To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what effects lane rental contracts are having on the speed of repairs and extent of disruption to traffic on motorways.

Repairs carried out under lane rental contracts are completed some 30 per cent. faster than works under conventional contracts. Our widespread use of that system means that maintenance is completed faster on average than anywhere else in the world, and it has saved about £100 million in the cost of delays to road users since its introduction.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that a large part of my constituency is covered by the M25, so I am glad to hear of those improvements. What is he doing to promote the use of lane rentals? As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, may I ask him to tighten up on lane rental contracts, especially the extension of time? I am sure that my right hon. Friend realises that to have a lane rental contract and then to extend the time makes that contract worthless.

On my hon. Friend's first point, I am glad to say that 50 per cent. of all appropriate contracts for road maintenance are on the basis of lane rentals.. Next year, the figure will rise to two thirds, which is about the maximum. Progress in this matter is ahead of the commitments given in the citizens charter.

Although we all welcome what the Secretary of State has said, does he recognise that there is still a massive problem? Single lanes on both the M1 and the M6 cause great traffic delays and many safety problems. Can something be done to eliminate that problem in 1992?

The reason for some of the delays is the need to repair and update motorways that were built some considerable time ago. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the delays would be very much greater if we did not carry out the necessary repairs. The important point is to get the repairs done as quickly as possible, and that is what lane rental contracts are doing.

As the Secretary of State for the control of unnecessary cones, can my right hon. Friend give us an up-to-date report on the current position? Far too many motorways have long lanes of cones even when no work is being carried out, and that is especially true at weekends. Are cones to be the only growth industry, apart from security men? I hope that my hon. Friend can give us that up-to-date report.

I share my hon. Friend's view, but it not the only matter with which I have to deal. The amount of maintenance on motorways has risen by 30 per cent., which is why there are more cones about. The lane rental contracts speed up the time it takes to carry out repairs, which should considerably reduce the number of times that we see cones on motorways.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what effect the red route pilot projects have had on the traffic flow in London.

On the pilot red route overall accidents have reduced by 36 per cent., with accidents for cyclists down by 55 per cent. and for mopeds/motor cyclists by 60 per cent. In addition, bus journey times have reduced by more than 10 per cent. and their reliability has been improved by a third.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on those figures. Will he confirm that my constituents living at the side of the A40, which is shortly to become a red route, will have ingress and egress to and from their properties and that worshippers going to St. John Fisher church in Perivale will be able to continue to do so without let or hindrance?

It has always been the case that the key to red route implementation is flexibility, and that the local community's ability to go about its normal business is uppermost in our minds. I can give my hon. Friend the reassurances that he seeks in respect of his constituents.

Does not the Minister accept that he and his Department are living in a completely different world from those of my constituents who are affected by the red route scheme? Residents with a year's experience of the red route know that it has succeeded only in attracting more traffic to a part of London that is already congested. In addition, it spells disaster for local traders and shopkeepers. Should not the Minister wake up to that reality?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. There is no evidence of extra traffic. Any increase—bar 2 per cent. that is currently unaccounted for—derives from rat-running traffic being taken back on to the main road, where it ought to be. The hon. Gentleman knows that many businesses off the red route in Islington have suffered equally difficult times. There is no evidence to connect lower business activity with the existence of red routes.

Does my hon. Friend accept that although there is a great deal of support for the red route policy, it could be defeated if too much traffic is forced on to the roads because of deteriorating community rail services? Is he aware that there has been a massive downgrading of the service on Kent commuter lines in particular since May? Some believe that one reason is the desire to create slots for channel tunnel rail services. Will my hon. Friend speak to the director of Network SouthEast to ascertain the facts, and to ensure that the admirable red route policy will not be undermined from that quarter?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that we ought to consider not only improving traffic performance but investment in public transport. Some £3.5 billion is to be spent on London Underground alone in pursuit of that objective. As to Network SouthEast, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport will convey my hon. Friend's remarks to Network SouthEast.

Does the Minister remember telling the House that the additional facilities for walkers, cyclists, and parking were a major element in the red route proposals? Does he recall also telling the House:

"the annual cost of the additional police officers and traffic wardens will be about £25 million."—[Official Report, 18 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 6101.]?

Red route programme expenditure is devoted entirely to relieving congestion. I thought that the hon. Gentleman understood that. He is right to say that enforcement is the key, which is why his local borough welcomes the powers in part II of the Road Traffic Act 1991, which will release resources for policing the routes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the red route initiative is very welcome in my constituency, but that if it is to be carried through, it is essential that my hon. Friend reviews the management of bridges across the Thames? All too often, they are closed or have obstructions placed upon them. There is no point in pushing traffic through London if it cannot cross the river.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for the red route programme. He has been in contact with my office about the important question of bridges, and I assure him that I will take a personal interest in ensuring that river crossings are managed as effectively as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals to reduce road traffic congestion on Wearside.

Apart from the Al9 west of Sunderland, which is not congested, the responsibility for roads on Wearside lies with the local highway authority, Sunderland city council.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new post, and wish him every success in it.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for over-promoting me, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State heard what he said and will be grateful for his good wishes.

Can I persuade my hon. Friend to increase spending in Wearside by approximately £10 million? That is the amount that he would save by abandoning the unwanted, unneeded bypass improvement schemes in Coventry, South-West. My constituents——

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been most ingenious, but he cannot get that one past me. I think that he has probably asked his question now.

I am anxious to help my colleague from Wearside, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), on an all-party basis. I assure him that there is £10 million in the kitty, from my constituency to his—

That is excellent, and I am sure that the Minister appreciates it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) brought a delegation to my office. I do not expect ever again to receive a delegation in the House and to be asked not to spend money in an hon. Member's constituency.

In view of the congestion in Wearside and other areas, will the Minister consider conducting an experiment to establish the relationship between a reduction in the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph and injury levels in defined dangerous areas?

We are considering whether we can extend the criteria under which local authorities will be able to make up their own minds about the speed limit that is suitable in their areas. I hope to make progress on that in the autumn.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the Government's policy on the future of state aids for the aviation industry.

In the light of the important agreement on the single market in aviation reached at the Transport Council on 22 June, the removal of state aids in aviation is now more crucial than ever.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the agreement that he was able to reach in Luxembourg has been widely welcomed? At least Conservative Members recognise it as a significant step forward in the introduction of greater choice and competition. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the great success for which he was responsible is carried forward, thus securing more genuine competition with all European airlines?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The agreement came at the end of 10 years of negotiation in which the British Government took the lead. It represents a major landmark in the development of the European aviation industry, and is far the most significant advance in the opening of European skies to full competition.

When is it coming in?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's sedentary question is that 90 per cent. of the arrangement will come in on 1 January next year. Contrary to some press reports, it is coming in pretty quickly.

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he and his officials achieved in Brussels last week. Will he assure the House that he will use the British presidency to ensure that the great potential benefits that he won for passengers are not diluted, delayed or rendered useless by other EC Governments subsidising their own state airlines—as they are still doing—or by, for example, abuses of airport slot allocations or other anti-competitive or anti-consumer local working practices?

The agreement that we reached sets the very significant background to the agreement. As the chairman of British Midland said, it opens up tremendous opportunities. I recognise, however, that there are other steps still to be taken and that there are other significant areas still to be tackled. That in no way undermines the very important advances that we have seen as a result of the agreement. As my hon. Friend rightly mentioned, they are in the areas of state aid which, as I have already said, we shall be taking forward during our presidency. I hope that we shall be able to complete the competition package. I recognise also that slots represent another important aspect in opening up the markets.

Will the Secretary of State stop reading out his press releases? Does he accept the view of Sir Colin Marshall, the chief executive of British Airways, that

"The agreement is not as much as we"—

"originally hoped for and nowhere near as much as we would have liked"?

"The EC agreement seems to be couched in such restrictive terms and with so many conditions that it will be a practical impossibility for anyone to achieve radical change"?

I disagree with both comments, particularly the last. There has been a failure by whoever said it to understand just how significant the advances are. The safeguards to which he refers are safeguards to protect passengers against predatory air fares. Both Mr. Richard Branson and Sir Michael Bishop warmly welcome this agreement and understand the importance of this advance. Of course, the agreement does not complete everything. There are still important areas to be tackled in what up to now has been a restrictive and protected market. However, I beg the hon. Gentleman to understand just how significant the advances are. I have already said that we shall be tackling those other areas. We believe that 90 per cent. of what British Airways needs in order to compete more widely in the European markets has been achieved. There is a transitional period on one point, and even there we have negotiated down the period of the transition.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to improve north-south road links in Dorset.

The national trunk road programme includes two schemes—the A31 to Mannings Heath relief road and the Poole harbour bridge replacement—which, together with trunking an existing section of road, will provide a high-standard trunk road between the A31 and Poole.

Surely my hon. Friend knows that the schemes to which he referred amount to approximately a couple of miles, linking in with the east-west routes from the ports, and that they make no difference to the north-south link. My hon. Friend will remember that when he was Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement at the Ministry of Defence he turned down the co-location of Sea Systems Controller in Weymouth, mainly because of the terrible north-south road link between there and Bristol. The roads have not changed. I wonder whether my hon. Friend will use the vigour that he showed in the Ministry of Defence to make sure that he shakes up the Department of Transport and puts real north-south trunk roads into Dorset?

When I was at the Ministry of Defence, my hon. Friend dogged me with his zeal to relocate Ministry of Defence establishments in south Dorset. I can assure him that the fact that his request did not succeed was not because of road links. Nevertheless, I am sure that he will be just as passionate about road links to Dorset, as he has no doubt hammered every single Under-Secretary of State on these matters on behalf of his constituents. The Government have not done too badly by Dorset. A major link between the A31 and Poole is in the programme. Four other north-south schemes are also in the programme and are supported by us to the tune of about £30 million. It might be worth mentioning, as evidence of our support for Dorset, that in the past 10 years eight bypasses have been built in Dorset, two are now under construction and an additional 15 are in the programme, so Dorset is doing very well by the Department of Transport.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to make roads more sympathetic to the landscape through which they pass.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to make roads more sympathetic to the landscape through which they pass.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to ensure that the natural environment is protected when new roads are built and existing roads improved.

We always undertake a thorough environmental assessment and give great weight to sensitive design in the development of trunk roads. A great deal of time, care and money are devoted these days to designing schemes to fit into the existing landscape.

Will my right hon. Friend recognise the importance of balancing protection of the environment with the needs of an expanding economy? Does he agree that the increase in the number of cars and commercial vehicles on our roads—for example, on the A69 in my constituency—is a direct reflection of that increasing prosperity?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. As most hon. Members know, much of the pressure for improved roads, new road schemes and, perhaps above all, bypasses comes from our constituents. That is why we have a massive road programme. He is right to say that increased prosperity has led to increased traffic. At the same time, it is important to ensure, as we do, that the environmental impact of our future major networks is as beneficial as possible.

I recognise the Government's national success in this regard, but does not my right hon. Friend think, on consideration, that the east London river crossing would be more sympathetic to an 8,000-year-old wood and a site of special scientific interest if his two predecessors had agreed that it should be a cut-and-cover tunnel, as agreed by the inspector at the inquiry?

The crossing was the subject of many inquiries before decisions were taken. I know from having come to the matter afresh that everything has been considered and everything is being done to ensure the minimum environmental effect.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the go-ahead is given for the east coast motorway a comprehensive environmental impact assessment will be undertaken to measure its impact on the unique drainage of the Fens area of my constituency? On the dualling of the A47, will he confirm, if not today then later, that his Department is investigating possible lines of routes both north and south of the River Neve in the vicinity of Wisbech?

The Government have no plans for an east coast motorway. As my hon. Friend will know, that plan was put forward by a consortium of local authorities and private contractors. If at any point—I make it clear that I do not envisage anything—such a scheme were proposed, it would be subject to the full environmental impact assessment that we require of all schemes. My hon. Friend will know that we plan to make a dual carriageway of the whole of the A47 from Peterborough to Great Yarmouth. I know how widely welcomed that is by all road users in Norfolk, my county. I am not aware of the scheme to which he referred, but if I may I shall look into it and write to him.

What new measures, if any, is the Secretary of State taking to improve safety on our roads?

We spend a lot of time and money on measures to improve safety—road signing, road design——

Red routes.

Yes, on red routes and on matters that I mentioned earlier such as motorway coning. Heavy emphasis is placed on road safety. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, although we want to do better, the number of road accidents now is the same as in 1948, despite the huge increase in traffic in the intervening period. We not only concentrate heavily on safety but the policy is having its effect.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, however many trees are planted, building new roads damages the environment, as is evidenced by the M25 and M3 at Twyford Down? As the current road building programme will not meet the 1989 traffic growth forecasts, would not a greener policy be to ensure a level playing field in the investment policies of all modes of transport and to devise policies that reduce the public's need to travel great distances?

I think that that demonstrates the muddle that the party to which the hon. Gentleman belongs so often gets into on such matters. He cannot say that we are not building enough roads to meet 1989 growth levels but then complain that we are building too many. However much of a switch there is from road to rail-I am very keen on that and we are pursuing it as much as possible—and however heavily we invest in public transport, as we do, there will still be an increasing demand for traffic by road, as prosperity grows, for individual car passengers and for road haulage. Therefore, we need the road programme and I am very keen on a heavy environmental involvement in it.

To judge from the wording of the questions, the Government are more successful at planting questions than planting trees. Does the Secretary of State agree that giving insufficient resources to British Rail while at the same time providing millions of pounds for the building of 14-lane motorways and millions of pounds for the planting of trees will merely increase the level of car exhaust gas emissions which not only damage the trees but add to the global warming problem?

On the first point, the Government have been very successful at planting trees. The Department of Transport plants more mature broadleaf trees than any other organisation and, as I said earlier, about 300,000 trees and 400,000 shrubs will be planted on the small stretch of the M25 if our preferred option goes ahead. Clearly, there is a heavy emphasis on tree planting.

Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of my constituents for the A6 Market Harborough bypass which was opened last weekend by the Minister for Public Transport? Will he also accept that the building of the bypass has not only improved the environment of Market Harborough by removing cars and noise but has enabled 30,000 or more trees to be planted? Will he please pass on the thanks of my constituents to those involved?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend who makes an important point about bypasses. Bypasses now take up about 30 per cent. of our total road programme and have a tremendously beneficial environmental effect on everyone who lives in the towns and villages that are bypassed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the risks to passengers involved in the use of unlicensed cabs; and if he will make a statement.

Following representations about the safety of cab users in London, we set up a working party to investigate the subject. It has just delivered its report, which we are studying with interest. We have had no representations about unlicensed cabs outside London.

I thank the Minister for that reply. When he has had time to study the report, will be bear in mind the fact that the registration and checks kept on licensed black cabs, which have made the service probably one of the best in the world, do not apply to many other private services? As the use of the private sector is becoming so large, should there not be regulations to standardise the type of vehicle used and to ensure that there are the same checks on drivers and safety as apply to the licensed cab service?

As the hon. Lady knows, in virtually every local authority outside London, private hire vehicles as well as black taxis have to be licensed. In London, vehicles that are not taxis are not licensed. We have set up a working party and, as I said, we are studying the recommendations carefully to see whether there is a case for introducing a greater degree of licensing in London.

Further to that reply, will the Minister acknowledge that there is a problem with licensed cab services outside London? Does he recall the recent case in which Rotherham magistates court and the Crown court overturned Sheffield city council's rejection of an application for a private hire licence from a man who had been convicted of assault and of drink-driving offences? There are people today driving licensed cabs who, in our view, should not be in charge of either a cab or passengers. When the Minister replied to my letter, he said that it was an "unusual decision" but declined to take further action. Will he reconsider those remarks to me? Will he take account of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust's current campaign on the issue, look at the matter afresh and make appropriate representations to his colleagues in the legal departments?

I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the work of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. Both the hon. Lady and I have been to a number of functions sponsored by the trust. I agree that there are regrettable instances of some local authorities proceeding to license drivers when, on the face of it, they are not proceeding on a consistent basis with other local authorities. I undertake to study further the case that the hon. Lady cited, to raise the matter with colleagues in the Home Office and to write to the hon. Lady.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the widening of the M25.

Work on the proposals for the M25 announced last September is progressing well.

I welcome my hon. Friend's proposals. Does he accept that traffic on the M25 is well above design capacity and that congestion on the M25 will be relieved only when son of M25 is built?

My hon. Friend raises a relevant point. I agree that a lot of traffic uses the M25. Indeed, that is one aspect of its success. It is clearly needed in the motorway network. As my hon. Friend knows, we have plans to convert the M25 within its existing boundaries into four lanes within about six years, which will certainly help. Any other improvements—indeed, all improvements—have to go through a clear scrutiny before they are accepted. We pay great attention to the needs of the environment.

Is not the cost of motorway extending and widening extremely high? Why is the Department of Transport prepared to fund extensions with such apparent ease? Is not the real task of the Department to try to encourage people to transfer from road to rail? In that context, why is the Department holding back on a scheme such as Leeds-Bradford electrification and denying authorisation for the money for that scheme, which is in jeopardy because of the Government's railway privatisation proposals?

We have a balanced transport policy. I remind the hon. Gentleman that investment in public transport is at its highest level for 30 years. We have to put the matter in context. The M25 is crucial for our economic success. It carries much of our traffic—not only local traffic, but traffic going to the main ports. It is one of the busiest roads in the country and is central to our economic performance. Our intention is to make certain that the M25 serves the nation well.

The Minister will be aware that in the context of widening the M25, new slip roads are to be built in Dartford connecting the A2 with the M25. Will my hon. Friend give me a personal guarantee that every effort will be made to install noise minimisation measures and proper landscaping for the new slip roads in Dartford?

I am well aware of that scheme and its importance for my hon. Friend's constituents. I shill supervise the work carefully. I should be delighted to discuss with my hon. Friend later the demands for the road surface and for the landscaping to which we attach such importance in all our projects.

Does not what we have just heard show that the Government have a completely piecemeal approach to transport policy? Given the way in which we have heard about the announcement for the £2.5 billion programme, will the Minister tell us what he is doing about the recommendations of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment in its report? Why have those recommendations not been taken on board in full in relation to that extension? Will the Minister give me a guarantee that there will be full public consultations in respect of the review of the manual on environmental appraisal which has long been promised and is long overdue?

I think that the hon. Lady's sums are a little wrong. It was announced last week that the link roads between junctions 12 and 15 will in fact cost about £140 million. Moreover, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we are concentrating on environmental matters in the scheme. Some two thirds of the land take will be used for landscaping—planting trees, and so forth. However, I agree with the hon. Lady that the SACTRA report is important. We are examining its conclusions and we expect to come forward with a new environmental manual very shortly.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what funds have been expended in the last two years by the National Audit Office in maintaining links with similar organisations in the European Community.

The National Audit Office spent about £60,000 in the financial year 1990–91 and £120,000 in 1991–92 on maintaining links with similar organisations in the European Community.

I am delighted to hear that the National Audit Office is spending money maintaining links with the European Commission. Given that the most difficult problem with public money is keeping tabs on it, finding out where it has gone and ensuring that we obtain value for money for it, is it not right and proper that we, with our knowledge and expertise in this country, should be sharing the same with our colleagues in the European Community and ensuring that they do the same?

My hon. Friend is quite right. As she knows, one of the provisions of the Maastricht treaty is to give the European Parliament new powers, which may be turned to examine the Commission as a whole, in respect of examining expenditure in much the same way as our Public Accounts Committee does here. I hope that the budget committee of the European Parliament will be able to carry out its work.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how much the National Audit Office spends on publicity for its reports.

The National Audit Office handles its own publicity and one member of staff acts as press officer. Advance copies of reports are provided to the press and other interested parties. In the financial year 1991–92, the cost of those copies amounted to about £6,000.

I suspect that that is very good value for money, economical, efficient and effective. Will my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission pass on to the Comptroller and Auditor General my thanks and the thanks of the House as in future those reports are to be made available to hon. Members at 3.30 pm, before they are made available to the press, and not at midnight?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many non-departmental public bodies are audited by the National Audit Office.

The National Audit Office audits the individual accounts of 92 non-departmental public bodies.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Can he comment on the written reply that I received from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in January which referred to the principle that the choice between having bodies audited by private accountants or by the NAO is normally related to how quasi-commercial are the activities of that public body? Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that no reason will be given to the House relating to lack of resources or staffing in the NAO, for which I believe the hon. Gentleman has a responsibility, as grounds for putting the auditing of grant-maintained schools out to private accountants? A school must be the last public body that one could possibly think of as being quasi-commercial, so the auditing of grant-maintained schools should clearly not be carried out by private accountants.

I understand that some schools are required to appoint an external auditor and to provide the Department of Education with annual audited accounts. The audit arrangements will be covered by a code of practice on which accountancy bodies and the National Audit Office have been consulted. The hon. Gentleman might also like to know that the Comptroller and Auditor General has rights to inspect the accounts and relevant records of individual schools and to carry out value-for-money studies. The National Audit Office is currently undertaking a study of the financial control of grant-maintained schools, during which it will exercise those inspection rights. The hon. Gentleman is quite right: there is no question of the National Audit Office suffering from lack of funds.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what comparisons his Department has done between the London underground and the Paris metro.

My Department has not carried out any comparisons between the London underground and the Paris metro, but I have taken a close interest in the joint report produced by the London Research Centre and its French opposite number, and it is clear from their work that the two railway systems face very different problems and serve very different markets.

If the Minister has seen that report from the London Research Centre and the Ile de France regional council, he will have seen that 9 per cent. of French trains and 20 per cent. of London trains are overcrowded; that one in five trains in Paris and one in two in London are more than 22 years old; that fares are three times higher in London than in Paris, and that the city centre rail network in Paris is "overwhelmingly superior" to that in London. Does that not prove that socialist planning in public transport is far superior to capitalist neglect?

No, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is extraordinarily selective in the little gems that he picks from the report because he thinks that they suit his case, and he completely ignores the £3.5 billion which is to be spent on the London underground in the next three years.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will now end the system of clocking on and off for workers in and around the House.

I understand that the relevant Departments of the House have no plans to do so.

It is a scandal that some of the lowest paid people in this building—canteen workers—have to clock on, while Ministers are carted in chauffeur-driven cars in order to come here to vote. Those canteen workers earn £100 a week, and they can lose £7 a time for being a few minutes late. At night when they knock off, if the House finishes straight after a 10 o'clock vote those people, many of them women, are turned out without a chance to go home in a taxi while Ministers are carted from one oak-panelled study to the next. The Government talk about a classless society and we have citizens charters coming out of every Minister's earholes, yet those people are treated like chattels. Get something done!

The time recording system is necessary to establish overtime payments correctly and it is used by every member of the Refreshment Department up to and including the Director of Catering.

The lowest paid.

The hon. Gentleman gives a misleading account of the rates of pay provided. He should also take account of the fact that transport is provided for late sittings of the House——

Not at 10 o'clock.

Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his question. Let us hear Mr. Beith.

I know of no representations from unions representing the staff that the system of time recording should be abolished.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what assessment the Commission has made of the implications of the recommendation in the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House for working conditions of hon. Members and staff.

The Commission has made no assessment of the possible implications of the report on the sittings of the House because of its responsibility to ensure that appropriate staffing arrangements are made to accommodate whatever hours of sitting the House may determine.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the procedures of the House are streamlined and become more efficient, not only Members but staff will benefit as a result of the great reduction in late-night sittings, many of which are deemed by hon. Members to be unnecessary?

Yes, Madam Speaker. That is my view, but it is for the Commission to provide appropriate staffing arrangements for whatever the House may determine.

Will the right hon. Gentleman support the provision of nursery facilities for the children of the workers who support us in this House?

Order. The hon. Gentleman is gazumping a later question. If he rephrases his question so that it refers to sittings of the House, I will hear it.

My question relates to whatever hours the House works——

Order. That was not the original question. We must move on now.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans he has to improve facilities in the House to assist hon. Members in the discharge of their duties.

Responsibility for proposing new facilities for hon. Members rests with the domestic Committees, which are expected to meet shortly. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the developing plans for the construction of new office accommodation on the phase 2 site and the introduction of a new computer network for Members and their staff. I shall be happy to pass on to the relevant Committees any other suggestions that the hon. Gentleman may have.

Has the right hon. Gentleman thought about the possibility of giving hon. Members an option of staff based in the House or more money to provide facilities outside, perhaps in their constituencies? That would take the pressure off existing facilities and allow a much quicker raising of standards for Members and secretaries working together in the House.

Those matters do not fall within the responsibility of the Commission. The House may hear more about the subject shortly, but not from the Commission.

To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 12 May, Official Report, column 79, what representations he has received calling for early action to make replies from next steps agencies more accessible to hon. Members and the general public.

I have not received any further representations. The House authorities have received our proposals for publishing agency chief executives' replies. We remain hopeful that the House will take an early decision, now that the Administration Committee has been reconstituted.

Representations from 208 hon. Members are contained in early-day motion 1. Is it not a continuing disgrace that the increasing number of answers from next steps agencies are not readily accessible, except in this marvellous publication produced by my office and the Rowntree trust? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we return to the previous system, whereby traditionally Ministers answered questions for their areas of responsibility, and those then appeared automatically in Hansard. Is not the Government's commitment to sweeping away the cobwebs of secrecy gossamer-thin?

The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to agree with the latter part of his remarks. As for his gesture in waving at me his excellent document, "Open Lines", I thought that he was going to complain about our nationalisation proposals in that respect. As he knows, we have proposed to the appropriate Committee that the reply should be published in a way that would be more convenient to the House and the public. I hope that an early decision will be made on that proposal and that it will be the clearest demonstration that there is no thought of trying to conceal useful information from those who should have it.

To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to report on the question of hours and working conditions in the House of Commons.

I intend to arrange a debate on the report on the Select Committee on Sittings of the House before the House rises for the summer recess.

If the Government got rid of moonlighting in this gentlemen's club—250 Tory Members in the last Parliament had more than 500 moonlighting jobs between them—we could start talking about changing our hours. Is not the real reason why Parliament does not start until 2.30 pm so that Tory Members can make money in the law courts and board rooms and then turn up later? If the Government want to improve facilities, would it not be a good idea to use the Robing Room as a nursery and change the Royal Gallery into a cafeteria for visitors? If the royal family keeps pushing the self-destruct button, we shall get it.

Once again, the hon. Gentleman has enlivened our proceedings. I shall confine my comments, for the time being, to the more mundane business of looking at the recommendations of the Jopling report.

Will the European Community's working time directive apply to the working of the House?

As there is no such thing as a working time directive at present—at least, not an agreed one—I am not in a position to judge.

To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to announce the results of the review of the office costs allowance; and if he will make a statement.

Before the summer recess.

Is the Lord President aware that a number of unscrupulous newspapers, not least that fascist rag The Sun, have been seeking to pretend that the office costs allowance is merely an extension of our salaries? Is he aware that many of us, particularly those who operate offices in their constituencies, subsidise the office costs allowance from our own pockets? Will he make it clear in the House today that, whatever view the Government take on the final figures, this is an argument about the quality of service that we can provide for our constituents?

Without endorsing the language that the hon. Gentleman used, which came close to being as colourful as that of his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I would certainly endorse the general proposition that there is a clear distinction to be drawn between the salaries of Members of Parliament and the amounts that they are paid to acquire the necessary assistance to do the job that the public expect of them.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are Members of this House with about 40,000 constituents and Members of this House with more than 80,000 constituents, often scattered across large areas of the countryside while the allowance that we receive to serve our constituents is identical? That means that many Conservative Members also have to subsidise the allowances to a substantial degree. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that it is disgraceful for some of our newspapers to imply that Members who employ members of their families, particularly their wives, as secretaries, should do so for nothing and expect those women to work for nothing at all?

I certainly agree that the distinction to which I referred in response to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and which my hon. Friend has also drawn should be taken into account by those who comment on these matters. As for the earlier part of her question, I acknowledge some of the problems caused to Members on both sides—my hon. Friend may be right to think that the problem applies particularly to Conservative Members—by disparities in the size of their constituencies. It would be a good deal easier to tackle them through the action that we are taking over the boundary commission than to attempt to devise some allowance related to the size of constituencies.

Should we not expect but also set aside the more misleading statements from some of our national newspapers about the allowances paid to Members to employ people the more effectively to represent their constituents? Will not the Leader of the House and his Cabinet colleagues accept that the longer they put off this decision the more likely it is that the groundswell of misleading innuendo and abuse of Members of Parliament will grow? Why does he not take the decision now and get on with it?

I agree with the first half of the hon. Gentleman's question. I assure him that there is no desire unnecessarily to prolong this matter, but, as he will see in due course, this is a complicated and substantial report and it is right to look at it carefully before bringing it to the House.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what steps he is taking to speed up the nomination of Select Committees.

We are making good progress with the setting up of Select Committees with, for example, the Public Accounts Committee, the European Scrutiny Committee and the four domestic Committees already reconstituted. I hope that we shall have the remainder of the Committees—that is, the departmental Committees—in place after tomorrow's debate on the motion that I have tabled in that respect.

I welcome that news, but can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that nominations for the departmental Select Committees will be placed before the Committee of Selection on Wednesday and that the most senior members of those Committees can then convene meetings, so that the Committees can meet at least before the House rises for the summer recess?

My understanding is that the usual way of proceeding after nominations by the Committee of Selection is that the senior members call meetings—but the timing of the recommendations by the Committee of Selection is a matter not for me but for the Committee.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to institute a Question Time for London; and if he will make a statement.

I have no specific proposals for a separate Question Time for London, but hon. Members representing London constituencies can, of course, ask questions of relevance to London to any of the Departments of State.

I appreciate my right hon. Friend's reply, but will he accept that London has a special interest for the nation? London has 84 Members of Parliament. Northern Ireland has 17, Wales has 32 and Scotland has 72. The latter all have their own Question Times, so why should not there be a Question Time for London which takes account of the special problems and opportunities of London?

I do not think that it would be appropriate to move in quite the way that my hon. Friend suggests—unless there were a Minister for London, which I understand that my hon. Friend does not support, although I hope that he has not been misrepresented to me in that respect. My hon. Friend shows considerable and commendable ingenuity in putting questions about London in a variety of ways—most recently, as I heard for myself, during today's transport questions. I hope that that is of some comfort to him.

As an alternative to that, when the Leader of the House has completed his review of a programme for parliamentary business throughout the year, so that we shall have notice of what is to happen, could he formalise the occasional London debate so that, first, it is agreed that there will be an annual London debate and, secondly, we know roughly when it is to take place?

This is turning into something like business questions, but that is fair enough. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to answer his question on the hoof, but I will certainly bear it in mind.