To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the deregulation of buses in London.

May I, on behalf of my colleagues, and the House, wish you, Mr. Speaker, a very happy birthday?

Does the Minister acknowledge that even London Transport is alarmed at the way in which—[Interruption.] I use its words—the Government are handling, the deregulation? That alarm is shared by those who believe that deregulation will cause traffic chaos and will put in jeopardy concessionary fares and the travelcard scheme. Why does not the Minister abandon his ideological obsession with breaking up the London bus service and get on with the job of getting transport moving in London?

I do not recognise the facts as the hon. Gentleman has presented them. First, the senior management of London Transport and the operators of the London bus subsidiaries are in favour of deregulation and privatisation. Secondly, we have no intention of jeopardising the concessionary fares and the travelcard, which are two essential forms of travel subsidy not only for the disabled and pensioners, but for those who want to use different modes of transport.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the appalling bus service in south-east London and that improvements are necessary to benefit my constituents? I understand that my hon. Friend intends to propose a new London bus executive, which would ensure that socially desirable routes are maintained when deregulation takes place.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has put his finger on the key advantage of deregulation. When privatised, the bus companies, including the London bus subsidiaries, will take the decision on when and where to run commercial services, but the London bus executive will, on behalf of the taxpayer, subsidise socially necessary services.

Would the Minister consider an extension of the franchising of the bus service? At the moment, one third of bus miles are on franchise in London, and that initiative seems to be working. Is not that a better way to proceed than deregulation, which seems to be a shambles?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to tendering, which relates only to operating the service—successful tenderers do not keep the revenue. That initiative, welcome though it has been, has gone as far as it possibly can in benefiting London Transport. The next sensible step is deregulation, which will allow the London bus subsidiaries to run their own services.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are great advantages under the existing system and that tendering and licensing have served people in the peripheral areas of the metropolis, such as my own, very well? We hope that we will be not be exposed too much to the dogma of total deregulation.

I am sure that my hon. Friend would want to see the private sector extend to the outer-London suburbs and offer a variety of additional services. That must be to the benefit of his constituents.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about plans to upgrade rail links to south Wales.

I understand that British Rail is planning to improve the signalling on the Paddington to south Wales line. That will improve journey times. In the longer term, British Rail will consider electrification when the existing rolling stock needs to be replaced.

The longer term is not good enough. The Government's abysmal failure to upgrade the links with south Wales means that that part of the country is in danger of becoming a forgotten backwater of the new Europe. Does the Minister agree that British Rail should extend the channel tunnel link via Waterloo international terminal not just to Cardiff, but to Swansea and, if necessary, to Fishguard as well?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to talk down south Wales and the tremendous improvements and achievements in the south Wales economy. As for freight services, the hon. Gentleman will know of British Rail's plan to run channel tunnel freight from Pengam. He should be encouraging industries in south Wales to use that freight terminal, as I have done. If there is justification for another terminal, for example at Swansea, I am sure that British Rail will react positively.

Is not one of the main requirements of south Wales, and indeed south-west England, direct access to the channel tunnel preferably avoiding central London? At the risk of being tedious, may I again ask my hon. Friend to ask British Rail to re-examine the option of full utilisation of the Reading-Redhill-Tonbridge line, which was built last century specifically with the channel tunnel in mind?

Following my hon. Friend's advice I went to Redhill to determine the civil engineering works that would be required to carry freight further westwards, instead of through central London. Although the idea is interesting, it presents major planning and construction problems. However, I shall convey what my hon. Friend has said to British Rail.

Is not the Minister aware that the quality of rolling stock on the south Wales line is already far from satisfactory? Substandard rolling stock is frequently being used and, partly as a consequence, trains are running late. British Rail needs to invest massively, not only on the line to Swansea, but on the one through to Fishguard to serve Ireland, and likewise on the Crewe to Holyhead line. Will my hon. Friend take up the issue with British Rail?

British Rail is engaged in its largest investment programme for 30 years, led by Sir Bob Reid, in whom my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I have total confidence. This year, he and his board are leading an investment programme of £1·1 billion, and it is for them to make judgments about priorities. I recently visited Holyhead and rode on the railway line from Chester. British Rail is taking steps to improve journey times on the north Wales line.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress on the scheme to widen the M4.

The three commissions to study the need and options for increasing capacity on the length of the M4 between the M25 and junction 15 are proceeding satisfactorily, so the proposals can be announced next spring.

My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that that report of good progress will be well received in Swindon and elsewhere along the length of the M4. He will be aware of the fact that seven of my constituents were killed in an horrendous accident on the M4 in the spring of this year. In that context, what can be done to improve road safety on the M4, especially in relation to fog warning signals, motorway lighting and central reservation barriers, which have proved ineffective in preventing cross-over accidents?

I welcome my hon. Friend's endorsement of the Government's strategy to continue to invest heavily in the motorway network and the plans for the M4, which involve expenditure of about £600 million. It is fair to say that the accident on the M4 to which my hon. Friend referred was caused not by a vehicle crossing over the central reservation, but by a vehicle bouncing back off the central reservation. At the inquest it came out clearly that many people involved in the accident were driving too fast and too close together for the prevailing weather conditions. Earlier this month I announced the introduction of motorway matrix signs on the M4 that can display a fog legend. I hope that that will further reinforce the message to road users during foggy weather that it is indeed foggy, although that should be self-evident to responsible motorists.

The Minister will be aware that the M4 corridor in South Wales has brought a welcome growth of new industries along it inside Wales, but to transport the manufactured products of Wales from that country, manufacturers have to pay to cross the Severn bridge, and will have to pay even more to cross the new bridge. Why should Welsh industries be penalised when the Government know that the bridge provides an artery to Europe and the great new future which they say companies will find there?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman's party was in favour of everything going by rail. His comments show that he recognises that to have a good road infrastructure is vital to the economy of England and Wales. That is why the Government are committed to investing heavily in that infrastructure.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the channel tunnel high-speed rail link; and if he will make a statement.

I meet Sir Bob Reid regularly to discuss important railway issues, including the Channel tunnel rail link.

When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the chairman, will he raise with him the placement of an international railway station in the north of Dartford and the extent to which he expects the private sector to be involved in that important project?

On the first point, British Rail will consider the precise provision of stations and other facilities as part of the work that it is currently doing. On the second point, I agree about the desirability of encouraging maximum private sector involvement in the project. I shall soon appoint a merchant bank to advise on private sector finance for the new line.

What progress is being made in starting to run the environmental impact assessment which Mr. Ripa di Meana has ordered the Government to undertake? Is it true that up to 1,000 homes in the Stratford area could be subject to subsidence as a result of tunnel boring? It seems an alarmist story, but I am alarmed because I have one of those homes.

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, long before Mr. Ripa di Meana expressed any opinions on the subject, the Government announced that, of course, there would be an environmental impact assessment of the project. It will take place as soon as British Rail's current work on the details of the line is complete. That answer also covers the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The matter that he raises is covered by the present detailed examination.

Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that while British Rail is working on the details of the Arup route, there will be a great danger of a management vacuum in the project? Will British Rail always be the manager of the project? If not, whom will the merchant bank to which he referred advise? Is not it time to give some new management impetus to the programme?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and the Government have made it clear that the project should be taken forward as a private sector project. In order that no time is wasted, it is appropriate that British Rail should continue its work on the detailed examination of the line and the environmental impact assessment. In the meantime, the merchant bank that I am soon to appoint will advise on private sector interest in becoming involved in the project. That will ensure that uninterrupted progress can be made.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold talks with the chairman of British Rail about the provision of custom-built trains for the channel tunnel from the commencement of its opening.

The delivery of passenger trains authorised for channel tunnel services is a contractual matter between British Rail and its continental counterparts and the manufacturers. The chairman of British Rail keeps me informed of developments.

The Minister will know that he is in grave danger of finding himself opening a tunnel which, from the first day, has no trains to run in it. Trains are already being built before prototypes are finished. The Secretary of State will be aware of all the trouble that that inevitably causes. Is not it farcical that the combination of brilliant minds that are responsible for building the tunnel, all the staff, and all the work that has gone into the project may not succeed in getting trains running until perhaps as much as a year after the tunnel is opened?

The Government have given British Rail all the necessary authorisations. For inter-capital services, British Rail ordered the trains way back in 1989. There is a problem, which is the responsibility of the manufacturers, GEC. Alsthom. I and Sir Bob Reid recently saw Lord Weinstock to impress on him that his company is expected to meet its contractual obligations. It will be supremely unfortunate if that company does not supply the trains on time. That has been drawn to Lord Weinstock's attention in the firmest possible way.

When my right hon. and learned Friend is considering the tunnel, will he not neglect the impact that it will have on the A13, which runs through my constituency? May I persuade him to meet me one night at the Blind Beggar on the Mile End road, where I will be pleased to show him some of the most appalling congestion on this two-lane trunk road—

Order. But is it on the railway line?

It is related to it, Sir, because the railway line impinges on it.

I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend at the Blind Beggar or elsewhere. I am sure that she will be able to convey to me any implications for her constituents of the channel tunnel provisions.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that British Rail has not even ordered the trains or the new sleeper coaches for the services through the tunnel that will go north of London? What hope then is there for any of the through services north of London to be operating when the tunnel opens? Is not that disgraceful, and what does he intend to do to change it?

The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically unfair to British Rail. British Rail is ready to take this forward, but it is not a single-company project. We are in negotiations with both French and Belgium railways because all three companies are involved in the very projects to which he has referred. It is only when agreement is reached on a basis acceptable to all three companies that the trains can be ordered.

In view of my right hon. and learned Friend's reply, will he reflect on the fact that both the French and the Belgium railways are in the public sector? If there is to be this great new European co-operation, is not it time that the railway companies at least got together so that British Rail could order the sleeper trains and thus fulfil the contractual obligations into which it has entered?

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Both companies are in the public sector. When I last met the French Transport Minister, I drew to his attention the importance that we attach to the French Government's doing all within their power to ensure that these matters are accommodated as quickly and as conveniently as possible.

Is the Secretary of State aware of how disgraceful his answer was? Everywhere north of Watford will be denied proper access to the tunnel, yet he stands up and tells Parliament that the Government have no role in that. He should get off his backside and get the companies together to ensure that we have the engines and coaches to allow the north of England and Scotland to benefit fully from the tunnel.

The Government certainly have a role to play and I have never suggested otherwise. That is why we have provided all the necessary resources that will go towards the £1·4 billion of investment that British Rail is already incurring in respect of these matters. I also met Lord Weinstock on two occasions in the past few months to impress on him the importance of his company's fulfilling its contractual obligations to British Rail and others involved in these projects.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has taken place under the Ports Act 1991 to privatise the port of Tilbury.

I am pleased to say that the Port of London authority has now advertised the port of Tilbury for sale, and thus begun the bidding process for it. The PLA's aim is to complete the sale of Tilbury by the end of February.

The overwhelming majority of employees at the port, who according to a recent survey said that they supported a management-employee buy-out and would buy shares in the newly privatised port, will want to congratulate my hon. Friend on the fast progress being made. Bearing in mind that the overriding priority is to privatise the port as soon as possible, can my hon. Friend assure me that he will give the fullest consideration to the concerns being expressed by the Port of London police authority as privatisation proceeds?

Indeed, the Port of London police authority has made representations through my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). I am urgently considering them and I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

Can the Minister confirm that there is a major anomaly in the Act and in possible privatisation —the fact that the port of Tilbury is not defined geographically? Therefore, can he confirm that if that port obtains property in central or west London the property will become part of the port? Would not it be anomalous for the existing publicly owned Port of London police authority to become the police of a private company? Will the Minister resolve that as soon as possible?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman considers what happened to the Merseyside police force when the Mersey docks were privatised, because he will find no anomaly there. As I have said, we are currently considering the broader aspects of the matter. This is another example of the Labour party's total opposition to privatisation and to people playing a part in the company in which they work. It has not changed.

I hope that the Minister is successful in resolving the serious and real problems faced by the Port of London authority. It will be a major triumph for the Government if they pass an important Act of privatisation while still showing concern for the real needs of people who are affected by it.

I take seriously my hon. Friend's point, which we are currently addressing. Just a few weeks ago my hon. Friend led a delegation to see me and the points raised at that meeting are being investigated.

Is the Minister aware that the Port of London authority's chief executive, Mr. McNab, who was appointed by the Government and is responsible for the privatisation of the port, was found by a recent employment tribunal to have been untruthful in the evidence and not to have kept truthful board minutes? Does not the Minister accept that such an outright condemnation of the honesty and integrity of Mr. McNab makes him not a fit and proper person to carry out the privatisation of the port of Tilbury? The Minister should use his powers to remove him.

The person who will make the recommendations to the Secretary of State is the chairman of the PLA, Sir Brian Kellnet, and not Dr. McNab as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels have been lost in each of the past three years; and what was the number of fishermen who lost their lives in these founderings of their vessels.

The number of United Kingdom fishing vessels lost in 1988, 1989 and 1990, were 22, 22 and 17 respectively. The number of fishermen who lost their lives as a result of accidents to fishing vessels for those years were 18, 16 and 22 respectively.

I acknowledge that occasionally fishing vessels, even the biggest freezer trawlers, can be overwhelmed by severe weather. Does the Minister agree that some of the sinkings to which he referred have been brought about by scandalously negligent watchkeeping on the merchant ships that have collided with the fishing vessels? That happened in a recent case in the Firth of Clyde because of negligent watchkeeping on a nuclear submarine. Perhaps men would have neither the time nor the opportunity to don survival suits, but will the Minister assure the House that he will support European Commission recommendations on the carriage of survival suits on our fishing vessels? If such a suit saves the life of only one fisherman in the next year, the Commission's recommendation will have been worthwhile.

Any fishing disaster is a tragedy and there have been a number over the years, as hon. Members are sadly aware. Research is under way to establish the most effective type of in-water thermal protection for fishermen when they are working in exposed situations. It is not quite as easy as the hon. Gentleman suggests, because there is the problem of putting on the equipment and the suits in time when an incident occurs. The problem with wearing such equipment all the time is that it can restrict movement. I certainly take on board the serious points made by the hon. Gentleman.

May I express upon my hon. Friend the continuing strength of feeling in Portsmouth about the Wilhemina J. tragedy, especially in view of the Zulfikar case in Cyprus? Will my hon. Friend address that with increasing urgency? Will he let me know when he expects to receive the marine accident investigation branch inquiry report on the matter and when its findings will be made known through his Department to the public, the relatives and advisers? Were there observers in Cyprus on behalf of his Department or the branch and, if so, what lessons were learnt from their observations?

I can confirm that an observer from the Department was present at the trial to which my hon. Friend refers. The inspector is in the process of writing his report, which will be submitted to the chief inspector of marine accidents and then, in due course, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I am concerned about the length of time that it takes to get such reports published and I have asked the chief inspector and various other people to re-examine the time that is needed for consultation to see whether the bringing of these reports into the public domain can be speeded up. That would be in everybody's interests.

As reference has already been made to the tragic sinking of the Antares, can the Minister tell us what discussions the Department has held with the Ministry of Defence on this issue? Was there any input from the Ministry of Transport, as it has responsibility for safety at sea, and if not, why not?

There have been continuing talks with the Ministry of Defence following the Antares case and a number of suggestions have been made by both departments. I am waiting to publish the report from the marine accident investigation branch.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the deep and justifiable concern felt about the number of fishing boats that have been lost as a result of collisions with merchant vessels? An example of this was the accident involving the Margaret and William II, with the loss of two fishermen, in my constituency. Now that all these accidents are being investigated by the marine accident investigation branch, once my hon. Friend gets its report, will he conduct an overall review to examine root causes of the problem, including what I and many others regard as a defect in international maritime law and the inadequacy of watch keeping on merchant vessels?

Yes. The chief inspector may make recommendations on these matters and if he does so, they will be seriously considered.

Does the Minister agree that the figures for the loss of fishing vessels that have been given to the House show that there is now cause for serious concern about safety implications? Will the Minister examine the competence of the marine accident investigation branch? The families concerned in Portsmouth and the people shocked by the revelations in the "World in Action" programme agree with Labour Members that what is needed is not just investigation of individual accidents, but a complete review of maritime safety and fishing activity in the channel and United Kingdom waters, extending to the whole of international maritime law.

The simple point is that fishing accidents and losses are nothing new. They are tragic whenever they happen, and important lessons can be learnt from them. When we set up the marine accident investigation branch not long ago, the Opposition did not object to it. They did not call into question the competence of the senior officials who administer that organisation and I am sorry that they have started to do so today. When reports are published and recommendations are made, we need to look at them and act on them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the programme for improvements on London Underground following the increased funding announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and if he will make a statement.

As well as the Jubilee line extension and completion of the Central line modernisation, London Underground's programme is likely to include improvements to stations at the southern end of the Northern line; more refurbished trains starting with the Metropolitan and Piccadilly lines; and the redevelopment of Waterloo underground station.

I note that reply, but is the Minister aware that Londoners want improvements in the foreseeable future? How much of the money that we are told is available will achieve that? What real consultations will there be with the commuters who use London Underground? Will the improvements include some to the disgraceful service on the Northern line which goes through the constituencies of many hon. Members? Specifically, in my constituency, when will the escalators at Tooting Bec station, at last, work?

As for the level of investment in the existing underground system, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, that about £700 million per annum should be spent on the existing railway, will be met in 1993. That represents a significant increase in investment, and that will help the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable disquiet about those people whose homes are above the proposed route for the east-west crossrail and over the Chelsea-Hackney line? There is concern about the effect of the noise and vibration from the trains that will run through the tunnels. Will my hon. Friend ensure that sufficient money is available in both of the projects to ensure that there is proper environmental protection for those who live above the tunnels?

My hon. Friend will know that each of the three new major tube lines—the Jubilee line, crossrail and Chelsea-Hackney—will be subject to a rigorous environmental impact assessment. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that vibration on the ground is one of the factors that will be taken into account.

Is the Minister aware that one of the most frustrating experiences of Londoners travelling on the underground system is to find that lifts and escalators are not working? Is the hon. Gentleman aware also that the programme has been slowed down in the current year, with the consequence that only last month London Underground had to report that one in 10 of its lifts and escalators was out of order? Will he now prioritise the repair and refurbishment programme for London Underground's escalators and lifts? Will he back that priority by ring-fencing the money that is devoted to that programme? Will he also admit that there is no so-called new money for the refurbishment of the Northern line and the carriages on it?

Over the next three years, the Government will provide London Underground with almost double the amount of grant that it has received for the past three years. That will go a long way to ensuring that the escalator modernisation programme is enhanced and accelerated. That is one of the purposes of the money. The hon. Lady talks about London Underground and makes criticism of it, but the criticisms are not matched by one extra penny being promised for it by the Labour party.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make a statement about Network SouthEast's achievement of its preformance targets in respect of passenger services; and what requests he has received from British Rail for funds for further investment on the London-Dover route.

While performance on average for Network SouthEast during the first half of this financial year has shown an improvement over last year, recent performance on the Kent coast lines has not been acceptable. On the Kent coast, an £86 million resignalling scheme is in progress, which should result in significant improvements.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. I assure him that he is correct that performance recently has not been good enough, and that it must be better. It is important that the Networker trains are brought forward and that we see reliable carriages and coaches on the line. My constituents are receiving better services from the public sector in health and education, and from competitive tendering in local authorities. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we want to see a better performance in the public sector from British Rail, or we must privatise it as soon as possible?

My hon. Friend has recognised the proper priorities. The Government have not yet received a formal investment submission from British Rail in repect of the Networkers. I am glad that the £86 million investment in signalling is going ahead. Recent performance deteriorated badly over the past month, and we hope that British Rail will take urgent action to ensure that the deterioration is rectified.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the autumn statement promised no new orders for the next three years for Network SouthEast? If new trains can be introduced in other parts of Europe by means of leasing arrangements, why is that system not used here so that there could be new trains instead of spending £50 million to bring up, as it were, old ones but still achieve only a poor standard of service?

The main difference between the Government's attitude towards British Rail and that of the Labour Government is that we have been increasing resources for it while the Labour Administration reduced them. As for the autumn statement, it is for British Rail to decide how it uses the resources that we are providing for it. British Rail has more resources now than at any time since before the days of Dr. Beeching, and that is something which the Labour Government could not begin to claim.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that despite that extra money for British Rail, the service that it offers the Medway towns is a disgrace? Commuters there know that they are on the worst line in the south-east. Will my right hon. and learned Friend please undertake a special investigation into that worst line?

My hon. Friend will know that she is in competition with others of my right hon. and hon. Friends in making that particular claim. I entirely acknowledge that Network SouthEast, whose rolling stock is an average of 19 years old, is in a more disadvantaged position than almost any other network in the United Kingdom. That is why a substantial proportion of the resources available to British Rail are going towards the refurbishment of Network SouthEast and its very old rolling stock. About half the investment programme is directed at that particular part of the country.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next proposes to visit tenants of the Duchy in the county palatine.

I recently spent a day visiting tenants on the Duchy's Yorkshire survey, and I was greatly impressed by the efficient and cost-effective running of the estates by Duchy tenants. I very much look forward to my next visit to the county palatine.

While that might be very encouraging, did the Chancellor discuss with tenants and others resident in the county palatine the problems still arising from the poll tax? Will he urge the Government, even now, to waive the 20 per cent. payment for which those living in poverty and at the lower end of the income scale are liable? Will he also give councils discretion to waive payments due, when they can see that there is no possible chance of recovering them?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the rebates available to community charge payers are much more generous than they were under domestic rating. When I next visit the county palatine, I will certainly take up—on the hon. Gentleman's part, I am sure—the case of all those Labour councillors who still refuse to pay their community charge.

If my right hon. Friend had a chance to discuss local government finance when he was last in the county palatine, did he mention the Labour party's proposal to remove all forms of capping on local authority expenditure, which would represent an open cheque book for every left-wing Labour authority, both in the county palatine and outside it?

As my hon. Friend makes clear, under Labour not only would taxes imposed by central Government be much higher but taxes imposed by local government would also be higher. That is why there will not be, thank heavens, a Labour Government.

When the Chancellor next visits the Duchy, will he explain to the people of the north-west why it is that Tory Members of Parliament who supported everything that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said and did for 12 years are now queueing up at television stations to attack her? Will the right hon. Gentleman set an example, as chairman of the Conservative party, and reaffirm the warm loyalty that he personally showed to that right hon. Lady when he was a member of her Cabinet? Does the Chancellor condemn the things that Conservative Members are saying about and doing to the right hon. Member for Finchley now—or is he orchestrating them?

When the hon. Gentleman came to the Dispatch Box, I thought that he was going to say something about the commitment to minimum binding rates of taxation that his party has signed. I will make my position absolutely plain. I agree with what Conservative party leaders have been saying about referendums for the last 15 or 20 years. I am sure that one thing on which everyone in the county palatine and on which public opinion generally is agreed is that after the Leader of the Opposition's miserable little speech in last Wednesday's debate, all should be united in their determination to make sure that the right hon. Gentleman never makes a speech from this side of the House.

When my right hon. Friend next visits the tenants, will he take the opportunity to visit the British Aerospace centre at Warton, and see for himself the extent of the facilities there for military aircraft production? Those facilities would be laid waste if Labour ever governed the country.

Labour's commitment to £6 billion of defence cuts would, of course, have a considerable impact on employment in the defence industries, as well as undermining the defences of the United Kingdom.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has for the devolution of his powers from Whitehall to Lancaster.

I have no such proposals.

Does that mean that the Chancellor has the same objection to the concept of devolution as he apparently has to the concept of a referendum? Has the stunning success achieved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) in the recent by-election exerted no influence on the Cabinet, and has it failed to change the Government's attitude to devolution, whether in Scotland, Wales or the regions of England?

I note that—for the time being, at least —the Liberal party seems to have changed its position. Normally, it bases its arguments on its commitment to proportional representation. The hon. Gentleman, however, seems to be basing his arguments about Kincardine and Deeside, and the Liberals' position in the opinion polls, on plurality voting in single-Member constituencies. Liberal party policy changes from one part of the country to another.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing surprise at the temerity of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in asking a question about my constituency? Does he accept that my constituency has attracted increasing numbers of students and an increasing volume of industry? Any Department of State that had the good fortune to come to us would be very welcome.

My hon. Friend is, of course, right. Any constituency represented by a Member of Parliament as diligent as she would also be very fortunate.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when he next intends to meet representatives of Her Majesty's Treasury to discuss the estimates of the National Audit Office.

I have no plans to do so. Section 4 of the National Audit Act 1983 requires the Public Accounts Commission to examine the National Audit Office estimate and to lay it before the House, having regard to any advice received by the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury. Treasury advice takes the form of a written memorandum. The Commission is due to consider the National Audit Office estimate for 1992–93 on 10 December.

Can the hon. Gentleman imagine what might happen if the National Audit Office were given the right to start crawling over the accounts of the European Community, and perhaps producing the odd value-for-money report? Is it not about time that Members of the European Parliament demanded a far higher level of accountability in regard to taxpayers' money that is being used for the Commission's expenditure programme?

That is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General, and I have his views.

Is it not a problem that, although the Court of Audit cannot deal with the whole range of European expenditure, there is no back-up to ensure that the work that it does produce is properly considered—and receives the media attention that would make the 300 million people in the European Community realise where good work is being done in Europe, and where there is frightening waste, inefficiency, corruption and cheating?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no mechanism whereby the Commission must account to the European Parliament, and I think that there should be.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much time he has spent on his official duties in the last fortnight.

I spend up to a quarter of my time carrying out my duties as Chancellor of the Duchy.

They are pretty time consuming, I must say.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) will be moved and touched by the hon. Gentleman's support for her views, which has been one of the consistent features of his political career.

Does my right hon. Friend remember recently quoting Randolph Churchill, who said, "We trust the people"? Does he agree that it will be extremely useful and important, irrespective of the question of a referendum, to make sure that any deal that we may strike at Maastricht is backed by a free vote in the House of Commons?

I believe in trusting the people, but I do not believe in either this House or the Government shuffling out of their responsibilities. What we shall be negotiating at Maastricht is a step forward in co-operation. We are not talking about a leap into the unknown. That is what we are attempting to prevent, and it makes my views against a referendum even stronger than they would otherwise be.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on his proposals for changes in parliamentary hours of business.

As the House knows, I have submitted a memorandum to the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and also appeared before the Committee to give oral evidence. In so doing, I was expressing my personal views, and not a collective view on behalf of the Government.

Is it not outrageous that a senior member of the Government is talking about a four-day week for Members of Parliament and suggesting at the same time a 48-hour week for miners? A better way to deal with Fridays would be to ensure that 35 Fridays are allocated to private Members' Bills, then some of the people who queue up might have a chance to get those Bills into law. The Minister, on behalf of his colleagues, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, wants a four-day week to try to shut up those Tory ex-Prime Ministers and others who are criticising the current Prime Minister, but the ex-Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) will keep coming out into the daylight—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has said enough. What is his question? Come on, wind it up.

The ex-Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley, will keep coming out into the daylight—

Order.

The hon. Gentleman can express his views about the organisation of the sittings of the House, and whether they should include Fridays, to the Committee. As I have stressed before to him, when I think I carried the vast majority of the House with me, to suggest that we are talking about a four-day week for Members of Parliament, even if we do not meet on some Fridays, is utterly ridiculous. My point was that hon. Members increasingly have constituency engagements to undertake on Fridays that they cannot carry out at weekends. I was trying to take that into account. The hon. Gentleman does the House no service by suggesting that this has anything to do with a four-day week.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have no wish for a change in parliamentary hours? Will he, however, consider providing more time for very important debates, such as the great debate last Thursday on Europe? I understand that 78 right hon. and hon. Members wanted to speak but only 20 were called. None of us wants our constituents to ask what we are doing here.

When a very large number of Members wish to speak in certain debates, it is inevitable that not all of them will be called, but that does not mean that we are not expressing our views to the Government of the day, and that can be said to our constituents. I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point about last week's big debate. That is why we lengthened the first day to midnight. I am sure that we shall have plenty of other opportunities to discuss this matter.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has for reform of the House of Commons procedure.

I have put a number of ideas to the Select Committee that is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). It is now for the Committee to make recommendations.

Is not it quite outrageous that, despite the fact that it has been out for six months, the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which deals with chairmen of Select Committees and their private interests, has not been debated by the House? Is it true that it has not been debated because of pressure from Select Committee Chairmen? May we have an assurance that when it is finally debated it will be not on a take-note motion but on substantive resolutions -tabled by the Lord President by which we can make reforms?

It is not outrageous because there are often longer periods between the publication of a Select Committee report and the opportunity to debate it in the House. We have had much business to consider. The House has just heard that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) would have liked to spend longer on the European debate. There is much pressure on business. I hope to arrange a debate on this matter before too long, but it certainly will not be before Christmas because there is much to do before then. The precise form of the debate has yet to be settled, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it has nothing to do with pressure from anyone not to have a debate; it is purely a question of pressure on business in the House.

Does the Lord President agree that neither the procedure nor the constitutional practices of this ancient House would be affected by anything at Maastricht—no domestic constitutional proposals will be affected—so the idea of a referendum is irrelevant?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy made that point about Maastricht. The position of Conservative leaders in recent years on referendums on European issues has been consistent. In expressing his views on Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was entirely in line with that consistency.

Is the Lord President aware that many Labour Members would recommend substantial reforms of procedures, not least to try to make them more intelligible to our much wider audience through television? However, a reported view of his that is causing some concern and alarm is that we should get rid of the 10-minute rule procedure. That is one of the most valuable devices for Back Benchers to express views and to introduce legislation that often becomes law. Will he confirm that there is no intention to take away that right?

I made a considerable number of proposals to reduce the number of late sittings, and in so doing was trying to strike a balance between the needs of Government, Opposition and Back Benchers. I made a number of recommendations, which the Select Committee can consider, advocating more time in other directions for Back Benchers to put their point of view. The Select Committee will make recommendations and then the House will decide.

Did my right hon. Friend's proposals include an automatic guillotine at midnight?

No, they did not, but I hope that the thrust of many of my proposals will lead to fewer late-night sittings, which we have achieved this year because at least 20 measures that formerly would have been considered on the Floor of the House after 10 o'clock have been considered by the European Standing Committees.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will ask the Advisory Committee on Works of Art to make proposals for using the two vacant plinths in the Members Lobby.

I have no plans to do so.

What a very dull and unimaginative response that was. Is the Lord President aware of the wonderful opportunity that has been missed? If one of the plinths in the Members Lobby had been occupied by a statue of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), one year ago almost to the day joyous Londoners could have pulled it down, rather like Muscovites toppled the statue of Feliks Dzerzhinsky? If Stalinists in eastern Europe are to have their statues toppled, why did not we have an opportunity to do it to the west's great Stalinist? In view of her good contribution on Europe, may we have a statue out there, provided that she meets the necessary qualification?

The hon. Gentleman may have been doing his research after all. I was going to accuse him of not having done his research and of frothing at the mouth to no purpose. He will know that, by common consent and usage, there is a 10-year qualification for the plinths. He may have been quite outrageously referring to that in the final part of his question. That is the answer in relation to the question of any others appearing on the plinths.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a distinguished and distinctive member of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) should have known about the 10-year rule? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be for a successor Committee to decide whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) should be commemorated and that that Committee may decide that it would be better to have a free vote in the House on that subject rather than a referendum?

I have already made plain my view on referendums. I have made it clear that the Government Front Bench is being entirely consistent on the subject of referendums. We have consistently followed the view of Conservative leaders since 1975, when the matter was seriously debated in relation to European issues.

To ask the Lord President of the Council when facilities are to be provided to help disabled people enter the Grand Committee Room, Westminster Hall; and if he will make a statement.

I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the necessary approval has been given to the installation of a stairlift.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on that reply. When will that work commence? The right hon. Gentleman may be aware, if he has seen what happens, of the agony and difficulty that many disabled people suffer when trying to gain entry to the Grand Committee Room. This is a matter of great urgency. If we can spend millions of pounds on office accommodation for Members—that may have been necessary—surely we can spend a similar amount as quickly as possible to give more people access to the Grand Committee Room.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Funds are available and the detailed work can now go ahead. I hope that the stairlift will be installed early in the new year.