bus drivers and other workers from the east midlands regarding safety and conditions; and if he will make a statement.

Pay and conditions are matters for individual bus operators. The operator and vehicle licensing system provides for safety standards.

If the Minister did meet the workers in the east midlands, he would learn from them that since the Mafia-type boss Mr. Souter of Stagecoach Holdings took over the East Midlands Motorbus Company, he has not only derecognised the union and sacked some of the workers, but made them scared stiff of raising the issue of bus safety—because they would lose their jobs if they did. It is time that there was an inquiry into Stagecoach Holdings, which now has a monopoly 100 miles wide, stretching from the east to the west coast of Britain, and high time that the Government, who believe in freedom of choice and in the right to belong to a trade union, did something about it.

The hon. Gentleman is clearly wrong to link safety standards with private enterprise. There is no connection whatever. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will know that bus operators must be licensed and that the abilities of bus and coach drivers are re-examined every five years. Buses and coaches are examined every year. Safety and private enterprise can and do go together.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what road and public transport measures his Department have to boost inner-city regeneration.

We are providing support on a massive scale for new public transport infrastructure and roads to improve access to the inner cities. Examples include the Greater Manchester Metrolink and the Jubilee line extension to consolidate the regeneration of London's docklands.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the massive regeneration of the inner cities under the stewardship of this Government has been as a result of the imaginative combination of private money and private initiative, with the public grants that have been given, mainly by his Department?

With his usual perspicacity, my hon. Friend has hit the nail absolutely on the head.

To ask the Minister for the Arts how many of London theatres benefit from public funds at the present time; how many theatres do not so benefit; and if he will make a statement.

Over 30 of the 100 main theatres in London are revenue-funded by the Arts Council or Greater London Arts. Local authorities fund several further theatres.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that most London theatres are unsubsidised and must succeed without public funding? Therefore, is not it clear that theatres can succeed on their own two feet? It can cost, for example, £50 for a seat at Covent Garden—[Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend agree that the theatres, which are standing on their own two feet—as the Crazy Gang always did, and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) should know that—should be commended for doing so?

My hon. Friend is right that many of the commercial theatres in London—as I said, 30 out of 100 are revenue-funded—have been a remarkable story during the past decade. Audiences in those theatres had increased to 11 million in 1989, which is the highest since records began in 1981 and the box office for those theatres doubled in real terms during the same period. The story is therefore one of success and the theatres are to be congratulated.

What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the Royal Shakespeare Company is not dark for months during the winter, to the shame of the Government and the embarrassment of the country?

The Royal Shakespeare Company, which received an 11 per cent. increase this year in taxpayers' funding, has a wide range of productions. As I have made plain in the House on previous occasions, it is clear that every single arts body that is subsidised by the taxpayer should ensure that it can live within its means. I have great admiration for the Royal Shakespeare Company. Its audiences are good and I believe that with its finances in good order, it will continue to do an excellent job.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many small theatres still need some support and that those theatres, such as the King's Head theatre club, which has recently got into some difficulties, would be in less difficulty if the obstructions on their ability to run themselves were removed? I am thinking especially of the 48-hour membership rule.

My hon. Friend is right. However, I understand that last week Greater London Arts decided to restore revenue funding to the King's Head theatre club on clear understandings about the management of that arts organisation. My hon. Friend is right that there are many art organisations throughout the country. Not only in London, but in the country as a whole, the Arts Council's number of revenue clients has increased by 120 to 140 in the past 10 years. That shows how widely the money is spread.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what recent measures have been taken to help preserve Britain's heritage.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what role there is for the private sector in preserving Britain's heritage; and if he will make a statement.

Recent measures, all entailing varying degrees of private support, include the introduction of gift aid, the creation of the museums and galleries improvement fund and taking into account the existence of private offers when deciding on export licence applications for items of national importance.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply because recently, with substantial grants from English Heritage, the 12th century Rufford abbey in my constituency was reopened to the public. Will he reassure me that private giving and charitable donations will enhance the Government's funding, not replace it?

I, too, praise English Heritage, and the national heritage memorial fund on all that they do to preserve and support our heritage. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the value of gift aid, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced in the Budget and which will come into operation in October, because it gives a massive new opportunity for the arts world to raise more money from individuals and corporations. It will not be a substitute for public funding.

I also congratulate the Government, through my right hon. Friend, on the introduction of the gift aid scheme in the Budget. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the private sector can and should do even more both to help preserve Britain's heritage and for the arts generally?

My hon. Friend is right. I look to the private sector to be the source of real growth, in addition to the basic commitment of taxpayer support, which has been demonstrated by the 24 per cent. increase for the next three years. In harness, the two should do a great deal to produce more resources for the arts.

What consideration has the Minister given to the problems that we shall face in 1992 in relation to the export of works of art, given that we are moving into an open market?

The Cultural Ministers of Europe have been discussing those matters in their informal meetings. Article 36 of the treaty of Rome makes it clear that every member state can keep its own methods of protection for its own heritage. Nevertheless, against the background of free frontiers and a lack of controls, it is necessary to find a way to ensure that we can deal, for example, with stolen works of art. Discussions on that are going on.

The Minister knows that large numbers of people come to this country because of the quality of heritage and arts that we offer, and long may that be the case. Will he consider discussing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the possibility of introducing a hotel tax—a bedroom tax—to release resources that could be devoted to improving our arts and heritage?

As the hon. Gentleman has raised that matter, I shall mention it to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. However, as he knows, our general policy—this is not specifically to answer his question—is that we do not go in for more hypothecated taxation than is necessary. The arts, with public and private sector funding, which is increasing, do a great deal to attract millions of tourists from all over the world.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week, an important example of our heritage, a low rail way bridge in Shield row, near Stanley, was seriously damaged by a runaway bus that careered off the road and had its top ripped off? I understand that it was the Labour party's only promotional bus. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend assured the House that the Labour party will pay to repair the damage to our heritage and to that fine

I am sure that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) will take careful note of my hon. Friend's view about the role that the Labour party is taking in despoiling our heritage.

Will the Minister give some thought to our scientific heritage, for which he also has responsibility? Does he understand the scale of the crisis in our national museums, particularly the natural history museum? There, the trustees of one of the world's great scientific collections are being forced to cut 100 jobs, many of them held by key scientists, in order to save approximately £2 million a year. They have made it clear that they regret that and that the cause of their doing it is the Government's underfunding and neglect of that great museum. Will the Minister meet the trustees to discuss the financial plight of the museum and to make sure that the international reputation of that great collection is preserved?

I do not underestimate the importance of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but, as he prefaced it by talking about a crisis and underfunding, I should make clear the position of the natural history museum. Over the past 10 years, the resources that the museum has received from the taxpayer, let alone from the private sector, whose funding has increased dramatically, have increased by 12·8 per cent. This year, over last year, I have increased its funding by 16·5 per cent. There has, therefore, been a real increase in the museum's resources.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he next expects to meet the civil service trades unions leaders regarding conditions of service; and if he will make a statement.

I meet the civil service unions from time to time to discuss a range of matters.

When will the Minister make proper payments to the civil service for fiddling Government figures? Civil servants have had to fiddle the dole figures on 23 occasions. They have had to reshape the poll tax 11 times. They are now being called upon to fiddle the cost-of-living figures. Surely it is high time that they were given a conscience payment, which should be paid according to the inverse proportion to the truth.

It is a gross disservice to 567,000 outstanding civil servants to suggest that civil servants are fiddling the figures. We have one of the finest civil services and it is about time that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the representatives of the civil service trade unions, will he take the opportunitity to explain to them that if managers in the agencies are to do a truly effective job, they must be given the right to negotiate pay and conditions for their staff?

My hon. Friend is right in suggesting that the key to success in the establishment of reforms in the Civil Service, which has led to the creation of the agencies, is that there should be as much delegation of responsibility as possible to the chief executives and managers who are in charge. That is the policy which is consistently being pursued. The House will be aware that 31 agencies have been established. Evidence is growing that more and more of the agencies have wide discretion and flexibility in the way in which they manage resources, including salaries.

To ask the Minister of the Civil Service whether he has any plans to change the rules regarding civil service management buy-outs of public services; and if he will make a statement.

I have no plans to change any of the conduct rules in the civil service pay and conditions of service code that may be relevant to civil service management buy-outs.

Is not the Minister concerned that the Crown rules of 1988 were set to one side for the sell-off of the skill centres to Astra Training Services, consisting of three civil servants in charge of the skill centres? Is not the right hon. Gentleman alarmed that only they were privy to the fact that £11 million was to be given to the purchasers along with the skill centres? Is not he further alarmed that those civil servants, and the Minister, connived to deny that information to the 61 other bidders, who made various offers for the skill centres? Those bidders included organisations such as Wimpey and Preston borough council. They were never told about the secret sweetener that was being made available to insider dealers.

The hon. Gentleman's last allegation is entirely untrue. The first consideration with management buy-outs is whether that option is the best way to get best value for money and to serve customers. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that as the first consideration. The Government understand the need to maintain proprieties in any civil service buy-out. Arrangements are made to ensure that officials participating in buy-outs do not have the opportunity to put their private interests above their public responsibilities. The interests of the vendor are secured by setting up a privatisation unit to handle the sale, which is separate from the management of the organisation that is being sold. Clear guidelines are drawn up.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the entirely unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I give notice of my intention to raise the matter again on the Adjournment.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what percentage of fast-stream trainees came from (a) Oxford and (b) Cambridge during the last 12 months; and what the figure was five years ago.

In 1989, 36 per cent. of candidates recommended for fast-stream trainee appointments held degrees from Oxford or Cambridge; in 1985, the percentage was 42.

Does the Minister accept that, although Oxford and Cambridge are good universities, those figures are way out of proportion with the total supply of graduates? Does not he wish to put on record the fact that the quality of graduates from all polytechnics and universities in this country is of a high standard? What steps will he take to ensure that the civil service intake reflects the proportion of graduates throughout the United Kingdom, rather than just the proportion from Oxford and Cambridge?

Our primary concern in recruitment of such grades to the civil service is to obtain the best candidates, from whatever source, on the basis of equality of opportunity. Recruits come from a wide range of universities; some 40 universities provided recruits in 1989. Surely the hon. Gentleman must accept that obtaining the best candidates, on the basis of equality of opportunity, must be the right criterion.

I do not know how much things have changed since I was an observer on the civil service selection board, as I was for many years. Is not it true, however, that assessors on the board make every effort to ensure that candidates from universities other than Oxford and Cambridge are, if anything, given priority over Oxford and Cambridge graduates? Might not the problem have something to do with the continuing inability of the selection board to mount an effective recruitment campaign outside Oxford and Cambridge and a limited range of other education institutions?

The Civil Service Commission undertakes a sustained campaign of liaison with schools, polytechnics and universities in the recruitment of civil servants: that is absolutely right and essential. In 1982, 71 per cent. of administration trainees—as opposed to all high-flyers who come into the civil service, including specialists—came from Oxbridge, whereas in 1989 the figure was 55 per cent: that demonstrates a change. However, I stick to the view, based on the principle of equality of opportunity, that we must go for the best people whom we can get.

Is the Minister saying that he tries to obtain the best people? Is he saying that, furthermore, he obtains the best people, and, therefore, stands by his figure that 36 per cent. of the best people come from Oxford and Cambridge? Not only the House but the country would like to hear an answer to that.

The statistics speak for themselves, although it is true that the number taken from Oxbridge—as a proportion of the total—happens to be coming down. It does not matter where they come from, but we are entitled to have the best people in the civil service. Selection must be based on equality of opportunity: that is why we have had a sustained campaign to recruit more women and members of the ethnic minorities.

Is not it true that many people who were not at Oxford or Cambridge see the civil service as a dull, dead-end job in an expensive part of the country? Those of us who work with the civil service know that that is not true, but what is the civil service doing to improve its image?

A great deal is happening to change the perception of work in the civil service. The most significant thing to change the public's perception of the civil service is the next steps reforms. I believe that young people entering the civil service want responsibility at an early age, and the reforms have succeeded in giving them that.

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

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Has low pay for support grades 1 and 2, such as drivers and messengers, been discussed? Why is their pay lower than the equivalent in most European countries, including Italy, Belgium and Spain? What will happen in 1992 with the single market? Will their pay rise to the level of that in Denmark or fall to the level of that in Greece?

Questions of pay in the civil service are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The pay of support grades has improved substantially during the past two years, especially for special groups. Indeed, for one group an offer has been made of a 22 per cent. increase. The overall position of support grades is now improving.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received from curatorial staff on the conditions of service in the natural history museum.

I have received some representations via hon. Members from curatorial staff in the natural history museum, to which I have replied.

I spent two hours this morning with scientists at the natural history museum. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question of which I have given his office notice? If the Prime Minister was serious, as I believe she was, in her speech on 22 March about the need for a databank, why has the distinguished entomologist Mr. Michael Day, who is doing important research on bees, been made redundant?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving my office notice of that question. The position of staff is a matter for the management. As I said in reply to an earlier question, the management of the natural history museum has taken the le ad in organising a seminar on Friday for scientists from Britain and abroad, during which it will be possible to consider the international and wider implications for research of some of the decisions that it has taken. The overall funding for the natural history museum has risen by 16·5 per cent. this year, against a positive background. It has decided to focus on two areas—health and environmental matters.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the courteous but unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment.