To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made towards liberalisation of transatlantic air routes.

The United Kingdom tabled proposals in December, which would achieve substantial further liberalisation on transatlantic routes, further than anything that we have previously offered. It takes a phased approach offering immediate complete liberalisation of all United Kingdom-United States services, except those involving Heathrow and Gatwick, and offers real commercial opportunities at those two airports. I am disappointed that the United States Government have not been able to respond in a similar manner.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the apparent stalling by the United States Government gives the unfortunate impression that they are more interested in protecting their industries than in demonstrating a genuine commitment to airline liberalisation? Does he agree that it also appears that the United States is afraid of competition from efficient British Airways and is unaware of the great benefits of liberalisation to the travelling public on both sides of the Atlantic?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that further liberalisation would bring great benefits—the benefits of further competition—for passengers on both sides of the Atlantic. I also agree that United Kingdom airlines are very competitive. I can only speculate as to why the talks have been postponed and it has not yet been possible to take them up again, and I do not know whether my hon. Friend is right. I am disappointed that the talks were postponed and I hope that the United States Government will recognise the real values and virtues of our proposals, which are serious, and agree to meet us around the negotiating table again soon to discuss them in greater detail.

Where does Glasgow airport stand in that scheme of things? It is a major employer in the area and there is burgeoning demand for transatlantic flights to and from Glasgow. I hope that the Secretary of State is arguing the case for that airport as much as for other airports south of the border.

I am aware of the improvements at Glasgow airport and of the considerable expansion there —not least since the British Airports Authority was privatised, which has greatly increased investment.

Now answer the question.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there have been big improvements since privatisation.

Am I to understand that the American Government are refusing to negotiate at the moment? Is that not extremely unsatisfactory and very much against the interests of air travellers? What steps does my right hon. Friend propose to take to break that deadlock?

It is very disappointing. There would be great benefits if we could reach a successful conclusion to the negotiations. We are in discussions with the United States Government in the hope that we can resume the talks as soon as possible. I have said that I would be prepared to go to Washington if that were likely to benefit the progress of the talks in any way.

I hope that the Secretary of State will put great pressure on his American colleagues, because his news will be greeted with great disappointment, especially at Birmingham airport. Our regional airports need that way into transatlantic routes. I hope that he will do all in his power to ensure that the Americans come to the negotiating table and that regional airports are not used as a bargaining chip for the London airports. I would not want him to miss that point.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing everything that we can to develop services at regional airports, including Birmingham. Representatives of those airports are on the United Kingdom negotiating team because they know the position and they can be sure that their voice is fully heard. I can, therefore, give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the maximum traffic flows over the Kingsferry bridge on the A249; what was its design capacity; what are the traffic flows on a typical two-lane motorway; and what steps he is taking to speed up construction of a second crossing of the Swale.

There are about 26,000 vehicles a day; design capacity figures are no longer readily available. The traffic flows are equivalent to 33,500 vehicles a day. The priority given to the Iwade to Queensborough improvement will depend on the outcome of the road programme review.

I thank my hon. Friend and his officials for the sterling work that they have done in bringing forward this project, even to the planning stage. Does he understand, however, that as up to 26,000 vehicles a day go over the single lifting bridge, the only means of access to the Isle of Sheppey, and as there was an electrical failure a couple of weeks ago, this is a transport crisis waiting to happen? Will he please try to ensure that the construction of the second crossing is a matter not just of local priority but of national priority?

It is clear that the vast majority of people who replied to our consultation exercise are in favour of the scheme and wish it to proceed as swiftly as possible. Sheppey is an environmentally sensitive area, but the needs of industry and of the local population are also great. We shall have to consider the scheme in the light of those factors.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will initiate an urgent review of British Rail's proposals for increased use of the west London line for rail freight.

I am asking Railtrack, as one of its first acts on taking over infrastructure provision in April, to examine the case for providing an alternative route for channel tunnel freight trains which avoids central London.

I hope that the Minister will take on board—I think that he is beginning to do so—the enormous and growing opposition from residents who live alongside the west London line. That opposition does not affect just my constituency, because the proposal to increase usage of the line to about one train every eight minutes, day and night, is seen as unacceptable in a residential area. If the current minimal use of the line is increased, people should be compensated when trains pass within a few feet of their windows. Concern is growing, however, about local authorities that are not financially equipped to meet that need.

I hope that there is all-party support for the exploitation of the channel tunnel, for both passenger and rail freight trains. I am sure that the hon. Member shares my hope. My Department has recently agreed to consider requests from all local authorities, including those in London, for additional financial provision to contribute towards the erection of noise barriers. I answered another question recently from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) dealing with compensation issues.

In the context of rail freight, is my right hon. Friend aware of the policy to involve private money in transport schemes, as advocated by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)? Will my right hon. Friend speculate on how many extra freight trains would run as a result of that policy?

Perhaps my hon. Friend refers to the document published today, which I have read with interest. I am bound to say that it is a consultation document, which contains no proposals. Meanwhile, the Government are getting on with introducing private sector capital to the rail infrastructure. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) laughs, but I can tell him that, within the next few days, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will issue the pre-tender qualification documents to invite private sector finance for the construction of the channel tunnel rail link.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of his Department's annual budget is currently spent on roads; and what proportion on public transport.

In the coming financial year, I expect roads to account for just over 50 per cent. of my budget and public transport for about 40 per cent.

I confess that I am somewhat taken aback by that reply, because I was going to put in a special plea for the Oakham bypass in Rutland. Does not my right hon. Friend's reply show that whereas 90 per cent. of journeys are undertaken by road, nearly half of his Department's spending is on public transport? Will he undertake to trumpet that statistic rather widely and use it to confound those critics who try to argue that the Government do not spend enough on public transport?

I entirely agree. We are spending substantial sums on the road programme and on, I assure my hon. Friend, the bypass programme, which I know is widely welcomed. When we compare our expenditure with that made a long way back, it is clear that we are spending record sums on public transport. The fact that 40 per cent. of my Department's budget goes towards the equivalent of 10 per cent. of total journeys shows how much we are skewing it towards public transport. I assure my hon. Friend that I am determined to demolish the myth that the Government do not spend on public transport. Many statistics, including those on London Underground, prove that.

Given the future balance between spending on roads and on public transport, will the Minister bear in mind the growing evidence of the connection between vehicle emissions and respiratory allergies? That evidence has come particularly from the Office of Science and Technology and the British Lung Foundation. Is he aware that 90 per cent. of the carbon dioxide pumped into the air comes from vehicles? Will he bear in mind that small children are among those most at risk because in urban areas they are at the height of vehicle exhausts? What steps will he take to toughen standards for vehicle emissions in urban areas? Will he put more money into public transport as an alternative to the motor car?

I have already said that 40 per cent. of my Department's budget is spent on public transport. The fact that 90 per cent. of passengers and inland freight goes by road clearly shows how much we are spending on it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will support me in all the other measures that we are taking, such as insisting on catalytic converters, our drive for further improvement in vehicle emission standards and the programme to improve motorways, trunk roads and local roads. If we can remove congestion, we shall remove a considerable amount of atmospheric pollution. Our traffic-calming measures are also contributing to reducing that problem.

What proportion of my right hon. Friend's budget is being spent, and how much is it costing the taxpayer, to remove protesters from places such as Twyford down where protesters have failed to achieve their aim in the democratic process but now seek through public disorder and, in some instances, violence to achieve their aims? Is it not time that we spent that money on road safety schemes and public transport infrastructure in general, on which it deserves to be spent?

I take my hon. Friend's point. The cost to the public purse of security measures at Twyford down was £200,000 and the protest against the M11 link at Hackney has also cost a considerable amount. The important point is that there have been prolonged public inquiries into those schemes and others, at which everyone has had the democratic right to have his or her view taken into account and expressed. Decisions must be taken and it is a negation of democracy for a tiny minority of people to hold up what the vast majority wants. Moreover, my hon. Friend is correct to say that the money could otherwise have been spent on environmental issues, such as planting even more trees and shrubs along the roads concerned.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as a result of the access charges announced by Railtrack last week, every part of the British rail network, including the vastly profitable east coast main line, will need subsidising by the taxpayer? What sort of triumph is that for Tory doctrines? Will he further confirm that, as a result of last week's announcement, the whole railway network will be charged those enormously inflated access charges indefinitely, whereas decisions on subsidy will be taken every year? In the light of that, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those inflated access charges will make the railway system appear to be far more heavily subsidised than it is and that, in the long term, those access charges represent the biggest threat to our railway network since Beeching?

The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether he wants taxpayers' money put into the railway system to subsidise socially necessary lines. I hope that he will not condemn us for making it clear that we are continuing to do so. Had the hon. Gentleman done his homework, he would be aware that we are having the access charges accurately costed to reflect the cost of running the infrastructure. Until now, that has not been done. The costing will take account of depreciation and the proper return on capital so that we can get investment in the infrastructure.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of car owners frequently use motorways; and what proportion never use motorways.

In the summer of 1992, my Department carried out a number of surveys into the use made of motorways in this country. The results indicate that half the number of road users rarely or never use motorways and about 85 per cent. of motorway miles are driven by frequent users.

When does my right hon. Friend expect to be able to use new technology to recover the cost of motorways from those who use them rather than from motorists in general—not all of whom enjoy the undoubted benefits of motorways?

As the figures that I quoted show, a surprisingly high proportion of British motorists hardly ever use motorways. We announced our decision in principle to go for motorway tolling so that, at least in part, the cost of motorways would be met by the user. I stress the words "at least in part".

If there were more buses and trains whose routes were interlinked, might not car owners leave their vehicles at home more often? Would not less money need to be spent on motorways and other roads, so that we could have a decent public transport system?

It is clear from the choice of individuals to drive on motorways, and of companies to transport freight on them, that many more people want the freedom to use their vehicles, and I must take that into account. The hon. Gentleman must understand that myriad types of journeys are undertaken on motorways every day, which involve joining them and leaving them at different points. It would be impossibly expensive to duplicate that flexibility with a railway infrastructure.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will pay an official visit to south-west Bedfordshire to review the road-building programme.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

In view of the ever-increasing congestion on the A5, will there be an early start on constructing the Sheep lane roundabout between Heath and Reach and Woburn? Also, can my hon. Friend give a firm date for the commencement of the public inquiry into the north-south Dunstable bypass?

The Dunstable bypass must await my right hon. Friend's decisions on the road programme review. As to Sheep lane, we are examining the recommendation of the public inquiry inspector that there should be a roundabout at that point, but I cannot say when it will be implemented. I understand the frustration that my hon. Friend frequently expresses on behalf of his constituents, but I ask him to be patient a little longer.

Does the Minister not realise that the road programme cannot be dealt with in a fragmented way? When will he and the Government get the message that Britain needs a transport policy? That cannot be formulated without a fundamental review of the roads programme. What account will the Minister take of the report, due out soon, on traffic forecasts? What criteria does he use to decide what is included in the roads programme, which he has never properly justified?

An integrated transport policy means different things to different people, but that is exactly what the Department is producing. Since my right hon. Friend announced the decision last August, we have been undertaking a fundamental review of the prioritisation of the roads programme. The hon. Lady will not have to wait long to discover our conclusions. I announced last December—and I am delighted that it has taken only two or three months for the hon. Lady to notice—that we would review the fundamental methodology of road traffic forecasting.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his future plans for red routes in London.

The pilot red route scheme in north and east London is to be extended to a 315-mile network throughout London. Detailed plans must be submitted to the traffic director by 24 June, and implementation will begin later in the year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate that too many people have tried to suggest that red routes are some sort of urban motorway? Notwithstanding some local difficulties, do they not bring great benefits?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Labour picked up on the idea of red routes, and tried to scare many people who live on such routes into believing that they are some kind of urban motorway. In reality, they have brought tremendous benefits to pedestrians, cyclists and users of public transport, as well as to the motoring public generally. They are an extremely good thing.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received in response to his proposed changes to the London night-time and weekend lorry ban.

I have received representations from hon. Members, Members of the European Parliament, noble Lords, London borough councillors, the London Boroughs Transport Committee, the Freight Transport Association and members of the general public.

I thank the Minister for that response. Can he confirm from the rich catalogue that he has just outlined that the only people in favour of the Government's proposals were the members of the Freight Transport Association, that the people of London have benefited hugely from the imposition of the ban and that, rather than lifting the burden from business, the Government's proposals to water down the ban will impose an extra burden on business, from which it thought that it had mercifully escaped?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on his first point. The vast majority of those who wrote simply asked for information on what was proposed. They were not helped by the deliberate misinformation that was put about by the Labour party, as well as by Members of the European Parliament who stand in the socialist interest and who saw fit deliberately to distort our proposals, to create the false impression that we were in some way watering down the London lorry ban. Conservative Members very much appreciate the advantages that the ban brings. What they do not appreciate is the mountain of paperwork that surrounds the current Greater London council-inspired scheme. That is what will be abolished, not the scheme itself.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the ban will remain in place and that money will be saved by the deregulation to which he referred? What compensation arrangements can be made for people living near the A40 in my constituency and in small roads whose homes are rattled by heavy lorries? Their numbers are increasing. That problem is of great concern to my constituents.

First, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the ban remains. Secondly, on the effect of the ban, it will remain the case that any vehicle that is not on an appropriate journey through central London will be committing an offence. It is that to which the scheme should always have addressed itself, rather than simply accumulating a mountain of paperwork. The savings will be about £400,000 to the scheme operators—funded by the hard-pressed council tax payers—and about £3 million to the business community, which will, of course, flow through in prices. As to the A40, I am afraid that I have to tell my hon. Friend that compensation arrangements do not generally take account of the increased use of an existing road.

Does the Minister agree that, without a permit scheme, a night-time and weekend lorry ban in London can be enforced only by regular and widespread spot checks, for which the participation of the Metropolitan police is essential? From where will the extra police resources come to do that? Unless he can give an assurance that he has the agreement of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and the Home Secretary, to deploy extra police to enforce the ban, everyone will know that his claims about keeping it in force are simply hollow boasts, because in practice the scheme will be killed and millions of Londoners will be exposed to unnecessary noise, nuisance and disruption at night?

By abolishing the ludicrous paperwork that surrounds the scheme, some £400,000 will be available to the London boroughs transport scheme to increase the amount of on-the-spot enforcement that is carried out. I should ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can think of any other city—indeed, of cities that are controlled by Labour councils—that sees the need for such paperwork. He would think in vain, because not a single council in the whole of the United Kingdom, whether controlled by Labour or by Conservatives, uses that ludicrous typical GLC-Stalinist paperwork basis.

On behalf of my constituents, I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the Enfield-Barnet lorry ban, the implementation of which will improve the quality of life of my constituents, and the implementation of which was delayed by the opposition of Labour councillors.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Enfield and Barnet have taken advantage of the opportunity that is available to local authorities to introduce lorry bans much more stringent than the scheme on which the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) appears so keen —24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week bans on all vehicles above 7.5 tonnes. They are useful schemes and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the speed of intercity rail travel in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) France.

Speed of intercity rail travel varies according to route and the types of trains used. The fastest timetabled United Kingdom service is the InterCity 225 on the east coast main line between Doncaster and Grantham, which runs at an average speed of 107 mph; the fastest French service is the TGV Atlantique between Massy and St Pierre, which runs at an average speed of 153 mph.

What benefits of the British system would the Minister commend to the French?

All British Rail's InterCity services—diesel and electric—are designed to run at fast speeds over 90 mph. If the hon. Gentleman makes inquiries, he will find that France operates a two-tier service—the TGVs, which are excellent, and the rest, which are not.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that British Rail has many more services that run above 90 mph than French railways? Does he also agree that we have the most extensive track network in Europe and that more people travel by rail in Britain than in France?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There seems to be a plot among those on the Opposition Benches to run down the quality of British Rail services—including a reference by the shadow Chancellor in the weekend press to the fact that trains from Waterloo to the channel tunnel terminal will run at 45 mph. That is not true. When the trains start in the summer, they will run through Kent at 90 mph.

Does the Minister recall claiming proudly that, following the opening of the channel tunnel, the train journey from London to Paris would take just three hours? Will he confirm that if the train travelled through France at the same speed at which it will travel through Kent, the journey would take not three hours but five hours 25 minutes—and those are the figures supplied by British Rail?

The hon. Gentleman must take account of the fact that trains must negotiate Southern region in the London area. No train could possibly run at 225 kph from the Waterloo terminal to the outskirts of London. I commend the train journey to all hon. Members—I hope that you, Madam Speaker, will be among the first to use the channel tunnel train service—and confirm that the trains will travel at 90 mph.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with Hereford and Worcester county council or Wychavon district council about the proposed western and northern Wyre Piddle bypasses.

No such discussions have been requested. However, I discussed the bypass schemes with my hon. Friend last November.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that, against the background of a rather disappointing transport supplementary grant settlement for Hereford and Worcester, there is very real pleasure among the residents of Wyre Piddle—a village which derives its name from the Piddle brook—at my hon. Friend's repeated reassurances that the northern bypass will be eligible for transport supplementary grant? Does he recognise, however, that there is equal disappointment among those same residents and the residents of Pershore in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) that the western bypass, which is a strategic road, is not recognised as such by his Department?

I am sure that there is not half as much joy in Wyre Piddle as the residents of Puddletown and Piddletrenthide in Dorset would feel if they could get their bypasses. As I explained to my hon. Friend, the northern bypass is on the A4538, which is a road of more than local importance in through-traffic terms. The B4083, which the proposed western bypass would relieve, is a secondary road linking Pershore and Wyre Piddle. I am none the less grateful for the continuing representations on behalf of the inhabitants of those delightful villages and will always be ready to discuss them with my hon. Friend.

Does the Minister agree that progress on both the northern and the western Wyre Piddle bypasses —a matter of great concern to my constituents—would be accelerated if the Government adopted the imaginative policies presented today in the Labour party consultation document? Does he further agree that, were the Government not locked in their ideological straitjacket, in which they see things as just private or just public, we should have had progress both on those bypasses and on the channel link, which would not have been 10 years behind schedule as it is today?

I have read that interesting fairy story. The bad news for the hon. Gentleman is that his party would slash road building of all kinds and the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) would be terribly badly off, as they would be if we had the misfortune of any influence from the Liberal Democrat party.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what benefits he expects to see for passengers as a result of his plans to privatise the railways.

As a result of the franchising of passenger services, I expect to see better services run more efficiently, better targeted to markets and hence to what passengers want and to which they will respond.

To dispel some of the many misconceptions put about by opponents of increased commercialisation in our railways, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be through ticketing and through timetabling under the new arrangements and that those arrangements will be sensible?

Yes, I can confirm that. As we have made clear on many occasions, we have given a clear commitment that through ticketing will continue. The regulator will have a statutory duty to promote it. Railtrack will be responsible for producing a working national timetable for the railway and will be required in its licence to make arrangements for the publication of the timetable, if it would not otherwise be published by another party.

The Secretary of State knows that discounted tickets are of special concern to passengers and he also knows that it has become painfully clear, under the schemes that have been carried out in other areas, that Ministers have no control whatever over the actions of individual companies after privatisation. Will he stop trying to mislead people who have the misfortune to need British Rail as it is?

I make it clear again that the operators will be required to participate in common ticketing and revenue allocation arrangements which are based at the outset on BR's current systems. They will therefore be able to offer through ticketing on much the same basis as at present, on a range of ticket and fare types.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what benefits Billericay will derive from crossrail.

My hon. Friend's constituents will either travel to Shenfield to use the line directly, or will otherwise take advantage of reduced congestion on existing services. They will gain benefits in journey time savings and reduced overcrowding.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. He should know that my constituents in Billericay who travel to Liverpool street each day are greatly looking forward to that new service, which I am sure, because it is largely privately funded, will set a new standard in the quality of service for passengers. Does he agree that the tube lines on which they currently make their journeys, especially the Central line, are grossly overcrowded and relatively underfunded? Does he agree that we should seek private capital funding for the tube system to improve that service, too?

My hon. Friend's basic thesis is entirely right. When one has exhausted the investment that the taxpayer can prudently make—an investment which, under the Government, is four times the level of the best years of the Labour Government—and when one has exhausted that which is contributable by the farepayer, the only sensible and prudent course for anyone who is concerned to improve the system is to consider how the private sector can be involved. Of course, it depends on the particular circumstances as to how it can be accomplished. However, I am delighted about my hon. Friend's support for crossrail. It will be a useful and imaginative project which will allow substantial participation by the private sector.

I am somewhat equivocal about any means of transportation that gets the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) to the House of Commons quicker. Having said that, crossrail will be of great benefit to the whole of London. When can we expect crossrail to operate?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's question is not connected to the fact that, as I recall, the train runs directly underneath his house. He has a more than passing interest in the scheme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill which is currently before the House will have to complete its proceedings and I cannot anticipate when that may be. When the powers of the Bill are obtained, it will be for the private sector and the promoters to get together to develop a financable scheme. My view is that it will be such an attractive scheme that there should be little delay between the obtaining of the powers and the start of works. If that were the case, we may be looking at the operation of a crossrail scheme in the early days of the next century.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of journeys in the United Kingdom are made by road; and what percentage by public transport.

Some 90 per cent. of passenger and inland freight traffic goes by road.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his interesting reply. Does he agree that many people in London are keen that we should have a good transport system for the public sector and a good rail network, not only for business, but for commuters and the general public? Does he further agree that only Conservatives believe in real choice in respect of public transport and the private use of motor cars, lorries and vans?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The figures are somewhat different for London. There is not only much more Government subsidy into public transport in London than to roads, but more journeys are made by public transport. As an indication of the Government's contribution to public transport in London, it is worth noting that, at the moment, the capital grant to London Underground amounts to £300 a year per regular tube user and the subsidy for Network SouthEast is more than £400 a year for the average regular user.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what funds will be made available for the National Audit Office to investigate the work of NHS trusts.

The Commission approved the National Audit Office's corporate plan for 1994–95 to 1998–99 in July 1993 and the estimate for 1994–95 in December. Those include provision for the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine, certify and report on the summarised accounts of NHS trusts and other NHS bodies and to visit individual NHS bodies to examine the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the Department of Health and the NHS use their resources. Selection of topics for value for money investigation is a matter for the CAG in consultation with the Public Accounts Committee.

I thank the Chairman for his answer. Will he ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff examine the forthcoming budgetary provisions and consider the proposals, which are now in the public domain, as they affect Guy's hospital? The proposal, about which the Chairman may have heard, would potentially considerably underuse a new building—Sir Philip Harris house—which has cost £140 million. I have referred the matter to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who has passed it on to the CAG. Will the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission ensure that the Comptroller is directed to look into that matter before a decision is made so that we are not considering waste afterwards, but preventing it in advance?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. However, I will draw the CAG's attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the CAG and the National Audit Office are carrying out a review of Treasury management of NHS trusts.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what assessment he has made of the effectiveness in terms of value for money of the National Audit Office.

The National Audit Office corporate plan is considered by the Public Accounts Commission in July each year. It sets out NAO efficiency and performance overall and the impacts of NAO work. In 1992, bodies audited made 173 significant changes as a result of value for money recommendations by the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee resulting in estimated savings of £204 million. National Audit Office financial audit work also led to wider improvements. In 1992, it recommended 208 significant changes in systems and controls which resulted in estimated savings of £34 million.

I thank the Chairman for that reply. However, how does that impact on the effectiveness of the NAO when it can report into an organisation, as it did in respect of the Welsh Development Agency, only to discover that the people who were found to be culpable were popping up in other public posts? For example, the discredited chief executive of the WDA subsequently ran the property department of the Further Education Funding Council on £46,000 a year. How can that possibly enhance the efficiency that the Commission is trying to achieve? Should not such reports include recommendations as to whether those people are fit to continue as public servants?

That must be a matter for the PAC to recommend in the first place. If the hon. Gentleman has a complaint about any individual, he should refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The CAG is concerned with the control of public expenditure and departmental expenditure in particular, but not with what happens to personnel.

Will my right hon. Friend ask the National Audit Office to make a cost-benefit analysis of the decision by the trustees of the independent living (1993) fund to exclude from support severely disabled people who are terminally ill?

I shall look at that matter and write to my hon. Friend.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what consideration the Commission is giving to the extent to which the Comptroller and Auditor General can check on the use of public money once it has passed into private hands.

The CAG's powers to check the use of public money are governed by statute. Where public money passes into private hands, the CAG's statutory powers are normally restricted to examining the activities and papers of the Department or agency issuing the funds. In some cases, the CAG also has rights to inspect the books and records of bodies receiving those funds, to ensure that the money has been spent as Parliament intended. Those inspection rights can be statutory as a condition of grant, or they can be built into contracts for services provided by the private sector. There can be advantages in doing so. The extension of the CAG's statutory powers is, of course, a matter for the House.

I am grateful for that detailed reply. Does the Chairman agree that it would be better if the Comptroller and Auditor General could follow money through to its end use once it has left the Treasury, bearing in mind allegations about the Pergau dam? That would bring us into line with many other countries.

There is a strong case for that. The PAC recommended it some years ago and I understand that the PAC and the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee are now also considering it. It seems rather strange that the Audit Commission can appoint auditors who may follow every penny of public spending through local authorities and that the European Court of Auditors can do the same. I shall draw that point to the attention of my right hon. Friends and, when I have done so, I shall write to the hon. Lady.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what financial provision has been made for the installation of annunciators in the offices of hon. Members' staff.

A figure of £260,000 has been included in the works services estimates for 1994–95 to start design work for the parliamentary data and video network, which could include the provision of annunciators in the offices of hon. Members' staff. Use of that provision will depend on approval by the House of the report from the Information Committee recommending the final form of the network.

I am grateful for that reply. The House might be aware that, a fortnight ago, an annunciator in a room of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) caught fire. That might have been an act of God. Indeed, one hon. Member suggested that it reflects the powers in this place.

I believe that that point is fully appreciated by the House authorities. I expect it to be covered in the report which we shall shortly receive.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what representations he has received regarding smoking in the Palace of Westminster; and what assessments he has made of the risks to persons and the fabric of the building.

In addition to questions from hon. Members, representations have been made by the trade unions. Although no specific assessment of the effects of smoking on individuals has been made, the House authorities are aware of the statutory requirements in that respect and of recent reports on the subject. The Accommodation and Works Committee recently considered a fire action plan, which includes a statement on the fire hazards caused by smoking.

Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the House should lead and not drag behind in public policy? Is he satisfied that progress will be made if it is left to individual Departments? Should not there be a co-ordinated approach, bearing in mind the fact, for example, that the Refreshment Department has only just implemented a ban to meet statutory requirements in food preparation areas? Is the right hon. Gentleman convinced of the need for co-ordinated action to tackle the problem?

Considerable progress is being made. The Refreshment Department is one of those which, relatively recently, announced comprehensive changes of policy, which I hope meet some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I will ensure that the Commission is made well aware of his point.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps the Commission is taking to increase the number of women employed in the House of Commons service.

Recruitment to, and promotion in, the House of Commons service is based on ability, qualifications and fitness for the work. There is no discrimination on any other ground.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer. I am sure that he, like me, is aware of the enormous importance of highly skilled and dedicated women to the running of this place, especially those in the background jobs. Does he agree that it is surprising that, as yet, only two Departments are headed by women—the Library and the Refreshment Department? I have observed that other Parliaments—in Australia, for instance—employ women as badge messengers. As a result of training over the generations, women are—if nothing else—very good at running after men to give them messages.

It must be obvious to all that women occupy not just important backroom jobs in the House of Commons, but important front-line jobs. I regard the fact that two Departments are now headed by women, after a long period when none was, as a mark of progress. I shall, however, draw the attention of the appropriate authorities to the hon. Lady's recommendation about messengers.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the employment of women would be greatly facilitated if there were arrangements for child care in the House? He must be aware that the absence of such facilities limits employment opportunities for many women, especially those with young children and especially in view of our strange working hours.

I believe that child care provision would facilitate the employment of women in the House; whether my assumption is correct is currently being tested in a survey conducted by the Administration Committee, whose results we await. There are some practical difficulties connected with where such facilities could be housed which the Accommodation and Works Committee has often drawn to our attention. When we receive the results of the survey and the Administration Committee's recommendation, however, we may be able to take the matter further.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what financial provision has been made in the House of Commons Administration estimate for 1994–95 in respect of services for visitors to the Palace.

Financial provision in the financial year 1994–95 for facilities for all types of visitors is contained mainly in the estimate for works services. It includes an initial sum of £250,000 for measures to improve access for the disabled, funds to improve the line of route and the provisional 'allocation of £50,000 for an additional souvenir kiosk. Other costs are borne on the administration vote, but cannot be separately identified.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Is he aware of the pent-up demand among visitors to London, who want to come into the Palace and view this major tourist attraction? Will he use his good offices in the cause of trying to develop a scheme that will enable those visitors to enter the Palace during the summer recess, when it is more or less empty, so that the House and the Palace in general can benefit from the resulting revenue? That revenue could accrue to help with improvements of one kind or another.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the general objective of creating more opportunities for visitors. The Library's education division organises school parties during the summer recess and there may be scope for extending that scheme; but responsibility lies with the relevant Committee rather than with the Commission. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the Committee's attention.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what financial provision has been made in the estimate for improvement of facilities for disabled visitors to the House of Commons.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I have just given.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for warning me of the figure involved in his answer to question 35. Does he agree, however, that even following the expenditure of £250,000 facilities for the disabled visitor to the Palace of Westminster will still be extremely poor? Will he ensure that in future years, particularly the next financial year, provision will be much greater?

A specialised report on the subject by an architect with noted experience in the field is currently under consideration. When it has been considered by the appropriate Committees, it may help to guide the Commission about the extent of the further facilities that are needed, and can be accommodated, in a building which —unfortunately—was not designed with the interests of disabled people sufficiently in mind.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what funds will be made available for the National Audit Office to investigate the work of the Overseas Development Administration.

The Commission approved the National Audit Office's corporate plan for 1994–95 to 1998–99 in July 1993 and the estimate for 1994–95 in December. The funds enable the National Audit Office to audit the financial accounts of all Government Departments, including the Overseas Development Administration, and also to deliver about 50 major value for money outputs to Parliament each year. Selection of topics for investigation is based on a systematic review of expenditure and value for money, including the Overseas Development Administration, but the final decision on whether to proceed with an investigation is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General, in consultation with the Public Accounts Committee.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will be able to investigate fully the link between arms sales and overseas aid in cases such as the Pergau dam project?

As the hon. Lady knows, the Comptroller and Auditor General has reported to the Public Accounts Committee, but I understand that the Committee has not yet issued its report. The Pergau dam is also being investigated by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and it is for those Committees to report to the House.

To ask the Lord President of the Council how much time was spent in voting in the House in the last Session.

There were 402 Divisions last Session, which took on average about 14 minutes, giving an approximate time of some 94 hours spent in Divisions.

I thank the Lord President for that piece of mathematics. Is it sensible that, in this day and age, hon. Members spend days in a Session on voting procedures? Is not it time that we all looked at this matter more sensibly and came up with a system more like that which is operated in other parts of Europe, so that we do not spend hours hanging around this place late at night? Would not that allow us to get on with our proper business of running the country?

I sense some ingredients of an own-goal and also some squirming by hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench, whose recent practice has extended not only to unnecessary voting by any reasonable standards, but to voting against pensions increases in the interests of taking up time. Although I am certainly amenable to suggestions that might avoid such absurdities, the remedy at the moment is in the hands of others.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Government Back Benchers greatly value the fact that we are able to buttonhole and corner Ministers while waiting to vote in the Lobby and that we would greatly resent the loss of that opportunity?

Speaking as one who in his time has been buttonholed more than once, my hon. Friend's argument might be construed as supporting the hon. Lady, but I agree with him.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will carry out a feasibility study into the use of electronic voting in the House of Commons.

I have no plans to do so.

May I point out to the Leader of the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) was talking about the time that is spent voting, not thy issues on which we are spending the time? Would not voting machines be one way of speeding up the voting procedure? Is not it about time that this place was dragged into the 20th century?

The prospect of moving to electronic voting would not command universal support, as has been made clear, and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) advanced quite an important argument. I will say that the prospect of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) being replaced by an electronic bleep is quite exciting.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will introduce measures to allow hon. Members to table early-day motions and written questions when the House is in recess.

I have no plans to do so.

One of the few avenues open to Back-Bench Members is tabling parliamentary questions for written answer and early-day motions. It is a useful avenue for those Members who are not Privy Councillors or Members of Parliament who have been here since the year dot. Why cannot that avenue be available during the increasingly long recesses so that we can push the interests of our constituents?

Both procedures are associated with the sittings of Parliament. It would be a large step to activate them while Parliament was not sitting. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has put his proposals to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. If the Procedure Committee made such a proposal, of course we would consider it with care, but it is not something which I would want to do without careful thought and advice.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what new proposals he has to improve the efficacy of the legislative process.

It remains my aim to achieve agreement on a balanced package of measures that can be brought before the House.

Is the Leader of the House worried about the great increase in the number of statutory instruments? They have increased by at least 50 per cent. since 1979. Does not that greatly devalue the role of Back-Bench Members and degrade the quality of our democracy?

I do not think that it devalues the role of Back-Bench Members of Parliament, given the opportunities that exist to debate statutory instruments in the Standing Committees and the well-established convention —I know that there are some difficulties at present—from which we certainly would not wish to depart, that statutory instruments of sufficient importance are given time on the Floor of the House. I believe that that is a reasonable and sensible approach.