To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss rail links between Wales, the west of England and the channel tunnel.

The Secretary of State and the chairman of British Rail meet regularly and channel tunnel services from the regions, including Wales and the west of England, are often discussed.

Is the Minister aware that just before Christmas, Wales and the nation lost the Powell Duffryn wagon construction works in Cardiff and with it the expertise of a century's trading and the ability, among other things, to construct low-axle rail freight wagons which would have enabled areas such as south Wales and the west of England to trade directly with firms on the continent? Why does not the Minister recognise that the lack of orders from British Rail is doing incalculable damage to firms such as the one that used to operate in Cardiff? When will he do something to offer protection to the British rail industry?

I regret the announcement by Powell Duffryn. I had the opportunity to visit its French subsidiary about two years ago and saw the value of its work. But under the rules for open procurement the responsibility rests with British Rail; its decision about the procurement of freight wagons and the special axles and wheels required for them has nothing to do with the alleged dearth of orders.

In wishing my hon. Friend and his colleagues—and you, Madam Speaker—a happy new year, may I ask whether my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend would prefer the chairman of British Rail to be a man who was willing, regardless of his own views, to accept whatever the Government produced by way of plans for the future of British Rail—in other words, a yes man—or would they prefer someone who gave, publicly if necessary, his honest appraisal of the Government's proposals and stated how he saw the future for Britain's railways under those proposals?

I can confirm that the chairman of British Rail discharges his duty with distinction and enjoys the confidence of the Government. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants a chairman of British Rail who will speak his mind, not someone who will meekly agree with any statement made by a Member on either side of the House. I can also confirm that the chairman of British Rail agrees with the broad objectives of the Government and I feel quite certain that he will help fully to implement them.

Is not it becoming increasingly clear that these ill-thought-out and unworkable plans for privatisation are a blight on jobs, on safety and on the future of the railways in general? Has a route finally been advised to the Government for the rail link with the channel tunnel? If so, will the Minister undertake today to publish it in the near future as a basis for full public discussion?

I can confirm that my right hon. Friend has received a report from British Rail on the route for the channel tunnel rail link from Folkestone to King's Cross. It will be for him to consider that report carefully; but I can give the House the assurance that I gave on 14 December—the last time we debated this—that the Government will move as quickly as possible to commence the procedure of public consultation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road schemes will be able to start as a result of the support he is giving to local authorities by means of the transport supplementary grant.

As I explained in my statement to the House on 15 December 1992, 41 new major schemes due to start in 1993–94 were accepted for transport supplementary grant. These schemes are listed in the Official Report.

I am grateful for that encouraging reply, which will do much for the country's infrastructure and for providing jobs. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that my constituents in the village of Spofforth, which lies south of Harrogate on the main link road between the A1 and Harrogate, suffer from increasing volumes of traffic and share my considerable annoyance that the bypass, due to start in September this year, was delayed by North Yorkshire county council until January 1994? It is to be delayed again into the 1994–95 financial year. Will the Minister be kind enough to look into this personally to see whether the start date can be brought back to January 1994?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening comments. He is right that this is a major capital investment in the country's roads. It will be £1,047 million in the coming year, which is a record, in a difficult year. However, despite a good number of new schemes, as my hon. Friend knows there are always many more candidates than can be entertained. The problem about the Spofforth bypass scheme was that it was a doubtful starter in 1993–94. As my hon. Friend said, the forecast starting date was put back to January 1994, but in our experience forecast start dates are often optimistic and I am afraid that there were better candidates. I cannot accept any more schemes for this year, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend said about next year.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that there is a major problem about the way in which his Department is determining priorities? Is not it the case that the amount that local authorities can spend on local schemes rather than major schemes—on the sort of projects that local people want for environmental traffic calming measures—has been reduced from 7 to 5.7 per cent? When will he give local councils the real right to determine the priorities that they know are needed in their communities?

The hon. Lady is wrong. By and large, we follow the priorities advanced by local authorities for major schemes. As she will know, we have also increased substantially the amount available for local safety schemes, which often include traffic-calming measures, for this year and next year. The figures are up from £31 million to £50 million. I know that local authorities approve of those schemes; we are responding positively to their priorities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the speed with which motorway repairs are undertaken.

I receive a steady flow of representations about motorway repairs, mainly concerned with individual cases.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that the public are satisfied that motorway repairs are undertaken in the minimum possible time? I appreciate that there has been an improvement in recent years, but has he any proposals to improve the situation further?

I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that there have been substantial improvements, not least because the introduction of the lane rental scheme means that motorway repairs are completed faster here than anywhere else in the world. Our pioneering scheme has been copied around the world. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that we shall be moving from a level of 50 per cent. of motorway repairs carried out through lane rental contracts to achieving our target next year of all schemes where lane rental is applicable being carried out in that way. We are also making fast progress in other directions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many properties are to be demolished to allow the A1 to be improved to three-lane motorway from the Barnsdale Bar area to the Boot and Shoe interchange; and if he will make a statement.

On the basis of the present preliminary proposals, two residential properties and one commercial property would be demolished.

Will the Minister consider the properties that will be blighted by the proposals, especially Ferrybridge school, which lies in an area where a 16-lane motorway will pass through a conurbation? When will the Minister consider bypassing towns? When will he stop acting like a vandal and make sure that we have motorways which take traffic away from towns and villages and not through them?

The hon. Gentleman will understand that we have gone through a thorough public consultation on this part of the A1 improvement. Almost 2,000 people visited the exhibition or wrote to us. About 60 per cent. of those people fully supported what we intend to do and only 16 per cent. opposed it. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the upgrading of the A1 to motorway standard from London to Newcastle will bypass many towns. We are also being especially careful to avoid areas of important countryside, such as sites of special scientific interest. Therefore, I strongly refute the hon. Gentleman's allegations.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further steps he will take to reduce the levels of noise from motorways.

We are proceeding on two fronts: ever-stricter noise limits on vehicles, together with the practical measures that are available when motorways are improved or constructed. These include noise screening by earthworks and barriers, quieter road surfaces and the provision of insulation.

I welcome the steps that the Department is taking to reduce the level of noise from motorways. However, may I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the notorious roar produced by the experimental concrete surface on the A27 at Havant? Does not that make it a prime candidate for a new experiment, with a quiet noise-absorbent surface?

I well know the campaign for a quieter A27 that my hon. Friend has waged on behalf of his constituents. Unfortunately, when this road was built with concrete, it was over-textured. However, we are making some improvements to that road and we shall continue to do so.

Does the Minister appreciate that many homes are badly affected by motorway noise and that that is certainly the case with the M4 around Newport? Many people seem to be caught out by anomalies in the regulations. Will the Minister look into this to see whether the regulations can be relaxed a little?

I am happy to look at anything that we can do to improve the situation. As I said, noise is the one sector in which we must do better. I know that many people are concerned about noise when new roads are built. We now have extensive powers for insulation and the Land Compensation Act 1973 provides for compensation to be paid where the value of property declines.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure that speed signs are placed beside camera signs in zoned areas for spy cameras; and if he will make a statement.

Observation of speed limits has markedly improved where cameras, backed by warning signs, have been installed. This suggests that drivers are well aware of the speed limit in force and that signing arrangements are adequate.

Does my hon. Friend agree that most, if not all, motorists are anxious to stick to speed limits, particularly where there are spy cameras? Will he assist them by eliminating small speed signs, which are often illegible, particularly where speed limits change rapidly? Will he also place visible speed signs alongside the spy cameras, further to assist motorists to stick to speed limits, as I am sure they are anxious to do?

My hon. Friend will know that the speed limit signage is in accordance with national criteria and where there are 40 mph or 50 mph speed limits in force, repeater signs are used. He raised a sensible question about why we cannot combine repeater speed limit signs and camera warning signs. There are two reasons for that. First, to display both items of information in one sign would require an impractically big sign. Secondly, camera signs are not intended to show exactly where the cameras are. Their purpose is merely to remind people of the need to observe speed limits over a wider area. For those two reasons, a conscious and deliberate decision has been made not to site the repeater speed limit sign and the camera sign on the same post.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about calculations of traffic speeds in London and in Paris.

The most reliable comparison is for day-time off-peak traffic speeds. These are about 31 kilometres per hour in London and 28 kilometres per hour in Paris.

My hon. Friend should note that that is one up for London. Given the positive joie de vivre with which his appointment as Minister responsible for London's transport was greeted, would he like to tell the Evening Standard what it can do with its criticisms of him? Will my hon. Friend do his best to accelerate the trend of people moving to trains and away from cars by introducing road pricing around London's perimeters?

My hon. Friend has asked an important question and I commend him on his perspicacity and thinking on the matter. There is a tremendous tendency to knock London. The great British disease is knocking our own achievements. My hon. Friend has elicited the fact that traffic in London is appreciably better than it is, for example, in Paris. Comparisons with many other, even leading, European cities are impossible because their authorities do not even attempt to record mean average speeds. I agree with my hon. Friend's observation that we must continue to encourage public transport. That is why expenditure on roads in London, as a result of the current public expenditure survey, is about a third of that on public transport. There is a substantial commitment to public transport.

In addition to the sensible suggestion of the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) for improving traffic in London, does the Minister accept that another good approach would be to authorise the completion of works on the Jubilee line extension? Given that the approval was announced in the autumn statement, are the works to be authorised this year, next year, some time or never?

The hon. Gentleman, who has always taken a keen interest in the project, knows well the answer to his question, which is that the Jubilee line extension has always been a partnership between the Government and private developers. Negotiations on concluding the agreement are well advanced. As far as I am aware, they are continuing and good progress is being made. The hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will be extremely pleased when the project can commence, but that must depend on the signing of the agreement.

What progress has my hon. Friend made in reviewing the success of the red routes scheme in London? What plans does he have to discuss with his colleagues the possibility of providing similar schemes in other large towns and cities in the United Kingdom?

The red routes, including the pilot route, have been spectacularly successful. Accidents have been reduced by about 17 per cent., which is about three times the level that has been achieved in the boroughs through which the pilot route passes. Speeds have been improved, but fortunately not greatly so, for private cars. About 8,700 more passengers a week are using the No. 43 bus service on the pilot route. I look forward to our being able to replicate those improvements throughout the priority network.

I am all for a bit of knocking, but there is no need to engage in it when comparing parking in Paris and in London. Parking in central Paris makes parking in London seem positively orderly and restrained.

I shall not comment on the hon. Gentleman's propensity for knocking in any circumstances, except to say that in terms of parking he is wrong again. He probably knows that one of the major contributory factors in achieving better road speeds in London is that parking is much better managed in London —this is a general recognition—than in Paris, where recently there has been—

That is what I said.

I am grateful. If I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, I withdraw. Perhaps I was too busy knocking him. I entirely agree with him.

On the question of traffic speeds, can my hon. Friend say when the regulations associated with the Traffic Calming Act 1992 are likely to come into force? The Act has been in existence for nine months and many local authorities want to get on with producing schemes based on it, but are prevented from doing so because the regulations have not yet been published.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on having been the inspiration behind that Act. He is to be commended for having put it on the statute book. I understand that its provisions will be enacted shortly. It will certainly make a worthwhile contribution to road safety.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with the chairman of British Rail about the effect on performance of recent proposed redundancies.

This is a commercial matter for the board. The redundancies concern staff positions where, judged by British Rail, loss is not expected to affect performance.

Does that answer mean that there were no consultations with the Minister? If not, why not? Surely matters of commercial interest and concern in public bodies such as British Rail should be considered by the Department. Do not they lead to great public expenditure in redundancy pay and other benefits? There should be consultation not only with the Minister concerned, but with the Secretary of State for Employment.

Of course there were consultations between British Rail and the Department of Transport about the need to reduce the work force in line with falling demand. On Network SouthEast alone, during the 12 months to the autumn of 1992 patronage fell by about 8 per cent. Ministers were certainly aware that British Rail was discharging its functions correctly by planning to reduce services—and therefore employment—at the margin. The precise number involved and the timing of the announcement were rightly matters for British Rail. We do not believe in interfering in matters that are not our direct concern. Until our reforms are in place, the management of British Rail is a matter for its board.

My hon. Friend has assured the House that the redundancies will not affect performance. Is he aware that several thousand of my constituents commute daily on the Kent coast and Kent link lines in filthy, awful and old rolling stock, with unreliable services and little hope of any improvement? Is he further aware that British Rail has proposed cutting the already unacceptably bad service from May and is offering my constituents no hope of any improvement? When will my hon. Friend offer them some hope of improvement for their almost £2,000–a-year season ticket?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—[Interruption.] I usually concentrate on listening to the question rather than turning away from Madam Speaker.

Is the Minister aware that already British Rail has removed all staff from a number of stations in my area? If that trend continues, many women will cease to travel by public transport because it will become even more dangerous and difficult for them. When does the hon. Gentleman intend to reconcile his supposed care for the safety of women passengers and the constant and increasing destaffing of British Rail stations?

I share the hon. Lady's concern. However, that matter has nothing to do with the 5,000 redundancies announced by British Rail. The destaffing of stations has been taking place for some time. I firmly believe that with the introduction of franchising, which is a positive idea that will be welcomed by the House when we debate it tomorrow, there will be an improvement in the quality of services, including an improvement in the number of staff serving passengers both on platforms and on trains.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what targets he has set for the current year for the number of passengers using British Rail.

The Government do not set targets for the number of passengers using British Rail, but we wish to see more travellers preferring rail to road for all types of travel, including commuting into London.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the thousands who commute from Chelmsford to Liverpool Street station each day simply want an efficient, well-run service, and does he believe that franchising will achieve that?

I certainly do, and I am sure that the House looks forward to tomorrow's debate on that very subject. My hon. Friend has long been concerned in particular about resignalling on the Great Eastern line, as others of my hon. Friends have been in relation to resignalling on the London-Tilbury-Southend line. I confirm that, following a review of the interdepartmental financing round settlement for British Rail, resignalling work on both lines will immediately continue.

Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents are eager to use the services provided by British Rail, but that they are consistently being made too expensive by constant fare rises—and that many services are not even accessible because of the continuing closure of railway stations? Far from pursuing privatisation, should not the Government take on board the concept that railways should provide a public service that is available to the majority of the public?

The hon. Lady will know that the Government, on behalf of the taxpayer, provide £1,000 million a year in subsidies to British Rail to run socially necessary services. If she believes that fare increases should be moderated or that fares should be reduced, that would mean the taxpayer having to provide more money for subsidies to British Rail and a bigger burden on the taxpayer. The difference between the Opposition and the Government is that we believe that railway passengers should meet as much of the cost of providing the service as possible and that socially necessary services should be subsidised rather than the passenger.

Is my hon. Friend aware that thousands of southern commuters suffer unnecessarily when trains do not run—which I understand is due to cancellations resulting from drivers not turning up for work? Will my hon. Friend therefore look into the trade unions' restrictive practices?

My hon. Friend is right. Certain services are affected by drivers not turning up for work, but I pay tribute to British Rail—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) should be generous with his support where British Rail has made an effort to improve the quality of services. Under the passengers charter, there has been a real improvement this year on certain Network SouthEast lines. I hope that my hon. Friend will see continued improvement on her line.

Is the Minister aware of the report published today by the Central Transport Consultative Committee, and of the Health and Safety Executive Commission's report on safety in a privatised railway, which make it clear that there will be serious cuts in passenger services and that they will be less safe due to the lack of adequate financial resources provided by the Government? No doubt that is due to the £3 billion that the Government have taken out of public support since 1983. Does not the Minister think that British Rail and the Secretary of State should switch their attention to that important issue rather than try to explain the confusion about whether the Government intend to privatise, semi-privatise, or commercialise—all of which are irrelevant to the needs of a good railway system?

I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's two specific points, because we shall have an opportunity to debate the full issue tomorrow. As to public support for the railways, the hon. Gentleman is five years out of date. We increased the public service obligation grant in the past four straight years. The hon. Gentleman must get his facts right. He claimed that we removed support, whereas he should know that we have increased it in the past four years. As to safety, every time that there is an accident on the railways—and that happens infrequently—the hon. Gentleman immediately says that the Government and British Rail are skimping on safety. He should know that this year, British Rail is spending £200 million on safety —a significant improvement on previous years. Safety is the single most important factor for not only the Government but British Rail.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the implementation of the new Networker trains on the north Kent suburban lines.

There has been a very positive response to the introduction of the new Networker trains.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Naturally, my constituents are delighted with the new trains, which are improving the service. As my right hon. Friend knows, however, the Dartford line—which goes through Erith and Crayford, my constituency—has a long way to go before it provides a good service. Can he give my constituents any hope that his plans for the future of the railways will improve the service for commuters to south-east London?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. His question raised two points. The total route modernisation, plus improvements to track, infrastructure and stations, is costing about £800 million. It is the largest investment project to take place on Network SouthEast in recent years, and many of the benefits are still to flow through. For example, new Networker trains are now coming on to the line at the rate of one a week, and all 764 coaches will have been delivered by mid–1994. My hon. Friend can tell his constituents that the number of new trains will continue to increase week by week.

Who is to blame for the decay of the railway network in the south-east which has been mentioned by the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), for Chelmsford' (Mr. Burns) and for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman)?

A number of factors are involved. The fact is, however, that a substantial capital investment is being made. That, combined with all the organisational changes made by British Rail—changes which were very necessary—will produce better services in the future. I also believe that our privatisation proposals, including the proposal for the franchising of passenger services, will provide even more benefits than those produced by the management changes that have already taken place.

Will my right hon. Friend accept my constituents' congratulations for his part in pushing British Rail to supply fresh rolling stock for the north Kent lines? Will he now turn his attention to the need for new signalling equipment, which would make the service not only of good quality but reliable in future? The need for such equipment is the last major impediment to the breakthrough that north Kent commuters require.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I understand his point. Of the £800 million that I mentioned, £150 million will be spent on improving track, power and signalling equipment, as well as on extending platforms at 63 stations. My hon. Friend can be assured that work is going ahead on signalling.

Will the Secretary of State pay tribute to the work force and management of ABB Transportation Ltd. in York, which built the magnificent modern Networker trains that are used on the north Kent line? Is he aware that the company has invested many millions of pounds in its factory in the expectation of orders from British Rail, but is now running at little more than two thirds of capacity? Further orders could be dealt with; commuters in the south-east need the trains, and people in York need the jobs.

The hon. Gentleman will know that in the autumn statement we announced a £150 million leasing programme in the run-up to privatisation. Indeed, only the prospect of privatisation enabled us to do that. It is now for British Rail to decide what use it makes of that programme. Late last week I had a discussion with the chairman and board members of British Rail, and I know that they are considering how they may take full advantage of it. It is for them to decide on the rolling stock to which the programme will be applied.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the trunk road building programme for Dorset.

The national trunk road programme contains 12 schemes in Dorset, with a value of more than £90 million. The schemes most recently opened to traffic were dual carriageway improvements between Yellowham hill and Troytown, in December 1991, and between Mere and Wincanton—which serves north Dorset —in July 1992.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, and for the enormous amount of investment that is going into Dorset—particularly that which benefits people trying to travel to and from London.

My hon. Friend is always fighting for better roads in south Dorset. I pay tribute to him for that. I remind him, however, that it is unnecessary for a road to be a trunk road if it is to be greatly improved. On the two north-south routes in Dorset, the A350 and the A354/A37, in recent years four schemes have been approved for transport supplementary grant worth £30 million or more in total. Investment in these routes will continue.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has decided on the future ownership of British Rail Maintenance Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

We are still considering the options for BRML depots. We have made it clear that we see benefits in involving the private sector in the heavy repair work currently carried out by BRML.

I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, but is he aware of the extreme anxiety among the 1,500 employees of BRML in my constituency, particularly after recent job losses? They fear that the change of ownership could mean further job losses. Could my hon. Friend be a little more precise about when he expects to make a decision? And when he makes it, will he bear in mind both the need to maintain employment in what is an extremely efficiently run works and the need to ensure proper competition so that the works at Eastleigh, and elsewhere, can compete fairly for work on the railways and for other business?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. He and I have visited the Eastleigh depot. I know that my hon. Friend supports very much the work of that BRML depot. We shall seek to make an announcement as quickly as possible on the future of the four major depots. If the depot were transferred to the private sector, the intention is that it would compete fairly, on a level playing field, with other engineering companies in the private sector.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what assessment he has made of the effect on the budgetary requirements of the National Audit Office of the introduction of citizens charters in Government Departments.

The National Audit Office's corporate plan for 1993–94 to 1997–98 confirms that the National Audit Office's strategy is to take account of and respond positively to the citizens charter initiative.

Is the National Audit Office in a position to make a detatched and independent evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of the citizens charter initiative? If not, who is?

I very much hope so. The National Audit Office has been making reports about the quality of service for many years. Several reports were given to the Public Accounts Committee only last year. The NAO, is therefore, fully qualified to carry out this initiative.

Does the Chairman also acknowledge that the Public Accounts Commission has been extremely worried about the lack of accountability of some, for want of a better term, quangos? There are grave worries that the next steps agencies could go down the same road and that this time next year we shall find ourselves expressing worries about the new agencies, just as we are expressing worries now about the existing ones.

I am sure that those points will have been made to the Comptroller and Auditor General. If he is very concerned about it, as he may well be, he in his turn will come before the Commission and ask for help and extra resources. So far, however, the Comptroller and Auditor General has expressed himself fully satisfied with the resources that have been made available to him.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what assessment he has made of the effect on the funding requirements of the National Audit Office of changes in the organisation of the national health service.

The National Audit Office's corporate plan for 1993–94 to 1997–98 takes account of the need to examine known changes in the machinery of Government, which includes NHS reforms.

Can the Chairman assure us that the Commission is aware of the fact that, irrespective of changes of management, of trusts, or anything else, people still regard their local hospital as their hospital? That is certainly true of Llandough hospital in my constituency. My constituents want that hospital to get a fair crack of the whip in terms of finance and contracts. Can the Chairman assure us that there will be a mechanism in place, and the staff, to investigate the way in which all financial arrangements are made and to ensure that money is allocated and accounted for properly in this new climate of ever-increasing numbers of quangos and trusts?

Of course it is important that the National Audit Office should have the power and the capacity to look at the reforms and how they are carried out. The NAO has carried out a number of reviews. Only last year there were eight, and seven the year before, which were brought before the Public Accounts Commission. I am sure that the Comptroller and Auditor General will read what the hon. Gentleman has said, for he has raised a very important point.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Commission will look closely at National Audit Commission reports that refer to specific scandals in the national health service? It is becoming increasingly clear that the opportunities of the so-called internal market are being exploited, not for the good of patients, but for those who want to rip off the taxpayer, because it is seen as an easy mark.

I cannot comment generally on what the hon. Lady says. However, I hope that she will put any specific examples to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Will my right hon. Friend point out to the National Audit Office that the internal market has led to an increase in the number of patients being treated and a reduction in waiting lists? The internal market is seen as good value for money for patients.

I have no doubt that the Comptroller and Auditor General will report on this, as on any other matters.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his oral answer of 29 June, Official Report, columns 575–76, what further consideration has been given to removing clocking on and off procedures for all members of the staff in Parliament.

(on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): I understand that the position in the Refreshment Department remains unchanged since my answer to the hon. Member on 29 June 1992 and that since that date no representations from trade unions that represent staff in the Refreshment Department have been received requesting abolition of the present time-recording system. Other Departments in the House continue to review the methods for recording the attendance of their staff.

Does the right hon. Gentleman, who represents the Liberal Democrats, understand that it is nothing short of a disgrace that cleaners, cooks and bottle washers must clock on when Ministers, Members of Parliament, top civil servants and people in the press gallery do not need to clock on? Can the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of them not get rid of the upstairs downstairs mentality? Instead of waffling on about the classless society, they should do something about the upstairs downstairs mentality.

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is answering on behalf of the House of Commons Commission.

Time recording is used mainly in those Departments—primarily the Refreshment Department—in which the overtime worked by staff is important to the calculation of the pay they receive. Presumably, that is one of the reasons why the trade unions have accepted that some form of time recording is appropriate.

Rather than wait for the trade unions to ask, would it not be a good idea to take a management initiative and consult representatives of the staff to see whether they would prefer to continue with the present system or change it?

The matter is under regular discussion between representatives of the staff and management.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make it his policy to permit the seconding of House of Commons Clerks to the secretariat of judicial inquiries.

No approach has been made to the House authorities requesting such secondments and the Commission, therefore, has no reason to consider the matter.

With the experience of having given one and a half hours of oral evidence to Lord Franks and his colleagues—who, by common consent, produced something of a whitewash—and in view of the fact that every knotty problem relating to arms to Iraq is landing in Lord Justice Scott's in-tray, would it not be better if his committee and the helpers that he must have were partly staff from the Clerks of the House, not only because of their acknowledged expertise, but because, unlike civil servants, they do not need to return to a Government machine which naturally determines their careers and futures? Can we have Clerks who are responsible to the House, rather than civil servants who are ultimately responsible to the Government?

The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. However, it is not for the Commission to pass judgment on the effectiveness of the support staff used by inquiries. If there is a wider feeling that such a change and such secondments would be appropriate, it would then be for the Commission to consider whether that could be accommodated within the work of the House. I think that the confidence which the hon. Gentleman shows in the independence and expertise of our Clerks will be widely shared in the House.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, when the Finance and Services Committee will consider proposals to establish space and provision for a children's centre in the Palace of Westminster.

The Finance and Services Committee was nominated on 11 December and has now held its first meeting. It may be for the convenience of the House if I respond to the hon. Lady's question, which was tabled prior to the Committee's nomination. Possible options are still being investigated by the authorities of the House and any suitable proposals will then be put to the relevant Committees. When their feasibility, cost and financial implications have been examined, a recommendation will be brought before the Finance and Services Committee, which will give advice to the Commission. However, I shall bring the hon. Lady's continuing interest to the attention of the Serjeant at Arms and the Establishments Office as an indication of the importance placed on the project by several hon. Members.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree—I think that he does—that 1992 was characterised by many parliamentary questions and answers on the matter being answered by "soon", "may be", "hope so", "when we find the money"and "when we find the space"? May I suggest that he recommends to the Finance and Services Committee that it makes a new year resolution that during 1993 space will be found for children in this large Palace in which we sit? Space should be found for well-equipped facilities for mothers with small babies and for the many children who visit the Palace. It is disgraceful that in the 1990s we have no such facilities for families and for visitors' and Members' children, grandchildren and so on. Will the Committee make that new year resolution?

The hon. Lady's supplementary question goes wider than the creche proposal which was, indeed, the subject of many questions during 1992. It extends to whether we could go beyond the present facilities of the Families Room. Those matters ought to be considered by the Accommodation and Works Committee and the Commission has asked the Committee to consider them.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has for the time of sittings of the House in the light of the legislative programme for the remainder of the parliamentary year.

Discussions are continuing through the usual channels to seek to identify an acceptable basis on which the House can take decisions on the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, including decisions on the timing of implementation of any changes which may be agreed.

Does the Lord President of the Council accept that the implication of the statement that he made last year when the report was produced was that the new regime would be in operation from the beginning of 1993 so that we could work some logical hours this year and change the system of decades for a better one? Have the Government not implemented the new proposals merely because small technical difficulties remain or do they not intend to introduce them until after they have allowed the House to play funny games as a punishment for rebels, as opposed to an advancement of democracy?

The hon. Gentleman's interpretation is wide of the mark. I assure him that no one has a greater vested interest—if I may put it that way—in making progress on the proposals than the Leader of the House, in view of the amount of time that he is expected to put in here.

On the progress of the Maastricht Bill, would it not help us all if we stuck to Tuesdays and Wednesdays until the proceedings are completed? That would make our lives reasonably reasonable.

As I said at business questions just before the recess when a similar point was put to me, I cannot give an immediate undertaking of that nature. However, I am conscious of the number of people who would find that arrangement convenient.

Does the Lord President accept that while we are well aware that he has taken some small steps, which are most welcome on both sides of the House, towards adopting the recommendations made in the report, we are anxious to see further moves by agreement between all parties, particularly because it is undoubtedly the case that our present hours and circumstances of operation are likely to put off the many women whom we wish to see in the House in every party?

That, I know, was a point which was in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and others who were involved in the report. I welcome what the hon. Lady has said. As she knows—I state this simply as a matter of fact and not in any sense as a criticism—she is currently considering her response to a letter that I wrote after outlining some thoughts to her earlier.

As the Maastricht treaty is dead until the Danes change their minds in another referendum, and as legal expertise takes the view that they do not have the legally binding opt-outs for which they asked, would it not be in everyone's interest to delay further strenuous consideration of the Maastricht Bill in the House until the Danes have said yes?

I know and understand my hon. Friend's views on the matter and I hope that he will not think me unduly aggressive if I simply say no.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the physical layout of the Chamber of the House on the effectiveness of its procedures.

No such assessment has been made.

That is a pity because, given that Members of Parliament are getting reasonable office facilities, surely it is time that we examined the possibility of a new debating chamber in this House. The layout of this Chamber resembles that of a pokey, second division football ground, so it is not surprising that we have outbreaks of crowd disturbance from time to time. In the latter part of the 20th century, is not it time for us to have a proper Chamber, with allocated places, desks to work from, individual microphones and electronic voting, or is this place to remain a parliamentary museum?

I think that I may say on behalf of the House of Commons Commission with your assent, Madam Speaker and that of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that the Commission has no proposals for rebuilding the Chamber. As for electronic voting, I should miss the hon. Gentleman's attendance in the House.

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

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

Would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to look to his sense of fairness on such matters within the United Kingdom, bearing in mind that Northern Ireland has 17 Members of Parliament and a whole Question Time, Wales has 36—or perhaps 32—and a whole Question Time and Scotland has 71 Members and one hour of questions? Is that not somewhat unfair to the people of London, who have 84 Members of Parliament and who are the heart and the father of this nation?

I do not think that the constitutional position of London can be equated quite with that of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. I am also mindful of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, in an unusual intervention in our affairs, asked, "What about East Anglia?"—a view with which I can sympathise. My hon. Friend's record in asking questions, not only in London but on Ealing, is second to none.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to change the operation of the guillotine.

I have no plans to alter the arrangements for allocation of time motions governed by Standing Order No. 81. However, the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, in the report to which I referred earlier, recommended the routine timetabling of all Government Bills, except those taken through Committee on the Floor of the House.

Will the Lord President of the Council tell us if and how he proposes to use the guillotine on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill? Would it not be appalling to use that on such an awful piece of legislation? In the longer term, should time-limited speeches not be available as a constitutional alternative?

The hon. Gentleman will have his own views on such matters, but I am not sure that they will be shared in all parts of the House.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals for the reform of the points of order procedure.

Points of order, by their very nature, do not arise in a regular or predictable way and I see little scope for a rigid, regulated procedure. It is for the Chair to determine whether points of order are genuine and to give rulings as appropriate.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most often heard words in this House are, "This is not a matter for me"? Would it not be a blessing to Madam Speaker if the House took action to remove from her shoulders the burden of tedium caused by the most abused procedure in the House?

I note that my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee is in his place and I congratulate him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) on becoming my right hon. Friends. He will have heard what my hon. Friend has said, but I am sure that the Procedure Committee would wish to respond were Madam Speaker to suggest that she saw a need for such consideration.

Does the Leader of the House accept that interference with the right of Members of Parliament to raise issues on points of order—issues that are often substantial—and the removal of the Speaker's right to determine such issues, making them subject to political pressure, would be opposed by many hon. Members? Points of order are a time-honoured and useful way to raise important issues and they should not be interfered with.

Yes, despite my occasional or perhaps even more than occasional disagreement with the hon. Gentleman, he makes some very good points. Everyone would agree that, although we recognise and deplore abuse when it clearly occurs, we should need to be careful before taking too many rights away from too many people.

To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to be able to nominate the Finance and Services Committee; and if he will make a statement.

The Finance and Services Committee was nominated on Friday 11 December and had its first meeting on Wednesday 16 December.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the efficiency of the House should be much improved with the formation of that Committee? Will he hasten its progress in bringing about those improvements?

The Committee, at its first meeting, considered a full programme of work in which improving the efficiency of the financial control over affairs in the House was very much a key element.