To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase investment in British Rail.

British Rail's investment expenditure this year will be the highest in real terms since 1962, and up to £4 billion is planned for the next three years—a 60 per cent. increase on the previous three years in real terms.

I thank the Secretary of State for that encouraging reply. Is he aware, however, of the astonishing contrast between the attitudes to public investment of British Rail's present chairman and his predecessor, both of whom were Government appointees? Is Sir Bob Reid's candour a direct result of the change of Prime Minister? Does the Secretary of State agree with Sir Bob that British Rail needs annual investment—not subsidies—of between £1 billion and £2 billion for several years? I welcome what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about next year's expenditure, but will it be additional investment in real terms? Exactly how much of what Sir Bob is seeking is the Secretary of State prepared to provide?

I have already said that the amount—up to £4 billion—that is planned for the next three years is a 60 per cent. increase in real terms. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there is a difference of view between British Rail's present and previous chairmen, but there is certainly a difference between what the Labour party is saying today and what it did when in government, when rail investment was substantially less than it is now.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend delivered an imperial rocket to the chairman of British Rail following the way in which BR managed the service during the week of hard weather? It is no use BR's having a massive investment programme, as it has, if it can neither design nor operate its equipment. Many days after the snow had stopped falling, BR was still running a skeleton service, there appeared to be no ticket collectors and hundreds of people must have gone through without paying, and at one stage there did not even seem to be any drivers to provide a minimal service.

I sympathise very much with what my right hon. Friend has said. British Rail is conducting its own inquiry into the lessons to be learnt from that experience. I am also expecting to hear in the next few weeks the results of a review that I commissioned in December to see whether any lessons could be learnt from the experience of other countries with climates similar to ours, which might help to prevent a repetition.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many of the bridges owned by British Rail and for which it is responsible are now in a very bad state of repair? Will he put the point to the chairman of British Rail and perhaps provide resources to do the bridges up?

I believe that British Rail has its own plans to improve and rehabilitate any bridges which may require such treatment. We shall draw the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of British Rail.

As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, in past years the present Government and previous Governments have always exhorted British Rail to buy British. Following the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), may I ask whether the Government are putting any pressure on British Rail to buy British, or is it free to look to the manufacturing capacity of other countries in regard to rolling stock and locomotives? Some countries can and do build locomotives to withstand much worse weather conditions than ours.

Naturally, we want the travelling public to have the best available rolling stock for the price that is paid. It is for British Rail to judge how that can best be achieved when seeking to purchase new rolling stock.

Does the Secretary of State accept that what Bob Reid mark 2 is asking for is additional cash amounting to about £1·3 billion per year for some years to make up the investment shortfall, bearing in mind that the rolling stock and signalling equipment is 12 years older than it was when the Conservative Government were elected? Does he accept that Sir Bob is demanding cash, not an increase in the external financing limit, which would have to be paid for through even higher fares and even more overcrowding on our shockingly run railway system?

The hon. Gentleman's premise is incorrect. I have read the transcript of what Sir Bob Reid said. He acknowledged that the Government were providing facilities for £1·3 billion of investment this year, and expressed his desire for that to continue over the next few years. As I said earlier, the Government propose expenditure of £4 billion in the next three years—a figure very similar to the one mentioned by Sir Bob Reid.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that among his plans for major reinvestment in British Rail he will consider ensuring that the operating companies obtain greater productivity from their employees? They have changed their definition of "on time" so that they can pay additional sums to their senior management, but a train that arrives 10 minutes late does not strike me, or the rest of the world, as being on time. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look at the strange definitions that the operating companies have incorporated in order to pay themselves more money? Will he also look at the subsidiary operating companies, which may operate genuine share schemes for their employees, and ensure that they benefit from the investment?

I note with interest what my hon. Friend says. We are anxious to ensure that British Rail recognises the need for quality control and introduces realistic and acceptable incentives for its staff in order to obtain an improvement in the quality of service. I shall look into my hon. Friend's point.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the implementation of a higher standard of residual stability to existing roll-on roll-off ferries as recommended in the report of the steering committee for the research programme recommended by the Sheen inquiry in July 1987.

The United Kingdom has taken the lead in bringing about the consideration at the International Maritime Organisation of a higher standard of residual stability for existing roll-on roll-off ferries. In February 1991 the specialist sub-committee of the IMO on stability matters considered the United Kingdom's proposal and agreed that a higher standard of survivability should be applied to all existing roll-on roll-off passenger ships.

It is now four years since the Herald of Free Enterprise tragedy, three and a half years since the Sheen inquiry recommended a programme of research into the problems with these vessels and more than a year since the steering committee for the research programme recommended that there should be an early international agreement to impose higher safety standards on existing roll-on roll-off ferries. When will something be done? The steering committee recommended that the Government should consider taking unilateral action if there was any delay at international level. When do the Government intend to do something, or are they waiting for another tragedy?

A considerable amount has already been done. The Government have spent a huge amount of money on research. As I said in my original answer, we have already taken this to the International Maritime Organisation. We have always wanted to reach agreement through the IMO, as it is the most useful means of enforcing safety regulations, but we have made it clear that if we cannot obtain agreement at the IMO, we shall consider acting unilaterally in the case of all ships operating in and out of British ports.

The Minister must answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) put to him. When do the Government intend to take action? How long shall we have to wait for the IMO to make up its mind? It is clearly seeking to delay matters even further, and it has not suffered the tragedy that the United Kingdom suffered. We need to take action now to ensure that there is no subsequent tragedy such as that which led to the Minister having to go to the IMO and argue Britain's case before it.

It is universally accepted that the best way to act on safety matters is through the IMO. That is exactly what the Government are doing, but we have reserved the right, if necessary, to act unilaterally. That was applauded in two recent articles in Fairplay and Lloyd's List.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that whenever repair and maintenance work is required in Blackwall tunnel, one bore is kept open for two-way traffic of private vehicles and small vans.

Two-way traffic is operated when necessary in the southbound tunnel. This is not possible for the north bound tunnel, constructed in 1897, which is too small for high-sided vehicles in both directions.

Is the Minister aware that daytime closures at the weekend cause massive traffic jams through the east end, particularly on Sundays? Last Sunday, not one policeman was to be seen, except those caught in the traffic jams, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asked some of them whether they were from the traffic department they said, "Very definitely not, Sir." An irate constituent wrote to me telling me that he was caught for four hours trying to get home from Kent. [Interruption.] I remind the Minister that the old Blackwall tunnel—now the northbound bore —carried two-way traffic, including buses, until the late 1950s—[Interruption.]—and could do so again. That is perfectly feasible.

Despite the background noise, I appreciate the problems that the temporary closure of the tunnel has caused in docklands. Work will be completed after next weekend. I hope that the problem will be alleviated by the boring of a third Blackwall tunnel under the Thames, for which design contracts will be let shortly.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the Government's policy concerning airline competition in the European Community with special reference to the access of new entrant carriers.

The Government will continue to press for a liberal single market in aviation in the European Community, in which competition can flourish and which possesses effective safeguards against behaviour that is anti-competitive or exploits the consumer.

I regret the collapse of Air Europe, for which the Secretary of State and the Civil Aviation Authority bear no responsibility, but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he should ensure some protection from the bigger airlines, which are increasingly trying to destroy the smaller ones? Will he ensure that slots out of Heathrow and Gatwick are not used for unviable and uneconomic routes which make no money for the big airlines but which marginalise the small airlines and drive them out of business?

I shall comment on Air Europe in response to a private notice question at 3.30 pm.

Does the Secretary of State accept that any pressure on slots which made it impossible for regional airlines to use Heathrow would have a deleterious effect on the average member of the travelling public and would not be a helpful way of increasing the availability of slots at Heathrow?

The hon. Lady is correct, but she forgets that last Monday we announced that existing restrictions preventing new domestic services from applying to use Heathrow have been removed. The constraint on new domestic and international services applying to the scheduling committee for slots has also been removed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration is being given to improve further east-west road links to the channel tunnel.

There are several major schemes in the national roads programme which will improve the main east-west routes to the channel tunnel and channel ports to meet expected demand into the next century.

I welcome that confirmation, but may I impress on the Minister, as a delegation of East Sussex Members of Parliament impressed on the Secretary of State the other day, the urgency of improving east-west road links to the channel tunnel before its opening? If that is not done, communications to Sussex and further west will be such that it will absolutely impossible to take advantage of the new link with the continent.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State reported on my hon. Friend's meeting with him. I cannot guarantee that all the schemes in the programme will be completed for the opening of the tunnel, but the main ones should be completed, particularly the one between Folkestone and Dover. There are about 10 schemes for the A259 in the programme, which I hope will be brought to fruition.

At the risk of being called a southbound bore, may I press my hon. Friend for an answer an when the Government think that the channel tunnel will. open? Is he aware of the need for authoritative statement because of disturbing press reports about the likelihood of serious signalling and other technical equipment delays resulting in the tunnel being at least one year late? What is the true position?

I have nothing to add to what has been said: mid-1993 is the date for the opening.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to reduce vehicle speeds on British roads.

Current initiatives include new road hump regulations,.20 mph speed limit zones and speed limiters for heavy goods vehicles.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on that comprehensive reply. That list shows the commitment of my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department to the necessary reduction in speed limits. May I add to it the current proposals for increasing the likelihood of traffic light offenders being caught under the legislation? People who speed across traffic lights are a problem in major cities, such as Bristol, and anything that can be done to reduce it would be welcome.

I agree that there are a large number of traffic light offences which are a danger to road users. The new powers being taken in the Road Traffic Bill will enhance road safety significantly in that respect.

Will the Minister consider the problem which arises when the third lane disappears because of motorway works but traffic hurtles along at 70 mph plus, makes no attempt to reduce speed and tries to force its way in at the last minute, causing tremendous danger to many other motorists?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Too many motorists drive recklessly and dangerously.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the use of lights on bicycles at night.

I continue to receive representations about bicycles being used without lights at night.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the increasing number of road accidents involving unlit bicycles? Will he consider making it a requirement that all new bicycles sold should have front and rear lamps fitted?

Some time ago we consulted on whether lights should be made an integral part of any bicycle before sale, but the overwhelming response was that the public did not wish that requirement to be introduced. Nevertheless, I share my hon. Friend's concern about the number of bicycles without lights on the road at night. Bicycles ridden at night are required to have proper lighting, but one of the difficulties is a lack of enforcement. In 1989, the last year for which I have figures, only 1,250 people were convicted of riding a bicycle without lights, although I am sure that it is within the experience of every hon. Member that many more people than that seem to ride bicycles without lights at night.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of London Underground to discuss future improvements to the system.

The next regular meeting will occur within the next two weeks.

My hon. Friend will be aware that my constituents suffer badly from overcrowding on the District line and look forward with eager anticipation to the construction of the Chelsea-Hackney underground line. What progress is being made in the plans for that line? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the plans will include the construction of a new station at Stamford Bridge which, as well as serving Chelsea football club, will serve the new Chelsea-Westminster hospital which will also need adequate transport facilities?

My hon. Friend refers to the Chelsea-Hackney line. He will realise that we are talking about a new underground line between Chelsea and Hackney which will permit people living as far south as Wimbledon as well as those who live in Essex to come into central London. The service provided will therefore be much greater than is apparent at first blush from the description of the new construction works. Nothing is firmly resolved at this point about the new station or the possibility of extending the line south of the river into Wandsworth. The leader of Wandsworth council is coming to the Department of Transport shortly to make representations on that subject.

Does the Minister agree that one of the most worrying aspects of travelling on the London underground, particularly for women, is fear at night? Will he take up with London Underground its intention to withdraw the extra staff who have been on the southern part of the Northern line and ensure that they are not withdrawn? I have seen the improvements at Stockwell in terms of computers and television, but nothing makes people feel safer than knowing that uniformed staff are present at night.

The hon. Lady is right that the presence of staff on the underground and on British Rail contributes to a feeling of security, but obviously both nationalised industries must live within their means. The proposed staff reductions on the underground, including the Northern line, relate mainly to ticketing staff, but I will look specifically at the southern part of the Northern line to see what consequences there will be for staff, particularly those who could be on the station platforms.

My hon. Friend will be aware that a consultant last year recommended the continuation of the Northern line down to Streatham. Is he aware of the enormous importance that my constituents and I attach to that, and does he have any news of how it may be proceeding?

My hon. Friend has raised that matter assiduously with the Department of Transport, pointing out the benefits of extending the Northern line further southwards. London Underground is looking initially at the need for refurbishment and improvement on the existing Northern line. That is badly needed and it will follow what is being done to the Central line.

Will the Minister accept that no promises of improvement for the future will offset the misery that Londoners feel when travelling on London Underground now? Does he accept that the projected loss of 950 jobs, with the consequent closure of some stations and booking offices and reductions in service, will thoroughly undermine public confidence in the tube system and jeopardise future ridership?

I am afraid that I do not follow the hon. Lady's line of argument. As I have said, reductions of up to 5 per cent. in the number of staff are related mainly to London Underground's greater efficiency and ability to issue and collect tickets automatically. I believe that the confidence of the travelling public in the underground is much more related to increases in capacity in the system, which derive from the building programme, and to the improvements that will be manifest on the Central line next September, when new rolling stock comes into service, and on the Circle line when new, clean, refurbished and reliable rolling stock comes into service next year.

Will my hon. Friend seek immortality in south London by agreeing to the extension of the Chelsea-Hackney line south through Wandsworth—not only because many Wandsworth residents support Chelsea football club and want to go to its matches, but because there is not one inch of underground track between the Northern line and the Wimbledon branch of the District line?

As I have already said, we have merely safeguarded the Chelsea-Hackney line; its construction will depend on satisfactory completion of the east-west crossrail. No final decision has yet been made on the Chelsea-Hackney line. I understand the arguments either for extending the line or for changing its line of route so that it will serve Wandsworth, which is relatively under-provided for in transport terms. My hon. Friend has diligently represented his constituents' views on this score, and I shall certainly take into account what he has said.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish his response to the report of the joint working party on British shipping entitled "British Shipping Challenges and Opportunities".

The working party report represents a jointly agreed analysis of the state of British shipping and its recommendations were developed as much by the Government as by the industry. The question of a separate formal response by the Government does not therefore arise.

Is the Minister aware that in the past 15 years the number of ships owned and registered in the United Kingdom has fallen from 1,614 to 314, that in the same period the average age of British ships has increased from 6·5 to 13·7 years, and that the number of officers and ratings employed in our merchant fleet has declined from 81,000 to 20,000? The result has been that although 95 per cent. of our export and import trade is carried by sea, only one fifth is carried by British shipping. That not only has serious consequences for our balance of trade but represents the loss of an important resource which needs to be available in times of national emergency and defence. Does the Minister agree that Britannia no longer rules the waves and that it is high time the Government did something to reverse that savage decline?

As I said, the joint working party has submitted its report and its recommendations are being followed by the Government. In the past the Government have recognised the need to provide assistance for the training of ratings and officers and that was achieved under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. There has been a large increase in the number of officers trained by the merchant fleet.

The Minister's comments are amazing. He does not seem to realise that his Government have presided over the biggest decline in shipping in any of the leading maritime nations. The Minister said that there is no need for a statement from the Government, but there must be a need for them to do something about this. The Government should do something to ensure that tax concessions are available. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if he carries on believing that there is no need for such a statement we shall see the end of the red ensign and we shall have no British merchant shipping fleet?

I could not disagree more with the hon. Lady. What the British merchant fleet would most dread would be a Labour Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department is undertaking to evaluate the environmental effects of the road traffic increases forecast by "Roads for Prosperity".

We have set up a joint study with the Department of the Environment to see what contribution the planning system can make to tackling the problem of CO₂, emissions.

Have the Minister and his colleagues been working hard with the Department of the Environment to put pressure on the Treasury to ensure that gas-guzzling vehicles are more heavily taxed at the next Budget. [HON. MEMBERS: "Certainly not."]—or do they accept that the electoral consideration of not offending the motoring and car lobby will, as always with the Tory Government, override environmental matters, particularly in the Department of Transport?

I cannot anticipate anything that might be in the Budget. It is worth pointing out, however, that even existing motor cars with 1300cc engines may vary by up to 40 per cent. on the miles per gallon achieved. It is open to the environmentally concerned motorist to purchase a motor car that is more fuel-efficient than another in the same range.

Will my hon. Friend, while helping in any way that he can to reduce emissions from motor cars, not fall for the blandishments of any lobby that is trying to persuade him to cut the road-building programme?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) shakes his head, but he may have forgotten that his colleagues, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and for Truro (Mr. Taylor), have recently been lobbying me for more investment in the road-building programme.

Does the Minister agree that his bland statements simply add to the list of things about which we have heard in the past 10 years, including lean-burn engines and all the rest of it? Does he agree that appropriate fiscal measures would do a great deal to clean up the environment? In Germany, 98 per cent. of cars have catalytic convertors fitted. Would not it be in the interests of the nation and its environment to introduce fiscal measures to reward those who purchase cars with lean-burn engines and catalytic convertors?

The Government recognise that there may be a role for the taxation system in the process of ensuring the best improvements possible in our environment by trying to reduce CO₂ emissions. However, it would not be right to suggest that that would be a total panacea.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Airways to discuss the future of the British aviation industry.

I last met the chairman of British Airways on 25 February. I meet Lord King on those occasions when there is a mutual interest in doing so and I should be happy to meet him in the near future.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. When he next meets the chairman of British Airways will he confirm that it is the Government's intention to strengthen, not weaken, the hand of the biggest and most important carrier in the United Kingdom? Will he also explain to him why the Government have decided to substitute Virgin Atlantic on a route to Tokyo which was previously held by British Airways and which will have a materially adverse commercial effect on British Airway's prospects? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, in all his airline policies, he seeks to bring stability to what is at the moment an extremely chaotic industry?

I have the greatest admiration for British Airways and the way in which Lord King, in particular, has chaired that company in the past few years.

Has the Secretary of State seen in some of today's newspapers reports that British Airways is proposing to withdraw some of its services in Scotland, some think on the highlands and islands routes? Is not that socially undesirable and will he make representations if that proves to be the case?

I saw the suggestion in one newspaper that British Airways was reviewing certain services, including some in Scotland. It is obviously for British Airways to judge which services it wishes to provide. If there is a demand for services that are not provided by British Airways, other airlines may wish to take them over. That is a matter for the airline companies to determine.

Which decisions made by my right hon. and learned Friend's Department or the Civil Aviation Authority over the past year or so have had the full support of British Airways?

The purpose of the Department of Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority is primarily to serve the interest of the travelling public in the United Kingdom. I believe that, on the vast majority of occasions, that coincides with the interests of British airlines, but if I ever have to make a choice between the two, my primary obligation will be to the travelling public.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress towards a single market in aviation.

The European Community Council of Ministers is now committed to a single market in aviation by the beginning of 1993. A second, interim package of measures was agreed last June. Discussion is in progress on safeguards against anti-competitive behaviour, and the Commission is required shortly to being forward proposals on issues that remain to be settled in detail.

Will the single market bring lower fares? If not, why not?

All the evidence that we have shows that when restrictions are removed, bringing in freer competition, it results in downward pressure on fares. I hope that that will be the experience when the single European market is achieved.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what service reductions have been implemented on the London underground during 1991; and what estimate he has of the effect of the reductions on road congestion in London.

London Underground Ltd. has recently written to hon. Members about service changes that it wishes to implement later this year. I understand that the proposed reduced train services would be only some 1·5 per cent. below the the potential maximum and that any staff reductions are intended to increase efficiency by, for example, taking advantage of automatic ticket machines.

Does the Minister accept that when there was a low fares policy on the London underground, in 1981 and 1983, there were reductions of 6 per cent. and 17 per cent. in car commuting? Does he acknowledge that there is a link between the two and that there is already a fall in ridership on the underground system which the service reductions that he noted will only exacerbate? Does he know that the chair of London Transport has acknowledged that there is expected to be a further reduction on ridership on buses? Where does he think that commuters will go if not into their cars? Will not this lead to further road congestion in London?

When the Labour party was in office, it encouraged the GLC, when it was responsible for London Transport, to implement a low fares policy. It ran the London underground as though it were a department of social services and, as a result, neglected investment. Since 1985, there has been a significant increase in patronage on the London underground.

It is falling.

It is not falling. There has been a significant increase in capital investment. The Labour party neglected London Transport and put us in the position that we are in today.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the consequences of deregulation of air fares on the London to Amsterdam route.

The relaxation of restrictions on fares was part of a broader liberalisation agreement between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. That allowed air carriers to use their commercial judgment in responding to customers' demands within a competitive environment. Air fares between London and Amsterdam are now lower in real terms than they were before the liberalisation agreement took effect.

Does not that show how beneficial deregulation can be? Can we look forward to more deregulation in the transport sector, in respect of both air fares and buses in London? What has happened to the number of passengers on the London to Amsterdam route since deregulation?

I agree with my hon. Friend that liberalisation is essential—not least to give passengers more choice, but also to provide better opportunities for travel from regional airports. That is indeed the history of liberalisation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward legislation for a national scheme of concessionary fares in outlying rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

I see no need to change the present arrangements, under which local authorities decide what concessionary travel schemes to operate in their areas in the light of local needs.

The Minister will be aware that when pensioners and others look at the differences between local authorities they are often upset to find that concessionary fares are available in one area but not in another, and they ask why that should be so. Often, the reason dates back many years to the time when schemes were originally implemented. The answer that local authorities give now is that, with the poll tax system, they simply cannot afford to introduce a scheme as they would be financially penalised for doing so. That is difficult to explain. Will the Minister make representations to his colleagues in the Department of the Environment with a view to finding a way round the problem?

It may indeed be difficult to explain. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is asking the Government to explain something that local authorities should explain to their own constituents.

To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has had any complaints over the adequacy of the public library facilities in Taunton.

I have had no complaints. However, I should point out to my hon. Friend that provision of public library facilities is the responsibility of the local authorities—in this case, Somerset county council.

I recognise that neither my right hon. Friend nor Somerset county council—with or without the community charge—has a magic pot of gold. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the splendid efforts of the staff of the Taunton library in assisting me, on occasions, and my constituents, the library is grossly undersized in relation to the size of the population that it serves? According to one estimate, it is only one quarter of the size that it should be to serve that expanding population, especially in respect of educational matters. As there is a proposal for a new building on the old Sainsbury's site in Taunton, will my right hon. Friend liaise with the local authority with a view to helping, if possible?

I note what my hon. Friend said. He has been closely involved in the efforts to persuade—if that is the right word—the county council to acquire new premises. I understand that, last week, the county council, in the light of other priorities, voted by a small majority against that course. However, if my hon. Friend sends me the full details I shall gladly look further into the matter. He will understand, of course, that I do not have any direct responsibility.

Does the Minister understand that the vote against the excellent and extremely successful Taunton library's plan for development had nothing to do with the will of the local authority, but resulted from the fact that Somerset is threatened with poll tax capping? Has not he read the Library Association survey which shows that, because of the poll tax, 27 library authorities have had to make severe cuts this year and at least 37 propose to do so next year? Is not it a fact that the library closures, unfilled vacancies, cuts in book stocks and the shelving of excellent plans like that in Taunton are the results of the Government's obsession with the poll tax?

The hon. Gentleman may be rather more ignorant of the Taunton library expansion plans than he gives the impression he is. The plans call for a new building and a site of over 2,000 sq m has been examined. By contrast, the size of the present site is 800 sq m. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not really know the site or whether the expansion is justified. Furthermore, the community charge levels that have been set make provision for the maintenance of proper library services throughout the county. One area in which the provision of such services is in question is the county in which lies the constituency of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I am considering very carefully whether the library cuts that have been suggested in that area go beyond what is necessary for community charge purposes.

To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will make a statement on the funding for the area museum councils.

The Museums and Galleries Commission has increased its overall allocation to the area museum councils in England by 15 per cent. in the coming year. I am pleased to see that in the Portsmouth area this will allow the area museum service for south-eastern England to continue providing advice and assistance to the eight museums run by the city council and to the four other member museums.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks, especially those which relate to Portsmouth and increased funding. Will he confirm that there will be a proper businesslike approach to the expenditure that is being made available? Will proper training and marketing skills be developed so that the money is used to improve museums, as it should?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The aim of the Museums and Galleries Commission, working closely with the area museum councils, is to ensure that the money available—as I said, the commission is increasing its grant to the museum council in the area which my hon. Friend represents in part by 15 per cent. in the year ahead—is properly spent, that there is good training and that everyone concerned should be able in due course to qualify for a standard certificate, for example, to show that they have proper professional qualifications for the museum. In that respect, the MGC and the area museum councils are working together closely and well.

Does the Minister agree that area museums have a special function in that they are often the venues for travelling exhibitions of paintings? In Wales, there is probably only one great exhibition of paintings permanently on view and that is the Impressionist collection at Cardiff. It is important to many children and students outside Cardiff that the museums have proper funding so that good exhibitions can be mounted in them. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the poll tax, means that area museums are in dire danger of being unable to mount such exhibitions in the future because the authorities always cut arts funding first?

The hon. Gentleman is correct in so far as spending on the arts is one of the discretionary areas of funding for local authorities. I hope that he will bring all his influence to bear to ensure that local authorities do not cut spending in this respect. It is not necessary for them to do so. The Welsh Arts Council has received a good increase from the Arts Council of Great Britain for the year ahead, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He should be lending his weight to ensure that local authorities do not bear down on discretionary spending on the arts.

When my right hon. Friend is considering these matters, will he consider especially some of the voluntary local museums? One in Honiton, containing a presentation of lace, is better than any other in the country, yet it receives no financial benefit from the area museum councils. Some small museums do an immense amount of good for the locality and need to be encouraged as much as is humanly possible.

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing to my attention the lace museum in his constituency. As the area museum councils state in their recent. extremely good brochure entitled "Museums Working Together", they exist to help and support museums of all sorts from the smallest visual village museum to the largest city arts gallery. I see no reason, therefore, why the lace museum to which my hon. Friend referred should not receive help from the area museum council. My hon. Friend should suggest to the museum that it has another go.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what has been the total amount of money spent on the arts by local authorities in England in each of the last 10 years.

Local authority expenditure on the performing arts is discretionary and there is therefore no central reporting requirement. The best available estimates of net spending are those prepared by the Policy Studies Institute which draw on annual surveys by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. With permission I shall circulate the figures in the Official Report.

I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive answer. Does he accept that an inevitable and factual effect of the poll tax is that spending on the performing arts by local authorities has decreased as a proportion of their total budgets? That is inevitable because the spending is discretionary. Will the Minister assure the House that in the discussions that are taking place behind closed doors between Departments and at the Cabinet table on what the successor to the poll tax will be, local authorities will not be penalised for trying to keep museums and libraries open and will not suffer the draconian Government impositions that have been experienced by many boroughs such as the one which I represent? Libraries have been closed because of the local government taxation system that has been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman and the Government of which he is a member—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish; it is quite true.

The hon. Gentleman is anticipating decisions that have not yet been taken. For example, the London Arts Board has not yet announced the amount of money that it will make to arts organisations in Southwark. As the hon. Gentleman will know, last year, Southwark arts organisations received a great deal of money from the LAB's predecessor organisation. It will announce its budget next week, so the hon. Gentleman should keep some of his indignation until he hears how much money it proposes to give.

To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will pay an official visit to the Haymarket theatre in the city of Leicester to discuss arrangements for regional arts funding.

I have no plans to visit the Haymarket theatre in Leicester at present, but look forward to doing so in the not-too-distant future.

I welcome the Minister's assurance. When he visits the Haymarket theatre, I hope that he will pay tribute to the theatre's work and the enormous efforts that are being made in Leicester to keep the arts going, through the Haymarket and other theatres, in such difficult times.

I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. I know that the theatre has played a great part in that. Furthermore, the second Leicester international dance festival will open at the Phoenix arts centre on Friday 15 March. It will be an important arts festival, in which I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will take an active part.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he has taken within his sphere of responsibility to safeguard the interests and career prospects of civil servants working in areas of responsibility affected by Her Majesty's Government's privatisation policies.

Within the Cabinet Office and Office of Arts and Libraries, no civil servants have been affected by privatisation policies.

Is the Minister aware that, when some of the Export Credits Guarantee Department's operations were recentralised in Cardiff early last year, civil servants were promised that there would be no compulsory redundancies. Is he aware that some of those individuals are now threatened with compulsory redundancy? Does he accept that such matters cannot be left to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, nor to the Department of Trade and Industry, as the present and previous Secretaries of State of that Department are obsessive supporters of privatisation? Will he reassure the dedicated public servants who now work in the Export Credits Guarantee Department in Cardiff that he will take a personal interest in the matter and bring objectivity and humanity to the consideration of their individual futures, which cannot be trusted to come from those two Departments?

In his latter comment, the hon. Gentleman does an injustice to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. As the Minister of State told him in Committee last week, the civil service has arrangements whereby staff who are surplus to requirements in one Department are given priority when filling vacancies in other Departments. I have no doubt that the Export Credits Guarantee Department would make use of those arrangements if the occasion arose. I understand that the present estimate of the number of staff likely to be needed by the privatised company is about 600. It is possible that there might be 10 or 20 surplus people in Cardiff, depending on the timing of privatisation. That is not a significant problem and I hope that everything will be done to find good alternative jobs for those people.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because of the entrance examinations into the civil service and the calibre of personnel employed, it is likely that most of the privatised companies will wish to retain that excellent labour force? In the event of any of them having to go, does he agree that they are some of the most desirable employees in the labour market because of their great specialisations and their thorough vetting?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. His comments are very supportive for civil servants who, as a result of privatisation or relocation, might wish to transfer from the civil service. They will be highly qualified to find good jobs elsewhere.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he has any plans to meet representatives of the civil service unions to discuss morale within the service.

I had the pleasure in February of meeting some of the civil service union leaders informally.

Is the Minister aware of the low morale among civil service staff at the British Library? Because of the Government's refusal to back the wonderful new investment in the St. Pancras site with adequate money, the 3,000 new reading room places which are planned will have to be reduced to 1,100. More crucially, the transfer to that site is underfunded to the tune of £8 million. Cannot the Minister understand that the opening of the new British Library should be a cause of great civic pride? Why cannot the Government back success? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at what his equivalent in France is doing and see his commitment to and support for the Bibliotheque Nationale? Our much more impressive and comprehensive British Library is liable to open less satisfactorily than it should because of the Government's meanness.

The hon. Gentleman is very myopic. He is incapable of seeing the good parts in the curate's egg which, in the case of the British Library, are very good. Will he give credit for the fact that the Government are investing £450 million in the project, which will bring together, for the first time in many years, most of the British Library components in London? It will provide two new specialised reading rooms on a single site. It will provide vastly improved facilities and better conservation. The shadow Minister for the Arts should be blowing a trumpet in praise of the fact that we are developing the exciting new British Library site at St. Pancras.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one thing that upsets morale more than anything else is dithering? As the Government made a firm promise some 18 months to two years ago to move the Ministry of Defence quality assurance unit from Woolwich to Teesside, but are now having second thoughts and vacillating, does my right hon. Friend understand that morale in the civil service unions would be much improved if the Government put into practice their promise to the people of Teesside?

My hon. Friend has raised this matter with me before at Question Time and I understand the seriousness that he attaches to it. As he knows, it is a matter for my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence, but I shall ensure that the points which he makes so strongly are passed on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Does the Minister realise that an additional reason for the low morale in the library service to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) referred is that civil servants realise that cuts are occurring in libraries throughout the country because of the Government's detestable poll tax? The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that he would get in touch with someone about the cuts in Derbyshire. Will he send someone with some money so that the authorities can operate the library service properly, instead of imposing poll tax capping, resulting in cuts in the library and music services?

The hon. Gentleman has not read his brief well in terms of cuts in the library service in Derbyshire. Derbyshire county council has talked about closing 11 libraries. My libraries adviser has been to Derby. In his judgment, some of the cuts may not be proportionate to the cuts in expenditure by the local authority. He submitted a detailed report to me and I am considering what further action to take.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement about progress with the "next steps" initiative.

This initiative continues to go well. Last month I addressed the first conference of agency chief executives. I was very heartened by what they were able to tell me about the progress being made in their agencies to secure better value for money and quality of service.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, which confirmed that the "next steps" initiative would lead to greater efficiency and a more responsive service. Does he agree that, despite what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, there has been a massive improvement in morale in the agencies?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The exciting thing about the initiative is that it is only just starting. At present, there are fewer than 100,000 civil servants in the executive agencies and we hope that the number will increase by the end of the year by close to 200,000. The eventual aim will be to have perhaps three quarters of civil servants in executive agencies. Their dedication will lead to better financial performance, to management by objective and to giving better service to the customer.

May we have an assurance that when accounting officers appear before the Public Accounts Committee to deal with the "next steps" initiative and privatisation, they will bring with them the very civil servants who were responsible for administering the changes in the Department in those two respects? Will the actual officials involved come before the Committee?

The hon. Gentleman will have to be more specific about what he has in mind. Civil servants appearing before the Public Accounts Committee will always be willing and anxious to be as helpful as possible, but they cannot know in advance the precise range of questions that will be directed at them. In fairness, the Committee cannot have a huge quantity of civil servants appearing before it.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many registered disabled people are employed in each of the top seven grades of the civil service.

There are 21 registered disabled staff at grades 1 to 6, 30 at grade 7 level and many more who choose not to register. A more detailed breakdown of the top six grades is not available servicewide. A report on progress in the employment of people with disabilities in the civil service is being published this week in the magazine "Independent". I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.

Does the Minister accept that the number of people employed in the top grades of the civil service who are either registered or not registered as disabled is insufficient and sad? In view of his personal concern about such matters, what positive steps will he take to improve the prospects for disabled people to compete on a fair and equal basis, which is all that they ask?

I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman in many ways. This week, we are publishing the magazine "Independent"—I have a copy here, but it is an advance copy, so I cannot give it to him—which deals specifically with how to encourage more disabled people either to apply for jobs in the civil service or, once they have joined, how to make their needs better known so that they can be trained and properly promoted. I was talking just last week to those members of my staff who are especially concerned with disabled people. We are anxious to ensure that the civil service remains a lead employer in helping the disabled not only to take jobs but to be promoted as far as they possibly can be.