To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the future of London Buses.

We have received a number of representations on our plans for the privatisation and deregulation of buses in London.

Is the Minister aware that the vast majority of people in London are violently opposed to the deregulation and privatisation of their bus services? Is the hon. Gentleman aware also that outside London in English metropolitan areas there has been a reduction of 24·8 per cent. in passenger journeys since deregulation took place? London bus drivers and conductors are being forced into accepting lower wages and longer working hours while operating disgracefully old buses. The average age of a London bus is over 13 years.

It is always nice to start the week with the sort of rant that reminds me why Conservative Members occupy the Government Benches while Labour Members are on the Opposition Benches. There are three essential conclusions to be drawn from the deregulation experience: first, operating costs have been reduced by a third; secondly, route mileage has increased by 20 per cent; and, thirdly, public subsidy has been reduced by half.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the privatisation and deregulation of London Buses will lead to innovation and the introduction of new services for the benefit of London's travelling public? Will he comment on the dishonest campaign that deregulation will mean the end of the bus pass?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to say just that. The concessionary fares that are offered to pensioners in London are financed by the boroughs. The provision for them to provide similar facilities is, and always has been, a cornerstone of our deregulation legislation. My hon. Friend put his finger on the matter. Developments in bus technology— midibuses and minibuses, for example—have all arisen as a consequence of deregulation and not the planning-led and sterile system that the Labour party appears to favour.

Surely the Minister knows that outside London fewer people are using deregulated bus services rather than more. The Minister is out to lunch if he believes that the majority of Londoners are looking forward to deregulation in the capital. Can he defend a situation in which bus workers are being told that if they want to retain their jobs they will have to accept wage cuts of £20 or £30 a week, or more? Does he think that that is fair? It is not something which we would vote in favour of for ourselves and it is not something which we should inflict on London bus workers.

May I make it plain to the hon. Gentleman —I think that he knows—that people in London simply wish to see a better bus service. They are concerned that we should respond to their concerns as passengers. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe that deregulation will enable us to do that more effectively.

As some of my constituents, including those who work for London Buses, have expressed quite strong reservations about the liberalisation policy which I think my hon. Friend knows about, will he kindly set out for their benefit and for that of the House how it is that the experience of rural bus services, or services in rural towns, is relevant to the peculiar circumstances of Greater London?

I know, Madam Speaker, that you would not wish me to answer my hon. Friend exhaustively, so perhaps I can write to him in more detail. However, my hon. Friend will appreciate that the reduction in the use of buses has generally been associated above all with the growth in the use of the private car. People want to use their private cars and, when they can, they will generally do so. That is generally more possible outside London than inside. I repeat to my hon. Friend and for the benefit of the House that the key benefits of deregulation are substantial reductions in operating costs and increases in the number of bus miles operated.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to require all new cars to be fitted with airbags.

Legislation on the compulsory fitting of airbags would have to be initiated by the European Commission. There is no restriction on their use in cars in the United Kingdom, but seat belts, which are effective and cheaper to fit than air bags, will remain the main personal restraint feature.

In view of the Minister's concern about road and passenger safety and of the likely delay in any legislation being implemented, is not it clear that more people will be looking to public transport? Will he therefore do battle with the Treasury over its nonsensical rules, which are preventing the Midland Metro scheme from going ahead? It is self-financing and will reduce the costs of accidents by £6 million in addition to creating 1,100 jobs.

That was a question which certainly had a lot to do with airbags—or windbags, if I may say so. Clearly, it is up to the individual how he or she wishes to travel, but, when people travel, by far the best thing that they can do to secure their safety is to wear a safety belt.

May I say that my question is to do with airbags. Research currently being undertaken shows that the majority of accidents come from side impact. Will he promote research into protection from side impact, which is now more important than front or rear impact?

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is the design of the car which can now do most to prevent injury. The Transport Research Laboratory is researching the design of a car that would deal with side impact. We certainly intend to continue with that, but, as part of the single market, we have to persuade everyone else in Europe to go along with such measures. We are determined that more people will wear safety belts and we are making progress in that respect. I also welcome the fact that more United Kingdom models are now fitted with airbags, which offers genuine customer choice.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to travel in an official capacity on the London-Carlisle InterCity train service.

I did so last month. I would have travelled on the line again last Friday, but the strike meant that I was one of the passengers lost to British Rail that day, with corresponding substantial loss of revenue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will condemn that counter-productive strike in the same way as I did.

Does the Secretary of State realise that we have waited a number of years for investment in that line and that its managers say that, unless investment is forthcoming, the line will simply collapse? I understand that the Minister intends to make an announcement in reply to my question, but may I pre-empt him by saying that, if investment is based on competition in which we are in a run-off with Kent for £150 million, that is not good enough? We demand investment now. The taxpayer has over the years paid a great deal of money to government on the basis that investment would be made in the line. Why cannot he give us an honourable statement today instead of what some might regard as a dishonourable cop-out?

I was asked when I intended to travel on the line and I was answering the hon. Gentleman's question. As to his supplementary questions, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport hopes to make an announcement soon about rolling stock in relation to leasing. As to infrastructure, BR intends to start work renewing the west coast main line, but the precise timing will be decided later in the spring, when British Rail finalises its spending plans. When the hon. Gentleman talks about the taxpayers' contribution to British Rail, he should know that we spent record sums on capital investment in BR last year. It is expected that the figure will reach more than £1 billion this year—which is still substantial by any standards. The hon. Gentleman should recognise the relevance of my comment that British Rail is losing £10 million a day in the RMT strikes. If the hon. Gentleman favours investment, will he call on the RMT to stop the strikes, which are reducing investment rather than increasing it?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that line services the great and beautiful city of Chester? Is he further aware that last Friday I, too, was unable to take my customary train to Chester and consequently took an aeroplane? I discovered that the journey to Chester via Manchester was half an hour faster. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Friday's futile strike not only did a grave disservice to our national railway system but gave a useful shot in the arm to British Airways?

When I was to share a platform with my hon. Friend on Friday afternoon, we both had to travel by air rather than take a train. I agree that the risk of such strikes is that passengers will be permanently lost to British Rail when they discover, as my hon. Friend did, that there is a quicker way to travel to Chester. The risk to freight is even more serious. I have endeavoured in a number of ways to get more freight off the road and on to the railways and I have presented to the House schemes for achieving that. Last Friday's strike and other strikes will cause that freight to be switched from rail to road, which would counterbalance anything that I am trying to do. That is why the strike is counter-productive.

Does the Secretary of State accept that instead of hurling abuse at people in industrial disputes, it would be much better if he used his office to bring the parties together to achieve an agreement, rather than have disagreement? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his statement on British Rail's financial objectives one day before the first day's dispute, when British Rail was meeting the trade unions, which would have resulted in cutting investment by half and BR's revenue subsidy by 23 per cent., and in making another 5 per cent. of cuts, could only have added to the thousands of redundancies? Was not that statement designed to torpedo the talks?

That is absolute nonsense. The objective set for British Rail next year and the announcement that we made in the autumn statement will mean a somewhat smaller public service obligation grant than the year before. However, it is a good deal higher than two years ago and very much higher than for a long time. It is down only on the year before. What is more, it is being achieved by more efficient British Rail cost operations, which included the voluntary redundancies that it has achieved this year on generous terms.

Yes.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that they were voluntary. I hope that he agrees that, in the interests of the taxpayer, it is right that British Rail should seek to reduce its costs and thus to have a lower PSO—but it is still a good deal higher than earlier.

What about investment?

Last year was an absolute record and this year it will be £1 billion—higher than in any period since the early 1960s and still very substantial. As to the strike, I have made it clear throughout that I support the British Railways Board. If the hon. Gentleman is in favour of investment in British Rail, does he not realise that it would be better for him to persuade the RMT to call off its strikes rather than support it in the way that he did? The hon. Gentleman is risking investment going down next year.

Leaving aside the rhetoric on both sides of the House about the strike, does my right hon. Friend agree that lack of investment on the west coast main line is having a deleterious effect on services? Is there any realistic likelihood, under his plans for the railways, of private sector investment in that line's infrastructure?

I have replied to my hon. Friend. He writes me a very large number of letters and I endeavour to get a reply to him as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend asked me about infrastructure investment on the west coast main line. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport will say something about that shortly.

Will the Secretary of State comment on the impression given by the Minister for Public Transport to the Standing Committee considering the Railways Bill that the leased stock—the new rolling stock that is coming into the railway industry—will be given to the new franchisees? Does he agree that the existing rail users on the remainder of the service will not regard that as a golden handshake for them?

I understand that my hon. Friend did not say that to the Standing Committee.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it has always been clear, as he confirmed yet again this afternoon, that British Rail has definite plans to upgrade and modernise the west coast main line as soon as possible? Does he further agree that the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) when he is in the north-west, spreading gloom and despondency and scare stories about maintenance and safety on the west coast main line, can only drive passengers away, further damage the west coast main line and frustrate all the hopes that my constituents have of their direct through service from Blackpool to London being reintroduced? It is the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, therefore, who is doing the damage to the west coast main line.

The intention and hope obviously is that, before long, we shall be able to start infrastructure investment on the west coast main line. Until now, it has been for British Rail to establish its investment priorities. In recent years, there have been massive sums of capital investment in other lines—£550 million on the east coast main line and £800 million on Network SouthEast. The west coast main line is now a clear candidate for investment priority. I have already said that British Rail hopes to renew the infrastructure on the west coast main line shortly. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. The support that he has given to the RMT strike damages the interests and prospects of both passengers and investment. It is also unnecessary to spread scare stories.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what offer he has received to modernise the west coast main line from the consortium of GEC Alsthom, Balfour Beattie and Trafalgar House.

A consortium has expressed an interest in privately financing the infrastructure renewal of the west coast main line and we are studying the proposal. In addition, new rolling stock for this line is one of two options under consideration by British Rail for the £150 million rolling stock leasing facility announced in the autumn statement. The other option is upgraded dual-voltage Networkers for use on Network SouthEast's outer suburban services. I have today asked British Rail to invite tenders for both options. The eventual choice between then will depend on the bids received.

Is the Minister aware that breakdowns are occurring all the time? Only this morning when I travelled down to London the train was delayed because of engine failure. On the last four occasions that I have travelled there have been engine failures and long delays. Can the Minister say when decisions will be taken? Does not he realise that about £900 million needs to be invested in the west coast main line? Far from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) talking about the safety risks, it was the route director for the west coast main line, Mr. Warburton, who made that statement. When will there be action? We are fed up with waiting.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the cost of the infrastructure and rolling stock work is estimated to be about £900 million. We have today announced that British Rail is going out to tender for new inter-city west coast main line rolling stock and that it will compare those tenders with the bids received for the new class 465 Networkers. It is sensible to see what is the best value for both British Rail and the taxpayer. My right hon. Friend said that work will start very soon on resignalling the line and improving the infrastructure. British Rail has only just completed over £500 million of work on the east coast main line. It is important for British Rail now to turn its attention to the west coast main line, which should become the premier railway line in the country.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the announcement this afternoon that tenders will be invited for improving the rolling stock on the lamentable west coast main line service is good news? Will he give the House an assurance that if both bids reflect good value for money, it is not impossible that both will be accepted?

I can give my right hon. Friend the assurance that, as the leasing market develops, as surely it will—we hope within the next few weeks to be able to announce our conclusions on the consultation document on leasing—it is not out of the question that both options can be pursued.

Why does the Minister pretend that he has not taken evidence about the length of time it takes to place an order, to build the rolling stock and to get it into service? He knows very well that there is no market for second-hand, broken-down carriages which already produce an inadequate service. If he is not prepared to give us a genuine undertaking this afternoon that both lines are a priority, we shall know that his talk of wanting to support the passenger is so much hot air.

I hope very much that because of the specific class of rolling stock that British Rail has selected —class 465 Networkers, which are dual voltage trains that can be used on Network SouthEast—and because of British Rail's decision to go out to tender for class 91 locomotives and mark IV coaches for the west coast main line, not much redesign work will be involved. I hope that the tenders will be returned quickly, that decisions can be made and that the trains will be manufactured quickly.

My hon. Friend will appreciate that his announcement this afternoon has profound implications for the future of the north Kent line. Given that, will he recognise that the trains for that line will mean jobs in construction for the United Kingdom and jobs that will enable north-east Kent to compete with Nord-Pas de Calais for jobs that would otherwise go to France? Will he impress on British Rail the importance of those trains to north Kent when the final decision is taken?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's hard work in representing the best interests of his constituents on the Kent coast line. I can confirm that British Rail is well aware of the importance of improving the rolling stock in Kent, especially because, next year, new trains will provide channel tunnel services. It is important, certainly in outer Kent, that we have modern, efficient rolling stock which can compete, which offer good value for money and which will compare well with the new rolling stock to be introduced to the channel tunnel.

Does the Minister recognise that the further delay in reaching an order, which his announcement today implies, puts at risk 1,600 jobs at the ABB works in my constituency and puts at risk jobs at GEC? Can he give us a firm date for when the order will be placed? Can he give the House an undertaking that he will approach the Treasury to get authorisation now for £300 million of leasing finance so that both orders can go ahead? Will he also give an undertaking that the whole build of whatever orders are placed will take place in this country because otherwise the British railway manufacturing industry will go the way of the British motor cycle industry, adding billions of pounds to our balance of payments deficit?

No further delay will be caused by my announcement today. If the order had been for one line, there would still have had to be a tender procedure. There is no additional delay. I am well aware of representations from many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), who last week made very strong representations on behalf of ABB. If ABB wins an order, it will be good for York, for Derby and for Crewe. I am also well aware of the fact that GEC Alsthom is another major manufacturing company for rolling stock. We shall see what response we get from the bids. As I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the leasing market will so develop that we are able to proceed with re-equipping both lines.

Does my hon. Friend understand that, despite our welcome for the leasing finance, there is some disappointment at the fact that we have waited six months for a decision, but are now told that, between the two competing lines, there is only a 50–50 chance of one order being placed? That is not satisfactory. Why has it taken six months to reach that conclusion? If one line is not to be the loser, can my hon. Friend explain far more clearly to the House how it might be that if leasing finance develops within the coming weeks, both those orders, which are equally important, might be placed?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to the importance of the leasing market. I have given an assurance that we will make a statement as quickly as possible on the response to the consultation document on the procurement of rolling stock and leasing, and on how that market will develop. New opportunities will be opened up by these important developments and we will return to the House as quickly as we can to say how we see the way forward.

As the Secretary of State seems to have some difficulty understanding his own handiwork, will the Minister confirm that in the current year investment in the existing railway will be at its lowest since nationalisation in 1948, and that a public service obligation grant cut of 23 per cent. is envisaged? That is bad news for the west coast line and for the system as a whole.

In referring to investment, the hon. Gentleman always makes a simple error. Both he and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) always exclude channel tunnel rail investment. That will be part of the existing railway this year because the channel tunnel will open this year—[HON. MEMBERS: "This year?"] Yes, this financial year. That is why, £1·4 billion worth of investment should be included. The channel tunnel is as much a part of the railway system as the London-Tilbury-Southend line.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals his Department has to make the wearing of safety equipment by cyclists compulsory.

Cyclists are encouraged to wear cycle helmets and conspicuous clothing, and that message was reinforced in our recent "cycle safe" campaign.

I shall resist the temptation to ask again about airbags, but in the light of numerous allegations that, following cycling accidents, cranial and other head injuries are the principal anxieties of the medical community, will my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will continue his fine record in safety matters and that proper medical research will be undertaken into all such injuries so that we may reach an adequate decision?

I can advise my hon. Friend that the Transport Research Laboratory is carrying out research. It is important, however, that before making anything compulsory we ask ourselves where regulation stops and good sense begins. I believe that as a country we are in danger of over-regulating, with all the problems of bureaucracy and enforcement that that entails. I am convinced that in this instance persuasion is the right way forward. I believe that our recent cycle safe campaign was effective and got the message across.

But what is the Minister doing to promote cycling and safer cycling? Is it not the case that his Department does not recognise the role of cycling in reducing congestions, and is it not time that he gave far more support to those throughout the country who wish to cycle?

I welcome the fact that people should bicycle safely if that is their choice. However, the hon. Lady has not listened to what I told her some months ago. I suggested then that she should go away and read our traffic advisory leaflets and local transport notes which offer advice in that area, the most recent of which was entitled "Making Way for Cyclists". That showed local authorities how to engineer routes to encourage cycling and make it safer.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further proposals he has for improving security at United Kingdom airports.

The Government have proposals for 100 per cent. hold baggage screening, for requiring airlines to account for and authorise for carriage all the baggage that they carry, and for improving the security of air cargo, mail and courier traffic.

As a frequent user of airliners, I am concerned that the Lockerbie disaster and the lessons learnt from it should be kept very much to the fore. I therefore welcome my hon. Friend's answer. Will he confirm that Britain is leading the way in Europe with those measures? Will he also reassure me that, as 80 per cent. of British air travel is international, he will give the highest priority to ensuring that the target of 100 per cent. is attained as soon as possible?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject and he is right to believe that the House takes the issue very seriously. I can confirm that my Department will continue to attach a high degree of importance to the whole issue of airport, airline and aviation safety generally. It may interest my hon. Friend to learn that our resources in that area have been increased tenfold since 1987.

Can the Minister tell the House whether tests of aviation security at our airports carried out by his Department have shown standards to be unacceptably low four years after the Lockerbie tragedy?

I can confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) said in his original supplementary—that standards in the United Kingdom are far in advance of those in virtually every other country in the world. From his knowledge of these matters, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will know that in terms of implementation of 100 per cent. screening by 1996, we are already making very substantial progress towards that and are way in advance of most other countries in Europe. On that basis, I am indeed satisfied with the measures that the Department and the airlines and carriers are taking.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what commitments he intends shall be imposed on companies undertaking rail service franchises to maintain existing intermediate stops.

The commitments will be laid out in the franchise contract. The franchisee will not be able to cease serving a station contrary to the terms of that contract.

What if someone like Mr. Richard Branson has been running the east coast main line service for about a year and then comes back to the Department of Transport and says, "I'd like to try running the trains express from Edinburgh to London and miss out all the stops at Berwick, Dunbar and Alnmouth"? Will he be given permission to do that? If that venture led to the collapse of the service because of a losss of revenue due to a mistake in commercial judgment, what would happen to the communities who would lose their rail service in the meantime?

I do not wish to comment on who might get the franchise, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that franchisees wishing to alter service patterns below the minimum specified—the kind of situation that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind—must give notice of that proposal to the franchising director who, after due consideration, will accept or reject the proposal. If there is a continuing demand for the service from which a franchisee might wish to withdraw, I believe that the franchising director would look very carefully at any such proposition. If there were any suggestion of the closure of a station or a service, all the normal statutory procedures which have applied in recent years would apply in the future.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the advantages of bringing in new franchisees is that it would allow the private sector to bring forward new ideas and new products?

Yes, I very much agree. The whole purpose of our proposals is to improve the services for passengers, not to see them withdrawn.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy with regard to competition among United Kingdom airlines.

The Government's policy is to encourage free, fair and open competition among airlines to the benefit of both consumers and airlines.

Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the leading role that the Government have played in liberalising the airline industry throughout Europe? Is that not already shown in the recent reductions in prices on European routes? May we now look forward to greater freedom for airlines throughout Europe?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. I do not think that the significance of the third aviation package in the European Community has yet been fully appreciated in opening up competition and liberalising the skies across Europe. Indeed, its effects are already being felt earlier than many people predicted. I am glad to say that, as the British Government were in the forefront of arguing for the changes and getting them, British airlines are in the forefront of taking advantage of them.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what proportion of the National Audit Office's resources in 1993–94 will be devoted to the certification of public accounts.

The National Audit Office is allocating 44 per cent. of its budget for audit work to certification activities in 1993–94.

I thank the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission for that response. Can he give the House his estimate of the increase in costs that will be required by the National Audit Office to undertake a more detailed analysis of the accounts that come before it, such as the components under the main headings of the accounts of Government Departments? Given that it is likely to be a large and disproportionate increase in costs, what guidelines is the Commission prepared to offer through the National Audit Office to Departments to ensure that what is defined in main headings is what is included in those parts of the accounts so that items such as Ministers' legal expenses cannot be buried under headings such as "stationery"?

The National Audit Office expects to increase the number of certifications that it does during the next few years from 498 to 560, at a significant reduction in real costs. I do not expect anything to happen during the next few years that will involve extra costs for the National Audit Office. The Public Accounts Commission is satisfied with its further programme.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Select Committee on Employment has asked the National Audit Office whether it can work out the true cost of unemployment, especially what it costs when a person is made unemployed, not merely as a result of tax not paid but in terms of the benefits that the person and his family will receive? Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to lean on the National Audit Office to provide that information, because I am sure that no one else in the United Kingdom is willing to do so?

I will certainly pass the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments on to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Strictly speaking, it is more a matter for the Public Accounts Committee than for the Commission, but I will certainly pass on the hon. and learned Gentleman's views.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer specifically the question that he was asked about ministerial expenses and how they are defined in departmental accounts? Is he concerned about what has happened recently? Does he think that he should perhaps convene a meeting with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General to see whether a way forward can be found whereby such expenses, when incurred, are clearly set out in Government accounts in a way that the public can understand?

These are important and interesting matters and can be dealt with fully by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, to which the hon. Gentleman has every access.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of his plans to franchise the Great Western line.

Great Western Intercity is one of the seven service groups that I have asked British Rail to prepare for early franchising. I have asked BR to create a separate Great Western operating company so that potential franchisees can see how the services perform before making their bids

My right hon. Friend will be well aware that the InterCity 1"/ diesel locomotives have been in operation for 20 or more years and are coming naturally towards the end of their useful working life. Will he bear that fact in mind in assessing the length of the franchise that might be awarded in the Great Western region to ensure that there is a sufficient payback period for an operator to make the new capital investment which will be needed?

Yes, I am aware that in due course the diesel locomotives will have to be replaced. I make two points to my hon. Friend. First, the length of the franchise, which will be for the franchising director to establish, will reflect the commitment and investment that the potential franchisees are prepared to put in. In other words, if they are prepared to make a substantial investment in rolling stock, the franchisees will expect a longer franchise than would otherwise be the case. Secondly, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport will come forward shortly with the responses to the consultation document on leasing of rolling stock. That is also relevant.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) of 22 February, Official Report, column 678, what progress has been made in making creche facilities available for the children of hon. Members and of House of Commons staff.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on progress on the provision of creche facilities in the House.

Since I last answered questions on the subject on 22 February, the Administration Committee has considered the possibility that the House might take up a small number of places in a projected joint venture nursery near Vincent square. The Committee turned down the proposal as inappropriate and has consulted the Commission on the need for a comprehensive survey of all possible users. That will now be taken ahead, with the Commission's full support.

How can the Commission maintain that there is not room within these buildings for a creche when we have room for a shooting gallery and several rooms are used for wining and dining which is not parliamentary but entirely commercial and party political in character? Do we have to wait until the present crop of children who might now be in nursery school are attending university before a creche is provided? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that there are special problems for the 2,000 staff in the building and especially for Members of Parliament as the peculiar demands of our jobs mean that many of our families are brought up for most of the year in a single-parent context?

The Commission is well aware of the problems and the proposals for dealing with them. That is why it intends to undertake the survey. The hon. Gentleman must address his views about the use of rooms in the building to the Accommodation and Works Committee. However, I am bound to say that the public authorities would probably not look kindly on the use of a basement now used as a shooting gallery for a children's creche.

Why is it taking so long for the creche facilities to be provided when so many Members have urged for several years that action be taken? It seems to us that once again obstacles and delay are being put in the way of the provision of facilities. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us a date by which he hopes to see the facilities provided?

I should like to see the facilities provided as soon as possible, but the hon. Gentleman should discuss with his hon. Friends who are members of the appropriate Committee the difficulties that they foresee in providing accommodation from the present parliamentary estate. They made the decision to which I referred, and they must be well aware of the difficulties.

May I ask my right hon. Friend fully to appreciate that although it may not be popular with some of our colleagues, the House of Commons must be brought into the 20th century? In the past two decades or so, many men and women who are younger and have young children have become Members of Parliament. It seems inappropriate that while the Government and other organisations encourage and foster the provision of creche facilities, this establishment seems remarkably reluctant to provide the facilities that it encourages the private sector and other sections of the community to provide.

The Commission has no reluctance on the matter so long as demand can be shown and satisfactory accommodation can be provided.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the questions that I asked him in February and on the first sitting day in 1993 did not refer to surveys? The House is not asking for surveys—it is asking for action, and action this year. A creche facility is not specialised —it requires toilets and water, but it should not be impossible to find space within the various buildings of the Palace of Westminster which contain such facilities. May we have some action, please?

The joint venture, which the Administration Committee regarded as inappropriate, would have provided only six places, and would have done so at a relatively high cost. It was partly because of the inadequate number of places that the Commission felt it necessary to support a proper survey, to see how many people would use this facility.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what provision has been made in 1993–94 for the building of further accommodation.

A total of £10·5 million has been made available in 1993–94 to cover the remaining works at No. 7 Millbank and to continue the design work on phase 2 of the new parliamentary building.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, as well as the need for offices, we need rooms for meetings and other larger ones? Is it not extraordinary that hon. Members on both sides of the House have to traipse like stones to the bowels of the Treasury to donate blood?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's journey across the road is well worth while and in the public interest. It illustrates the problems that we have in providing for a wide range of facilities in this building, as well as ensuring that hon. Members and their staff are adequately accommodated. That is why the Commission authorised the accommodation at 7 Millbank and why we are proceeding with work on the new parliamentary building.

What has been the cost of the upkeep of this Palace, building and refurbishing offices, pampering the secretaries and providing ridiculous services, more of which—such as creches—have been suggested this afternoon? Why not have nannies and nurses as well? Will the right hon. Gentleman state the cost over the past 10 years of the appalling extravagances in which we expect the public not to indulge but which we have given to ourselves?

Order. That is a most interesting question, but one which requires notice.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what proportion of the expenditure of the Commission goes on printing for the House.

The estimates for 1993–94 include provision of £18·6 million for expenditure on printing and publications, most of which is incurred in the supply of parliamentary papers.

Clearly, printing costs have gone through the roof. While we expect that other bodies should manage their affairs efficiently and run them more cheaply each year, why is it that each year we run our own more expensively? Why do we allow this bureaucracy to go on and on increasing? As it costs £200 or more for each oral question to be answered, including this one, why should there not be a limit to the amount that hon. Members can spend each year on questions? While the right hon. Gentleman is looking at questions, will he also look at the bureaucracy of the House and the Serjeant at Arms Department?

Any limit on the ability of hon. Members to ask questions would be very controversial and a matter for the Procedure Committee and not for the Commission, which provides the services necessary for the House to do its job. The House printing requirements are unusual in that there is a large amount of overnight printing of Hansard and other parliamentary papers. Discussions are taking place now as to how to carry out that work most efficiently. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find that that will lead to a considerable containment of the costs.

Would the right hon. Gentleman like to suggest, both to the Government and to his fellow Members, that one easy way of cutting down on the amount of paper that we produce would be to return to the habit of Ministers taking responsibility for their own questions and their appearance in the Official Report instead of occasionally allowing vast, pointless and frequently opaque replies to be printed in Hansard?

I hope that the hon. Lady's question will be noted on the Front Bench, as Ministers alone can act on it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has had any recent discussions with representatives of local authorities and others regarding the midland line electrification.

Yes. I attended a meeting of the Association of County Councils in Nottingham on 26 March, when the possible electrification of the midland main line was discussed.

What is the Minister going to do about it? Now that he has met the local authorities will he put them in the lucky bag with the west coasst line and the Kent line? The Government are trying to kid local authorities into believing that they are getting something before the county elections, but when those elections are over the net result will be that the midland line electrification will fall. Is the Minister aware that the Government have spent too much time attacking the railway unions, which are fighting for the livelihoods and jobs of their members, when the Government should be concentrating on improving the rolling stock and electrification up and down Britain?

Every day of the rail strike, which the hon. Gentleman supports, means £10 million less investment in British Rail.