To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to avoid damage to Scottish industry and people resulting from delay in the construction of direct railway lines between Scotland and the continent for its goods and passengers.

The electrification of the east coast main line and the upgrading of routes between London and the channel tunnel will give Scotland excellent rail communications with the continent when the tunnel opens. British Rail's planned upgrading of the west coast main line would, in due course, further strengthen those links.

I cannot believe that the Minister gave that reply. Trains from London to Lille travel at 100 mph, yet those from London to Paris and from Glasgow to Paris travel at 65 mph. We want a TGV line from Glasgow to Paris. London is the only British city with a direct fink to the continent. We should follow the example of the French, who are willing to spend £20 billion to increase the speed of the TGV train from 186 mph to 250 mph.

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that, apart from France, the United Kingdom has more high-speed trains than any country in the world. The electrification of the east coast main line from London to Edinburgh will be the largest single electrification or other railway project that British Rail has undertaken, and it will make a big contribution to improving the quality of travelling for the travelling public.

When my right hon. and learned Friend considers direct links between Scotland and all parts of the United Kingdom and continental Europe will he take into account the benefits of using a route through Stratford in east London, which would avoid the bottleneck of central London and would provide fast traffic straight through for freight and passengers?

As my hon. Friend may know, the recommendations that British Rail put to me recently for a high-speed link from the channel tunnel to London involved consideration of several routes, including the option that he suggested.

As the Secretary of State is aware that only 23 per cent. of rail lines in Scotland are electrified, will he accept the strength of argument for electrification north of the central belt, especially as so many of our industries in the north-east and north of Scotland are export led?

As the hon. Lady probably knows, was pleased to be present last Thursday at the opening of the electrified InterCity line between Edinburgh and Glasgow. She will be aware that British Rail is holding discussions with local authorities to see whether non-commercial benefits would flow from the electrification of northern routes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much of London Underground's rolling stock in percentage terms has been brought into use in the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

In the past year the public have not yet seen the benefits of the re-equipment programme. The first of the 85 new Central line trains will enter passenger service next spring and the first of the refurbished trains for the Bakerloo, Victoria, Circle and Hammersmith and City lines will enter service this July. Contracts have been let for more than two fifths of London Underground's trains to be replaced or completely modernised.

I thank my hon. Friend for his support in getting the escalator at Greenford station back in action after it had been out of action for no fewer than seven months and for his admirable visit to Greenford.

That is another point in the polls.

I thank the hon. Gentleman.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend's comments on my visit to Greenford. I am sure that he will be the first on the telephone if the escalator is not working at the station. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry must decide when to publish the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Investment in the underground, excluding the Jubilee line and the east-west crossrail, is around £400 million per annum. There is certainly justification for increasing that amount. During the coming public expenditure round, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will seriously consider what needs to be done.

The Minister may have helped the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) with his escalator problem, so would he like to visit Stockwell and Oval stations on the Northern line, where half the escalators have been out of action for a long time? Is it right that it should take a minimum of 16 weeks to fix an escalator? Would the hon. Gentleman like to give my area the prompt attention that he gave Ealing?

I should be delighted to do that and to visit both stations. As the hon. Lady knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is a rail enthusiast and, in addition to travelling regularly on British Rail trains, he recently visited stations on the Northern line. I shall get in touch with the hon. Lady and we shall fix a date on which I shall visit those two stations.

Does the Minister accept the description given by the chairman of London Transport that the underground is an appalling shambles and at least £10 billion is needed to produce acceptable standards? Does the hon. Gentleman accept the rumour that the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission makes it clear that there are inadequate finances for the London underground? If so, will the hon. Gentleman make a statement to the House before the summer so that we can offer some hope to those suffering misery on the London underground?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will doubtless shortly publish the MMC's report on London Underground, and the hon. Gentleman should wait and read that document. The chairman of London Transport referred to a period going back many decades, during which there were both Labour and Conservative Governments.

Is the chairman's statement true?

There is no question but that the existing underground—setting on one side the mega-projects—is receiving substantial investment, but it needs more.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has received for development of a new railway station at Canning Town.

My right hon. and learned Friend has received a proposal from London Underground Ltd. for a station at Canning Town, which is included in the Bill for the Jubilee line extension which is currently before the House.

Is the Minister aware of the sense of grievance in the east end of London because, compared with central and western London, we are often palmed off with what is second best and second rate, and that is threatening to happen again with the new station at Canning Town? I was told today that stations to the west on the Jubilee line are being designed by a firm of architects of international repute whereas stations to the east have been subcontracted out to a firm that no one has ever heard of. Is that true? Will the hon. Gentleman write to me about it? Finally—

Order. One question, please.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the design of Canning Town station is inferior? The hon. Gentleman was told that the cost of a decent, high-quality station would be an extra £40 million, whereas the Select Committee on Transport discovered that it would cost only an extra £8 million. Will the hon. Gentleman review the position with a view to giving us a decent station for the new railway line in the east end of London?

Proceedings on the Jubilee line continue. My information is that the type of station that the hon. Gentleman and Newham want would cost an extra £7 million, which at the moment cannot be justified by the extra revenue that it would be likely to generate. It would involve putting the Northern line interchange at the same location as the docklands light railway and Jubilee line interchanges. The hon. Gentleman said that his area gets second best. Not only is the docklands light railway being upgraded, but the Jubilee line extension to Stratford is a massive investment in, commitment to and support for the east end of London.

Does the Minister recall his visit to Canning Town station and to my constituents when he and I walked the tracks together? Is he aware of the importance of the interchange between the docklands light railway on the docklands north bank and the Jubilee line on the south bank? The lines cross at Canning Town, as does the north London link, which he mentioned. Why should we have a second-class station there, where interchanging will be difficult? Does not a second-class station imply that the Government think that the inhabitants of Canning Town and the Beckton docklands area are second-class citizens?

I remember my visit to Canning Town station with the hon. Gentleman. It seemed that the interchange between the docklands light railway and the Jubilee line at Canning Town was satisfactory and was in no sense a second-class station. I shall write to him and to his colleague, the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), about the architect who is designing the station. It is true that passengers will have to pass through a tunnel to get to the north London line interchange, but to have all three lines intersecting with interconnecting platforms would cost an extra £7 million. At this stage, at least, the hon. Gentleman advances no justification for spending that extra money.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the name of the bridge currently under construction over the Thames at Dartford; and if he will make a statement.

No decision has yet been taken on a name for the new bridge.

My hon. Friend will appreciate my disappointment with his answer. Will he confirm that the bridge will be named after neither Dartford nor Thurrock? Will he also pay tribute to all the men and women who have worked so hard to make the bridge a reality in north-west Kent?

I am happy to pay tribute to all the people who have worked on the construction of the bridge and to those who have been lobbying for it to be given one name or another. My hon. Friend is speculating and I could not possibly confirm or deny what he is saying.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the one person to be neutral was the Chairman of the parliamentary Committee which sat for many weeks to discuss the matter and that, in tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), who has now gone into the silence of the Whips Office, perhaps the bridge should be called Sydney's bridge?

That is a novel suggestion which will be taken into account in the coming weeks.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to bring forward proposals which would compensate British Rail passengers for poor standards of customer service.

We are actively pursuing, in co-operation with British Rail, a number of ways in which a higher quality of service can be encouraged and rewarded. As part of this process, we are examining how the interests of passengers can be promoted and protected.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State and heartily welcome his enthusiasm for rail transport. Will he share the misery of commuters from my constituency who suffer from the lack of announcements by British Rail, delays, a complete lack of punctuality and of facilities at stations and from problems of overcrowding caused because trains are not of the right length? They face all those problems, yet, as season ticket holders, they receive no compensation except through the minor and almost secret system of ex gratia payments which British Rail has introduced under the counter. Will he put the matter in the public domain and force British Rail to provide compensation to passengers if they suffer from the inadequacies of the current level of service and if British Rail simply fails to perform?

As my hon. Friend rightly says, there is an ex gratia payments scheme currently operated by British Rail, which last year paid out about £2·5 million to passengers who suffered from various inconveniences. My hon. Friend is right to refer to the need to consider extending facilities for passengers who have been gravely inconvenienced, not simply on the railways but in other areas. They are matters that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said would be the subject of the citizens' charter proposals which are being considered.

Is the Minister aware that if compensation were allocated, British Rail, on its present standing, would lose about £270 million? If so, would not it also be true that the people of Kent and East Anglia would no longer have to pay rail fares?

The hon. Gentleman should not assume that press speculation is necessarily valid. Clearly, the level of compensation paid would depend on the criteria for entitlement to it, which are still to be considered. France is often given as an example of a country where compensation is paid to passengers. However, if one examines that idea in detail, one finds that TGV passengers receive compensation only if the train is more than three hours late. Therefore, the sums involved tend to be rather small.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Kent commuters in particular are entitled to a better standard of service and that the greatest improvement could be secured if he would approve soon the investment in the new Networker Express programme for the Kent coast? Do his new-found expressions of enthusiasm for rail investment include an early announcement of the 741 Networker Express programme for the Kent coast?

I can tell my hon. Friend that there are various ways in which Kent railway services have been improved in the recent past and, no doubt, will be improved in the weeks and months to come. I cannot make a specific announcement today on the project to which my hon. Friend referred. However, I appreciate the importance attached by Kent commuters to improvement of that service.

May I refer the Secretary of State, in his considerations of ideas for the citizens' charter, to his copy of "Moving Britain into the 1990s", which details the things that need to be done? That would continue the plagiarism of Labour's policies. Will he seriously consider repealing the conditions of carriage for British Rail, bringing in a detailed pricing policy for British Rail, assessing whether the Government have given sufficient financial resources to British Rail to enable it to meet the standards that he wishes to impose on it, and setting up an independent regulatory body to ensure that such standards are confirmed and carried out?

Those tempted by Labour's proposals for railways for the next Parliament will wish to reflect on what the previous Labour Government did. They will recall that investment in the railways fell each year between 1975 and 1979. They will be reminded that there was a net closure of railway lines—more railway lines closed than were opened during the period of the last Labour Government—whereas in the past 12 years, there has been a net increase in the rail network. They will also applaud the fact that under this Conservative Government no fewer than 163 railway stations have either been opened or reopened since 1979.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the level of efficiency of the ports industry.

There has been a marked increase in productivity at many ports since the abolition of the dock labour scheme, with increased scope for investment. I expect further advances as a result of the privatisation of leading trust ports under the Ports Bill which is now before Parliament.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that since the abolition of the national dock labour scheme there have been dramatic improvements in efficiency and productivity in the docks? That must have substantially benefited our export trade. Bearing in mind that some people regarded the national dock labour scheme as the jewel in the crown of the special relationship between the Labour party and the trade union movement, has my hon. Friend had many demands for the reintroduction of the national dock labour scheme?

We have had no demands from the industry or from the people who work in the docks, although I understand that the Opposition are considering whether they should reimpose such a scheme, which would only damage the port industry.

Why do the Government support the European Community's proposals to downgrade the port of Stranraer, not to proceed with making the railway line in western Scotland more efficient, and to divert cross-Irish sea transport to Fishguard?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made a speech about the importance that the Government attach to freight and to attempting to move freight by rail. I will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman receives a full reply about Northern Ireland ports.

Why does there continue to be so little reference to the role of ports and shipping in an integrated transport infrastructure? Why do the Government measure everything in terms of efficiency rather than dovetailing our ports into the transport policy that we should have? Does the Minister accept that the trust ports already compete with the private sector? Why has he forced through reserve powers to sell off trust ports? Is not the Government's treatment of trust ports proof that neither the nation's health nor its transport is safe in their hands?

What we have just heard from the Opposition is that they will pay no attention to efficiency but will be concerned only with bureaucratic planning of transport. We do not feel that that is the most appropriate way in which to develop transport policy. We shall concentrate on efficiency because we believe that that will bring greater opportunities to our ports industry. It has been pointed out that the powers for privatisation are reserve powers and will be used only after consultation with the ports. We believe that the trust ports will be far better served in the private sector. Indeed, a number of ports eagerly await the passage of the Bill so that they can move into the private sector.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement on the preferred route for the new channel tunnel rail link between London and the North Downs.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on British Rail's proposals for a high-speed rail link through south-east London and Kent.

We are considering British Rail's report and recommendations for the rail link carefully. It is too early to say when decisions may be announced.

Is it not remarkable that in his recent speech of enlightenment, supposedly signalling his conversion to rail, the Secretary of State devoted but a single sentence to the passenger rail link from the channel tunnel? Is that because he is deeply embarrassed about this long-running fiasco? Will he accept from me that he cannot delay further, that he should clearly announce that he has abandoned any consideration of a route through south London and that he will do the decent thing and look for an alternative that links Stratford and King's Cross?

As the recommendations from British Rail landed on my desk only a couple of weeks ago, it would have been remarkable if I had given them more than one sentence of consideration in a speech made last week. It is precisely because we wish to consider all the implications, including the points raised by the hon. Lady, that it will take a little time to come to a judgment and a conclusion. That is what we are doing at present.

My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that my constituents in north-west Kent have had to put up with three years of blight, as four of the routes under consideration cross my constituency. Is he also aware that even more than a rapid decision, we want a right decision which properly takes into account the environmental considerations, because in north-west Kent we have nothing to gain in transport terms and a large amount to lose in terms of our environment?

My hon. Friend is correct to emphasise the importance of the environmental implications for Kent of whatever decision is reached. British Rail itself has said that if it is given approval to go ahead, its next step will be to consider a full environmental assessment of whatever turns out to be the preferred route.

Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State is trying to work out a route that somehow avoids every marginal Conservative constituency in south-east London? Does he intend to make an announcement before the summer recess or is he hanging on for an election? If he is, we could be waiting an awfully long time for that decision.

I am touched by the hon. Gentleman's concern. However, he will appreciate that when a report that is 12 inches thick has been presented, he would be the first to criticise if we leapt to conclusions on it. 'We shall reach a decision and announce it when we have considered British Rail's recommendations and given them the proper attention that they require.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure the House that when he considers the route through south London, he will do nothing to exacerbate the practice at Lymington of British Rail trains leaving just before the ferry docks from the Isle of Wight rather than just after, as that is a continual irritation to my constituents?

Order. Is that towards the North Downs?

I am not certain whether that is towards the North Downs, Mr. Speaker, but. we shall certainly draw to the attention of British Rail what appear; to be a lack of co-ordination in the service available.

Before making his decision would not the Secretary of State be well advised to put out for consultation whatever recommendation he has received from British Rail? He will well remember that when his predecessor received the last report and an announcement was made to the public, there was a huge outcry, including from his own colleagues? Are not the route, and the need to pay for the environmental consequences of whichever route is chosen, matters on which consultation is needed and on which wise and careful decisions must be made —not least, if I may say so respectfully, for the sake of the Secretary of State's colleagues, who risk a great deal if he makes the wrong decision?

The principle of what the hon. Gentleman says cannot be questioned, and nor would I seek to do so. The important point, which I made a few moments ago, is that British Rail is not asking for a final decision at this stage. It seeks approval to go ahead with a full environmental assessment of its preferred route. That will, indeed, involve a substantial degree of public consultation to take into account the points raised by not only the hon. Gentleman but my hon. Friends.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been carried out by or on behalf of his Department on the advisability of segregating drivers and passengers from vehicles (a) transported by ship or hovercraft and (b) transported by rail.

For the channel tunnel car-carrying shuttles the plan is that drivers and passengers should stay in or very close to their cars. Eurotunnel believes that this procedure will be safe and the speediest way of unloading cars. The independent Anglo-French safety authority has said that it is satisfied with this system in principle, but that it wants further research to continue.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main reasons why occupants are separated from their vehicles on passenger ferries is the danger of the occasional spontaneous combustion of a vehicle? Does he therefore understand the concern about what would happen should that occur when passengers are inside their vehicles in enclosed carriages on a train in the channel tunnel? Can he assure us that research has been undertaken that will set people's minds at rest? Will he ensure that such research is published so that the public can be satisfied?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I assure him that research will continue and I will ensure that the House is informed of its conclusions before the channel tunnel service opens. The difference between cars being parked on the lower deck of a ferry and on the car-carrying shuttles going through the channel tunnel is that the cars on the shuttle will be in containers in which no more than five cars can be parked on any one deck. To that extent, the risk of fire is contained.

Does the Minister recognise the growing concern, especially among families with young children, that there will be dangers in travelling through the channel tunnel in trains and in being confined to compartments, particularly if delays occur in the tunnel? Is it not time for serious consideration to be given to that and for alternative proposals to be forthcoming?

I am sure that Eurotunnel will consider whatever sensible and practical alternatives are available. Recently, I had the pleasure and privilege of travelling through the channel tunnel—I think that I was the first Minister, either French or British, to do so. The journey took four and a half hours on one of the construction trains, but it will take around 30 minutes for the shuttles to travel between Folkestone and Calais underneath the channel. Passengers will be able to get out of their cars and travel from one vehicle to the next, but they will not be able to travel the entire length of the train. It remains to be seen whether passengers are prepared to accept this, but the Government firmly believe that the channel tunnel service will be a success.

When my hon. Friend publishes the results of the research will he include comparisons with the European experience of long-tunnel train travel where people remain, with safety, in their vehicles?

Yes, I am sure that we shall do so. Those on the Opposition Front Bench have been pressing my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on the rail link. I am sure that the House will realise that as and when a rail link is built the amount of travel in tunnels—under the channel, through the north and south Downs and under the metropolis—will be considerable, whatever route is chosen. The experience of rail passengers travelling through long tunnels, especially in Japan, will be relevant.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses he has received to his consultation paper entitled, "A Bus Strategy for London".

We are continuing to receive official responses to our consultation paper "A Bus Strategy for London" and to date more than 200 have been received. I am not sure whether we have received one from the hon. Gentleman. The Government believe that a deregulated rather than centrally planned bus service in London will encourage more and varied services, so offering the best chance of increasing bus patronage.

Does the Minister admit that he is riding along with deregulation in the bus strategy? When it has been adopted outside London, has not that meant 16 per cent. fewer buses? That would be a disaster for traffic in London. It might mean more buses in the rush hour but fewer, or perhaps none, off peak. Would not the quality of the bus fleet go down? Would not concessionary fares for pensioners and the travel card be placed at risk or be referred to the Office of Fair Trading? Does not that show that the Government are unsafe to steer London buses?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has his figures muddled. Since deregulation, figures for bus services outside London show an increase of about one fifth in the number of bus miles offered to passengers. There are more services by minibuses, double deckers, and coaches. The Government want to ensure that London has the same benefits—more bus miles offered to passengers —so that we can encourage more passengers onto the buses and thereby help to relieve congestion.

Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree, none the less, that the experience of transport planning, here and in other countries, suggests that something less than full deregulation may be appropriate to the capital city? Will he bear in mind that need to compromise?

We are still receiving consultation responses, including the contribution from the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). The Government have not reached a final decision on the format of deregulation. However, the central principle is clear. It divides the Opposition from the Government because we believe in a substantially deregulated market. More buses would come into London to offer their services, which would, hopefully, mean more passengers on the buses—

What do the passengers think?

I shall not be drawn into making a riposte. The Government believe strongly that, the more buses that are provided and offered to customers in London, the more people will travel on them and the less congested our roads will become.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to make an official visit to York to inspect the railway industry.

I visited York on 14 January to launch the new diesel express class of 158 units on the transpennine route. A total of 128 of these units are being introduced on regional railways. They will make a significant improvement to regional railway services. I hope to visit York on 27 June to attend a meeting of the North Eastern transport users' consultative committee.

I am delighted by the regularity with which my hon. Friend visits York. I hope that he will encourage my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to visit, not only to see the new headquarters of British Rail Freight but to take the opportunity to explain to British Rail employees the advantages of denationalisation. Will he make clear to them that they would benefit from share ownership in much the same way as their brothers and sisters in British Rail Engineering Ltd.?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State would welcome the opportunity to visit York to explain the advantages of privatising British Rail.

When the Minister visits York, will he talk to the workers of BREL, who will explain to him how those of them who have been there for 25 or 26 years are losing their redundancy terms each year that they retain their membership of the new company, while new directors are being given enormous benefits? Will the Minister try to understand that, far from being an advantage to workers, privatisation will mean enormous job losses, worse conditions and much lower redundancy payments when employees lose their jobs?

I need not go to York to meet workers of BREL because I often meet them in my constituency. We believe that they are in a far better position in a privatised company than they would have been, had the company continued to be a subsidiary of British Rail, and most of the workers believe that, too.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is Government policy on assistance for further light rapid transit systems.

We are prepared to grant-aid worthwhile light rail schemes subject to the availability of resources. In the past two years we have approved Manchester metro link at £120 million and South Yorkshire supertram at £230 million.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the considerable benefits that will accrue to my constituents and the many other people who live in the greater Nottingham area from a Nottingham LRT? Will he also bear in mind that the project being developed there represents genuine participation between the private and the public sectors, which deserves full Government support, not only after a Bill is put before the House but, before that, during the project's development?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We welcome the participation of the private sector in transport schemes—for example, the docklands light railway and the Jubilee line. The light rail schemes, in Nottingham and Bristol, are to be welcomed. They ensure that projects funded by the public purse are much more likely to proceed.

Given the Secretary of State's recent and much-publicised conversion to the principle of support for public transport, particularly rail, would it not be a good idea for him to implement what are at present only ideas and give the go ahead to the midland metro? That would contribute enormously to the reduction of congestion in the Birmingham-West Bromwich-Wolverhampton corridor.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for that scheme. His views sit uncomfortably with those expressed by his colleague, the shadow spokesman for transport, on light rail schemes in general. The Government believe that once exercises are concluded on sensible propositions—including, on the face of it, the one for the west midlands—and if resources are available, they will be funded.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to visit the Duchy to discuss with tenants the income of the Duchy.

I very much look forward to my next visit to the Duchy. However I do not expect to discuss Duchy income levels with tenants.

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that, at a time of steadily reducing interest rates, tenants in the Duchy who are small business owners are faced with increases in the amount they have to pay for bank loans? Has my right hon. Friend received any representations on that matter from tenants in the Duchy? Does he have any ideas to put before the House, now or in future, that might alleviate the problems of small businesses?

I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's views to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was able to offer a few views on that important subject on a well-known television programme yesterday morning. I am sure that ray right hon. Friend, were he at the Dispatch Box, would say that in the implausible event of a Labour Government, interest rates would be a great deal higher due to the risk premium of socialist policies.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next proposes to visit the Duchy on official business.

I have no plans to visit the Duchy estates in the immediate future.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. When he draws up his programme for future visits to the Duchy, will he specifically include a visit to Ribble Valley and, once there, judge the extent—although I accept that it will be extremely difficult for him—to which voters are more aware of Liberal Democrat policies?

As my hon. Friend knows from his successful experience in Chelmsford, very few people seem to know what Liberal Democrat policies amount to, as that party customarily stands for a sort of a sanctimonious popularism, which means that its members are in favour of whatever they think is immediately popular on the side of town where they are standing for office. I hope that more people in the Ribble Valley, as elsewhere in the country, will now know that two things for which the Liberals certainly stand are higher income tax and a 50 per cent. cut in our defence programme.

When the Chancellor of the Duchy goes to the north-west, will he accept that people there are far more at risk from the failed policies of the Conservative Government than from anything that the Liberal Democrats may have to offer? Will he tell those in the north-west—the 8,000 people who lost their jobs in April alone, the 745 companies which went into liquidation in the first three months of this year and the 606 companies that went bankrupt this year—whether he shares the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that is a price well worth paying?

I would certainly point out to anyone in the north-west to whom I was fortunate enough to speak that there had been a 16 per cent. increase in the number of businesses in the north-west since 1979. I should also point out that unemployment would be higher if there were such a thing as a Labour Government, because of the national minimum wage—a well known fact. I would also point out that interest rates would be higher because of the risk premium of a Labour Government, and that taxes on everyone would be a great deal higher too.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next expects to visit the Duchy to meet tenants and employees to discuss the taxation and income of the Duchy.

I shall be meeting Duchy tenants next month, although, as I said earlier, I do not envisage discussing taxation or Duchy income levels.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. When next he has a chance to move as a popular Chancellor among his grateful tenantry does he anticipate receiving from them expressions of concern of the sort that I receive in my constituency about the fact that it is now official Labour party policy to cut defence expenditure by about £9 billion—and that that is likely to cost thousands of jobs, including thousands of jobs in Lancashire?

My hon. Friend is of course entirely correct to point out that Labour party conferences have consistently voted for cuts of one third in our defence budget. I understand that they would amount to about £9 billion. We know very well that Labour's cuts in our conventional defences, as well as its unilateralism, would lead to job cuts in the north-west and elsewhere in the country and to the undermining of our security.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many certification audits were carried out by the National Audit Office in each of the past two years.

The National Audit Office certified 466 accounts in 1989–90, and 463 in 1990–1.

The National Audit Office is obviously working hard and extremely efficiently, and on behalf of the whole House we should like to thank it. Am I correct in saying that it also examined the social security accounts, paying particular attention to computer technology and the assessment of income support? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great deal of suffering that underestimating or overestimating income support calculations inflicts on the clients of the DSS? Will he have a gentle word in the ear of the Comptroller and Auditor General and suggest that he looks again at the use of computers in the Department and perhaps that he comes to my constituency, to the DSS office at Jubilee house, to see how inefficiently the computer system there is operated?

I am sure that the Comptroller and Auditor General does examine the accounts to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. However, these matters are more properly within the province of the Public Accounts Committee than within that of the Public Accounts Commission; but I am quite certain that the Comptroller and Auditor General will take note of what has been said.

Does the hon. Gentleman think that the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, which I strongly oppose, to widen the remit of the National Audit Office so that it has to report to Select Committees will prejudice the work done by the NAO on certification and the relationship that it has with Government Departments, which is very much based on trust? That trust might be endangered if the work of the NAO is drawn into the political haranguing that may sometimes occur in Select Committees.

The Public Accounts Commission has not yet considered that matter, although we may do so. I should greatly regret anything that diminished the authority or role of the Comptroller and Auditor General or the close association that he has with the Public Accounts Committee.

Will my hon. Friend pass on to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to the National Audit Office the gratitude of the whole House for the excellent work that the organisation undertakes? Does he agree that by the structure and content of its reports the NAO has greatly increased, through the clarity of its presentation, the information available to ordinary Members of this House?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, as I am sure the Comptroller and Auditor General will be. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's remarks.

Given the precedent set by the investigations of the National Audit Office into the financial consequences of the sale of the Rover car company, will the NAO be able to examine the results of the horse trading that is taking place to try to capture the Channel 3 franchises of television companies?

That will not be a matter for the Public Accounts Commission. I am sure that the Comptroller and Auditor General will examine anything which the hon. Gentleman may care to put to him. I have no authority in the matter.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next expects to visit the Duchy to discuss the income levels of the Duchy.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs).

If my right hon. Friend were to discuss the income levels of the people of the Duchy, would he consider with them the advantages of a Government who have cut personal taxation and who will do so again when that is prudent? Would he compare that Government with a Government formed by the Labour party, the Opposition? Previous Labour Administrations have increased taxation, and a Labour Government would do so again.

The other day the Leader of the Opposition said that no one could look to a Labour Government, were there to be one, for tax cuts. I think that that was the understatement of the decade. Under a Labour Government, tax would increase for everyone in work, for all savers, for the thrifty and for the enterprising.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to extend public facilities in the Palace of Westminster.

The relevant Services sub-committees are currently considering measures to improve further access for disabled visitors and the feasibility of providing refreshments for all visitors in advance of whatever may be included in the design brief for phase 2 of the new parliamentary building.

Does the Lord President share my understanding that having a cream tea with a Member on the Terrace is one of the high spots of the London season? It is certainly one of the lesser injuries that we can inflict upon our constituents. Given the appalling weather at present and the tight-fistedness of many hon. Members, it is clear that a cream tea is not one of the pleasures that many constituents can enjoy. Could not we have a boat moored off the Thames on which refreshments are provided? It would—[Interruption.] This is a serious point. Such a boat would enable members of the public to enjoy the views that we have. Refreshments could be offered not in phase 2 but in the Palace of Westminster itself, perhaps by using Westminster Hall. We are very ready to take hospitality in this place but reluctant to offer it.

I do not often have cream teas and I rather welcome the rain because we are badly in need of it.

To ask the Lord President of the Council whether there are any proposals to produce the Official Report on recycled paper.

This matter was considered by the Accommodation and Administration sub-committee during the previous Session.

I understand the need to retain some Hansards for archival purposes, but most daily reports and most Order Papers are put into the rubbish bin at the end of the day. Is there not a case for reconsidering the use of recycled paper for those parliamentary papers?

I understand that some libraries use copies of the daily Official Report and other volumes for archival purposes. I take my hon. Friend's point about Vote Papers and Vote bundles. I would guess that they are not used often for archival purposes. I am happy to ask the relevant Committee to take up the matter again and to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. I am strongly in favour of using recycled paper whenever that is possible.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that helpful reply, but two further developments would be welcome. First, will he try to ensure that the amount of paper produced in the House—much of which is wasted internally, let alone externally—is reduced? There is considerable scope, especially in view of the amount of paper left at the end of every day and bundled up in the Vote Office.

I shall see that the hon. Gentleman's point is considered. As for his first, I share his view that wherever possible we should cut down on the amount of paper that we use. I have often thought that we use far too much in the Vote bundle. The Procedure Committee has examined the matter and made some helpful recommendations. I am keen that it should do more, as I suggested when I met the Committee recently.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to extend the eligibility of House post-paid envelopes for use by an hon. Member writing to overseas constituents; and if he will make a statement.

I have no plans to do so. However, my hon. Friend may be aware that the Services Committee has recently approved the use of post-paid envelopes to certain official destinations in Europe and this facility will be available to hon. Members in June.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I remind him that there are now 400,000 overseas constituents with whom hon. Members need to communicate. I am in constant communication with several of mine. Many of them live beyond the territories of Europe. Is my right hon. Friend aware that they like to receive House of Commons envelopes with the proper embossed heading? Will he find some way of enabling hon. Members to use those envelopes for communications with their overseas constituents?

It took some time to establish the arrangement that I have just described for certain European destinations, involving an embossed stamp. My hon. Friend has anticipated me. I was going to remind him that for overseas correspondence concerning parliamentary or constituency business hon. Members may use the normal postage stamps and reclaim the cost from the Fees Office against the office cost allowance. That is one possibility open to my hon. Friend, and he can also use House of Commons envelopes for that purpose even if they are not stamped.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to introduce a procedure whereby an official response would be presented in respect of all parliamentary public petitions.

No, Sir.

Does the Lord President realise that more than 900 official petitions submitted last year received the response from the Government, "There is no Government response"? They were not ordinary street-corner petitions; people had to go through a detailed rigmarole to present them to the House. The Government are undermining the British people's traditional right to present a petition to the House. I would have put this complaint in a petition, but I feared that I would receive the reply, "There is no response".

The hon. Gentleman is getting a response from me now. Part of the answer is that there are other ways in which constituents' requests—petitions, ideas and views—can receive Government answers, including the usual means of parliamentary questions. The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. The Government gave their observations on 170 of the 960 petitions in the previous Session. Not all petitions are addressed to the Government; they are effectively addressed to the House. I think that it is right to follow the normal practices.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on progress on phases 1 and 2 of the new parliamentary buildings.

Phase 1 is now being fitted out and furnished. The part of the building occupied by the House of Commons Library, known as 1 Derby Gate, will open to Members on Monday 17 June. The catering facilities and Members' offices in phase 1 will be ready when the House returns from its summer adjournment. The Services Committee has agreed its initial brief for phase 2 and will report on this shortly to the House. It is hoped that construction work can begin in spring 1992 and the building be ready for occupation in 1996.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful answer. In view of the increasing number of right hon. and hon. Members who will use the accommodation in those two phases, as well as Norman Shaw North and South, will he tell us what is the latest thinking on the provision of a secure access from those buildings into the Palace of Westminster?

There will be new security arrangements for those buildings and that will apply immediately in phase 1. Direct secure access to the House from both will have to await completion of phase 2 in respect of completely secure access. The intention is to have secure access when phase 2 is completed.

Is not progress on providing new and better facilities painfully slow? Does the Leader of the House recognise that an interim solution might be to rent or lease space in existing buildings in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster? In that regard, would he bring into use the building on the other side of Westminster bridge which was the former headquarters of the Greater London council? That building could be put to effective use for hon. Members, their staff and visitors. Would he also bring that building into a proper state of maintenance so that a a new London authority can reoccupy when we have a Labour Government?

First, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I am as keen as anyone to see progress on the provision of better facilities for hon. Members. There will be 65 Members offices in phase 1 which is coming in shortly. There will be another 25 Members offices as the Serjeant at Arms, the deputy Serjeant at Arms and Mr. Speaker's secretary vacate their present residences. That is a step forward.