To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes in operational practice on matters affecting railway safety have taken place since 1 April as a result of the Railways Act 1993.

Railtrack has operational responsibility for a new safety regime which will ensure that the already high standard of safety on the railways is maintained and improved.

Have not there already been changes? Before privatisation, drivers went to a training school and the central fund that provided that training has now been abolished. Before privatisation, when an incident occurred, the focus of the investigation was on finding the cause of the accident and learning from it. Trade union observers were present. Now the focus of the inquiry will be on how to apportion blame and costs among the different companies involved—Railtrack, the station owners and the operating companies. Is not it inevitable that increased bureaucracy will lead to less safety?

Absolutely not. The safety of the railways, which has been the pre-eminent concern of the British Railways Board in recent years, will continue. A privatised railway will be as safe as, if not safer than, a publicly owned railway. As for the investigation of accidents, there will be no change. Her Majesty's inspectorate will continue to focus on the cause of each accident, not initially on seeking to apportion blame.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that my rail-travelling constituents will expect nothing less than that the interests of safety will be paramount in the new arrangements of British Rail? Can he assure me and my constituents that sufficient provision will be made for infrastructure investment in British Rail once Railtrack is really operational? It is important that we deal with the problems of signal failure and the like in a manner that enables people to travel to and from work reliably.

As a result of the reforms, Railtrack's investment budget, which will be higher this year than for comparable types of investment last year by British Rail, will be protected by its own depreciation flow. Therefore, it will generate sufficient funds to maintain a high level of investment in the infrastructure. We expect that to be £500 million in the existing railway this year, £600 million next year and £750 million the year after.

Does the Minister accept that Opposition Members welcome hearing his Back Benchers already begging for mercy from the implications of rail privatisation, which, of course, played a significant part in the humilation of the Tory party last Thursday? Does he accept that the biggest threat to rail safety is the wanton breaking up of experienced teams of railway personnel? How does he defend the fact that £303 million of taxpayers' money—almost half the amount needed for the refurbishment of the entire west coast main line—has been spent not on railways but on redundancy and early retirement payments to more than 13,000 railway workers? Instead of breaking up, contractorising and fragmenting the railways, will the Minister put that kind of money into investment in the railways, which is threatened and undermined by the procedure that he is going through at the moment?

The hon. Gentleman has never understood the difference between the wisdom of investing in infrastructure and improving the productivity of the railways. The reduction of 13,000 in the staff of British Railways, with no effect at all on the operational efficiency of the railways, is a good investment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the United States/United Kingdom bilateral air agreements relating to the separation of negotiations for routes into London Heathrow and regional gateways.

I have received representations on a number of issues relating to the bilateral negotiations and continue to try to get the talks restarted.

While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his patience—never mind his tenacity—in the difficult negotiations between the two countries, may I ask him to assure the House that, given the environmental and other reasons why it will be difficult to find many extra take-off and landing slots at London's Heathrow airport, he will set about trying to agree an open skies policy with the United States Government to allow more flights across the Atlantic to regional airports in the United Kingdom?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am keen to get the talks restarted—it was not us who broke them off. I agree that there are real constraints at Heathrow. We are trying to persuade the United States Government—with increasing success, because the arguments are being recognised—that there is not unlimited access to Heathrow. I am also keen to encourage the expansion of regional airports and that is why last December we proposed to the United States Government opening all our regional airports at the first stage.

The Secretary of State's record seems to have stuck. I remember that question being asked time and again at Question Time. It is of vital importance to the regional airports, such as Birmingham, that more transatlantic routes to America are provided. Will he please take action quickly and stop stalling on Heathrow and Gatwick, because they are the main reason why the talks, which are very important for regional airports, are being blocked?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not stuck and I am not just repeating the arguments. I am trying to get the talks restarted and have been seeking a number of ways to do so. I made further proposals to the United States Government in relation to the recent Delta-Virgin code-sharing arrangement, suggesting that we should take advantage of that deal to have some interim agreements to get the talks going again and I included proposals for the regional airports.

Even if my right hon. Friend made his offer of unrestricted access to the regional airports and Stansted unconditional, has he any cause for believing that the United States Administration would accept that offer?

The problem is the United States Government have not accepted our offers in relation to Stansted and the regional airports, as my hon. Friend knows. It is important that all interests—the airlines and the airports—are involved in the negotiations. We would not fulfil our liberal objectives if we agreed to a deal that would allow United States airlines to exploit their unfair competitive advantage, while giving United Kingdom airlines nothing in return and driving them out of the market. That is the problem and that is why I wanted a balanced deal. I assure my hon. Friend that that deal very much includes giving open access to the regional airports and Stansted as quickly as we can get a positive and constructive response from the other side.

I welcome the Minister's commitment to diversification through regional airports and the fact that Belfast international airport was one of those that recently got an add-on licence from America, through to Riga. May we urge the right hon. Gentleman to continue his efforts—we will back him—to ensure that British companies have the same rights as American companies?

I am grateful to have the hon. Gentleman's support.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the recommendation of the Fennell inquiry to replace all the wooden escalators on the London underground to be implemented.

London Underground has replaced the timber skirtings, balustrades and advertisement panels on all its escalators with non-combustible materials. Its programme for replacing wooden treads and risers is still in progress and, with the support of the fire authority, London Underground has asked the Home Secretary to amend the relevant regulations in order to permit fire authorities to grant exemptions in respect of wooden treads and risers beyond 1 January 1996.

Does the Minister agree that, given that the Fennell inquiry found out that a lit cigarette on a wooden escalator started the King's Cross fire and recommended that wooden treads be urgently removed, the Government's attitude is one of utter complacency towards the travelling public in London?

No. The installation of sprinkler systems, fire detection equipment and improved escalator cleaning and inspection procedures are the important elements in ensuring that a tragedy like King's Cross does not recur. I stress that the relevant fire authorities have supported London Underground in its application to the Home Office to ensure that the programme is carried out, but in an appropriate time scale.

How much has London Underground spent on safety since the publication of the Fennell report? How many recommendations were in that report and how many of them have been implemented by London Underground since the report was published?

London Underground has spent £250 million on safety since King's Cross. There were 127 recommendations in the Fennell report, of which 114 have already been implemented.

Given that London transport is the subject which most exercises Londoners—according to replies sent to the Secretary of State for the Environment—and given that Ministers share the concern to maximise investment, the number of users, and safety, will the Minister seriously consider consulting the using public of London before fixing the amount of money to be raised next year, so that choices about investment can be made by the people rather than just by the Government?

No. It is appropriate that the investment priorities for the underground should be determined by London Underground in consultation with my right hon. Friend.

I welcome the money that has been spent on safety. Indeed, together with my hon. Friend I have been to see the safety measures implemented at Greenford station and elsewhere. We are grateful for them. Will my hon. Friend consider a down escalator—no, I mean an up escalator—at Greenford station, as that is greatly needed?

Up or down, I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Does the Minister accept that 38 escalators still have wooden treads and risers? Does he recall that one of the important recommendations in the Fennell report was that replacement of wooden risers should be urgently sought because of the discovery of the trench effect? Did not the former Secretary of State for Transport promise in November 1988 that London Transport had been asked to implement that recommendation urgently? Why, five and a half years later, is the Department trying to renege on that undertaking? Is not it purely because the Government have cut London Transport's investment programme by £1 billion compared with what was promised at the last election? When will the Government recognise that they cannot jeopardise public safety in order to make cuts in London Transport's funding?

That is not good enough. First, the rate of replacement for escalators should be about six a year. If the rate were increased, it would impose intolerable congestion on the whole system—not something which would commend itself to the hon. Gentleman. Secondly, independent analysis has concluded that replacing the treads and risers in advance of their normal replacement would be very bad value for money and would offer very little compared with the other items that I mentioned, such as sprinkler systems, fire detection equipment, better inspection under escalators and so on. That is the way to do these things. It is typical of the hon. Gentleman to try to spread fear and alarm where there is absolutely no cause for them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department is intending to take to improve safety on the A12.

Work will start on the Witham bypass section at the end of June. I have asked the Highways Agency to bring forward work on the Feering to Marks Tey safety fence improvements, which will now start this year.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, but is he aware that it is now nine months since my constituent, Cheryl Franklin, a 27-year-old bride on her way to her honeymoon, was killed as a result of her car crossing the central reservation? Does he accept that it is essential that that work should go ahead as soon as possible if we are to avoid similar tragedies?

Yes, I am aware of that case due to the diligence of my hon. Friend, who has made representations to me, the campaign of the Colchester Evening Gazette and the letter sent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State from Her Majesty's coroner for the county of Essex. It has taken a number of months to commission work from our agents, Essex county council. It has completed its work, which had to be evaluated, and, as I have just announced, we are proceeding with all speed.

When will the Government realise that if they talk about safety, they must talk about safety with integrity? We have just heard the Government's response to the Fennell report and now we have heard the Government's response to road safety, exactly at the same time as they are privatising the Transport Research Laboratory. Where is the Government's long-term vision and when—

Order. I think that the hon. Lady is on the wrong question, but it appears that the Minister is able to give a reply.

In relation to safety on the A12 and safety policy, we do not count the pennies when it comes to safety. That is exactly why our road safety scheme budget was effectively ring-fenced in this financial year, so there was no reduction in it. That, too, is why we shall continue to improve road safety by engineering better roads.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his priorities in the roads programme for the west midlands.

The priorities are outlined in "Trunk Roads in England 1994 Review", which I announced to the House on 30 March.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is widespread opposition not only in north Warwickshire but throughout Staffordshire to the proposed Birmingham northern relief road? It is regarded as unnecessary, because it will not cure the congestion problems on the M6, and environmentally destructive because such orbital roads generate more traffic, which further damage the environment. That is why the proposal is opposed by large sections of the community throughout my area.

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's views. The forthcoming public inquiry will allow all representations to be heard by an independent inspector. That is the way to proceed with the scheme. The hon. Gentleman will also know that a comprehensive assessment of the environmental effects of the proposed scheme is described in the environmental statement.

Although I recognise the importance of prioritising the road programme, is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern that has been expressed in my constituency, in particular about the decision to make the Kidderminster-Blakedown and Hagley bypass one of the lowest priorities? Is he aware that it is supported by the local district councils and the chambers of commerce? Is he also aware that my constituents would like him to reconsider his decision and give that scheme the priority that it deserves?

Contrary to what Opposition Members may say, I know that there is a great demand for our road programme and that is why we are continuing with a major programme. Alas, there are so many requests from around the country that it is necessary to prioritise. Despite the high level of road building in which we are engaged, it is not possible to build all the roads at once or even within the next five or six years. That is why it has been necessary to say that some schemes will be delayed. The scheme to which my hon. Friend referred is connected with the western orbital route. I assure him that all schemes in the longer-term programme are secure and will go ahead as we continue to complete the schemes ahead of them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what opportunity for non-transport industries will be created by the rail reforms.

A wide spectrum of opportunities for non-transport industries will be created by the Government's rail reforms, including, for example, bidding for the infrastructure service units and British Rail Telecoms and developing the commercial potential at some of our larger stations.

As my hon. Friend knows, I have had the good fortune to be a Industry and Parliament Trust fellow with British Rail for the past year. Will he accept from me that a positive attitude exists throughout the industry to the introduction of private sector capital and management techniques, not least among the men and women who maintain the track and signal infrastructure? Can he give a suggestion of the timetable for the restructuring of British Rail infrastructure services?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is a widespread enthusiasm among the staff of British Rail—[Interruption.] There is a widespread enthusiasm for our reforms among those people who look forward positively to developing a better rail system. If hon. Gentlemen are not aware of that, I will introduce them to some of the management of British Rail. Therefore, I agree with my hon. Friend.

Is the Minister aware that there is every reason why private consultants should be delighted with the opportunities offered by British Rail, because they are costing the taxpayer £344 million and not one single penny is going to improving either the rail structure or jobs? What is happening with those people who are flying round in helicopters, and how can we obtain some value for money from those people who are publishing articles calling it a "gravy train"?

On privatisation costs, the Government do not recognise the type of figures that the Opposition have been speaking about—£300 million, £400 million, £500 million and £600 million. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has been including the cost of redundancies of more than £300 million. That would have occurred anyway and improved the efficiency of British railways.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the opportunities provided by the rail reforms will be enormously enhanced by the success of the channel tunnel, which he, the Secretary of State and many other Conservative colleagues enjoyed, which was built as a result of the success of private sector finance, and which would never have been built had we followed the transport policies of the Labour party?

It was the Labour party which cancelled the channel tunnel project in the 1970s. It is under the present Government that private sector capital has brought off a major engineering feat.

Is not the Minister being a trifle modest in his list of non-transport industries that have benefited from rail privatisation? Has not between £250 million and £300 million of taxpayers' and passengers' money been paid out by his Department or British Rail to merchant bankers, management consultants, lawyers, accountants, public relations advisers and even—God help us—parliamentary consultants?

The truth is that British Rail and Railtrack, the Department of Transport, the Office of Rail Passenger Franchising and the regulator have spent money well on preparing the railway industry for privatisation. Last year, British Rail and Railtrack spent about £50 million together. That is 1.5 per cent, of the turnover of British Rail and it is money well spent.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to upgrade the A66.

There are nine schemes in the road programme to improve the A66, with an estimated value of £40 million.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and also for the replies to my written questions showing that more than half the movements along the A66 are those of commercial traffic. Is he aware of the high priority that is attached to the modernisation and improvement of the A66 trans-Pennine route by the Teesside chamber of commerce and other commercial organisations in the north-east of England, which regard it as one of the components of enormous economic expansion in the future? In that light, will he give the further improvement of the road his greater consideration in the future?

I am second to none in my admiration for the progress on Teesside and my hon. Friend has kept me well informed of that and lobbied hard on behalf of the business community in his constituency. There is, however, another side to the argument. From my position, with a national perspective, I have also to bear in mind the pressures from elsewhere in the north—for example, to upgrade the A69.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has that traffic-calming schemes have reduced accidents in urban areas.

Traffic calming has reduced accidents in 20 mph zones by as much as 70 per cent, and has been particularly effective in reducing accidents to child pedestrians and cyclists.

The most effective and popular traffic-calming scheme in Market Harborough is the completion of the A1-M1 link, but the benefits of the traffic-calming scheme currently being undertaken within Market Harborough are not widely understood. Will my hon. Friend use all his powers to ensure that the disadvantages of the scheme are fully mitigated by its benefits?

Yes. I shall also bear in mind the fact that work starts today on a traffic-calming scheme on a length of wide road—Fairfield road—in my hon. Friend's constituency. Vociferous opposition has been expressed in respect of work in zone 3—Fairfield road, Logan street—so we have modified the scheme in consultation with the local highway authority. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the best future for traffic calming in Market Harborough lies in the completion of the A14—the A1-M1 link—which will be opened next month, and in the successful completion of the bypass demonstration project. Market Harborough is one of only six towns that have been part of an experiment to ensure that, when towns are bypassed and traffic flows reduced by up to 70 per cent., the towns' centres return to the life that they knew in the past, and that wide, unattractive roads do not go through the middle of our cities.

Is the Minister aware that, precisely when he was praising sleeping policemen, the Minister for Transport in London was busy denigrating them? Will he hold a referendum on the matter?

No. I have no intention of having a referendum on that matter. Good heavens, if we had a referendum those in favour of road improvement might win the argument!

Does the Minister agree that, in addition to traffic-calming measures, the proper working and maintenance of motor cars is essential? Does he agree that many of our constituents could not afford to maintain their motor cars if they faced a 50p increase in the price of petrol as suggested by the Liberal Democrats?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The management of our roads includes creating, as far as possible, a pollution-free environment. That is being achieved because motor cars are becoming much cleaner and because of our commitment to the Rio arrangements and increasing the price of fuel. Given that cars will be much more efficient, that need not bear down on less-affluent members of the community.

I recognise the impact on accidents to which the Minister referred in his original response, and the fact that most traffic-calming schemes cost relatively little. But why does not the Minister provide local authorities such as Lancashire with enough resources to carry out all the traffic-calming schemes that they wish to introduce this year?

We have maintained the money for traffic-calming schemes at £50 million and it is entirely open to local authorities to prioritise spending in these areas. This year, we have introduced for the first time a package approach to local authority joint funding with the Department of Transport. That means that local authorities have much more flexibility to design overall transport packages including road, rail, bus, cycle, and pedestrianisation features. That is a sensible and practical way forward.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to improve competition among airlines operating (a) within the United Kingdom and (b) within Europe; and if he will make a statement.

The Government strongly support a liberal market in aviation. The United Kingdom led the way in developing a competitive domestic market and in the creation of the European Union single market and open skies in Europe policy. I hope that that will be extended to the full European Economic Area later this year.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on taking on Air France and winning for British airlines in Orly. Will he now correct the balance for the few remaining scheduled British airlines so that they do not go the way of British Caledonian, Dan Air, Brymon, Birmingham Executive and British Island Airways, which have either gone to the wall or have been taken over by British Airways? Although British Airways has a successful track record, privatisation has given the company an over-dominant position in this country and Europe.

If the latter part of my hon. Friend's question refers to anti-competitive behaviour, the Office of Fair Trading has powers to investigate such allegations. I am grateful to him for his opening remarks. The outcome of the Commission's deliberations on the London to Paris, Orly air route was crucial because it was one of the first tests of the implementation of the single market. Another is that air fares are coming down. I am pleased about the Commission's response and grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising the part that I played in pressing for that. It will help other airlines and will be a great help to British Midland. My hon. Friend will have noted that, from next Monday, Air UK will operate six flights a day from Stansted to Orly.

If the Secretary of State really wants to take on Air France, should not he do so in respect of its monopoly on flights to Strasbourg? The present position is clearly thoroughly unsatisfactory: the airline charges enormous fares because it knows that most people who go to Strasbourg will not be paying their own fares.

Some fares in the European Union are coming down as a result of the single aviation package. In fact, British airlines have led the way in bringing those fares down and others have had to follow suit. The important thing is to have competition on individual routes to ensure that that happens. We are pursuing that objective as well—which is why the question of the London to Orly route is important, as is that of flights from Orly to Toulouse and Marseilles. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to get in touch with me about Strasbourg, I will certainly ensure that it is examined; but I do not think that it has yet been drawn to the Commission's attention.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has to report on measures to improve the service offered by the Northern line.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 29 March that London Underground would be holding a competition for the supply of privately financed rolling stock for the Northern line. This competition is now under way, and should be completed by the autumn.

My hon. Friend will know of the pressure put on the Government by hon. Members on both sides of the House for an improvement in the Northern line. My constituency contains the Morden depot and two stations. I welcome the initiative for private sector involvement in the line. Will my hon. Friend give me some idea of the timing of the tenders and assure me that our constituents can look forward to a Northern line that can provide a service that is appropriate to the next century?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting my right hon. Friend's initiative. I hope that we may be in a position to look at the tenders before the end of the year. The initiative will significantly increase the rate at which improvements in the line can be made. As my hon. Friend implied, the station improvements in his constituency are a separate item in the budget; those stations will undergo a thorough refurbishment in the next two years.

Is the Minister aware that it is the possibility of losing a competition that causes my constituents concern—not least in the light of a recent incident at Hampstead tube station, when the elevator had to be manually winched 181 ft to the surface? Will he consider sympathetically the call for a safety inquiry from my constituent Mrs. Jenny Woodley, whose son—as he knows—was tragically lost in an accident on the underground? That is desirable not least because manning levels throughout the system seem to be falling.

I am very ready to consider any representation from the hon. Lady in regard to an individual constituency case, and I will happily do so in this instance.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the resignalling of the Liverpool Street to Chelmsford line to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

Resignalling is expected to be completed as far as Chelmsford by late 1995, and Colchester by Easter 1997.

That announcement will be warmly welcomed by my constituents, because the dates are earlier than was originally anticipated. Given that it comes on top of the complete rebuilding of Chelmsford station over the past eight years, the introduction of new rolling stock on the line and the improved journey times, will not the resignalling ensure a better, more consistent service for my constituents who travel to work each day via Liverpool street?

My hon. Friend might find it interesting to know that punctuality on the Great Eastern line has been 91.3 per cent. over the past four weeks, which compares with the standard set by the passengers charter of 88 per cent.—a creditable performance by British Rail.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to expedite the development of the options for the southern extension to the East London line.

Responsibility for assessing the options for the southern extension to the East London line, and the time scale for that assessment, rest with London Underground Ltd.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he liaise with his officials to ensure that London Underground examines all the options for the extension of the East London line, beyond the modest proposal to go to East Dulwich? In particular, will they examine the London borough of Lewisham's proposal for a circular route involving track sharing with Railtrack, through Crystal Palace and back to New Cross Gate—not only to secure the future of New Cross Gate but to bring to a part of south London that is wholly deprived of an underground service a much-needed facility?

I am happy to arrange for any examination that is not already being done to take place, because I agree that there is scope, in the southern works on the East London line extension, for a real enhancement of the system at relatively modest cost.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will pay an official visit to the research councils in Swindon to discuss future funding.

I held a meeting last week with chairmen and the chief executives of the research councils and I expect to visit Swindon in July.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in general principle and as far as possible, resources should be concentrated on scientific research at the sharp end? Is he happy with the fact that as much as £3.5 million a year is being withheld by his Office for centralised activities such as the technology foresight programme?

I can reassure my hon. Friend. First, the cost of the foresight exercise is about £2 million. Secondly, the costs will come from the running costs of my Department, not from the science base, which is protected. I agree that the money should go to science, which is why the new Director General of Research Councils recently gained £7.5 million in efficiency savings from the research councils to plough back into front-line science.

Is the Chancellor aware of the danger of the erosion of support for the science base because of the need to support teaching that should be done at undergraduate level and financed by the Higher Education Funding Council and the Department for Education?

The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point. As he knows, we have put out a consultation paper about potential changes in postgraduate teaching. There is a growth of four-year courses in some of our science and engineering schools; some of that growth is welcome, but it needs close analysis to compare its output with that of other routes.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met his counterparts in the European Union to discuss initiatives to reduce the number of civil servants across the Union.

I shall resist the temptation to guess who the counterparts of the Duchy of Lancaster in the European Union are, but I have not discussed with them initiatives to reduce the number of civil servants in the Union.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no way that the numbers of civil servants will be decreased in the European Community as long as there emerge from Brussels daft and expensive directives such as the one being enforced in the Palace of Westminster, under which all filing cabinets will be scrapped this summer because they do not contain anti-tilt mechanisms? What will the cost to the nation be if all our filing cabinets have to be scrapped? Is not that a crazy example of these daft directives?

I shall also resist the idea of a European anti-tilt mechanism. The European Commission produced a report on subsidiarity which proposed a reduction of 25 per cent. in the quantity of legislation and regulation emerging from Europe. The directive to which my hon. Friend referred may be a good candidate for that.

How on earth can the number of civil servants in the European Union be reduced if every man and his dog, in the Tory Government and on the Tory Back Benches alike, is calling for God knows how many different varieties of referendum? And while we are about it, will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to tell us where he stands on the issue?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question is no, I certainly shall not, but I have no doubt where he stands on the issue of a referendum.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what initiatives his Department has launched to obtain the best value for money from public services.

My Department co-ordinates a range of initiatives under the banner of the citizens charter that help to improve value for money in the delivery of public services. These include the "Competing for Quality" programme and "next steps", as well as the charter initiative itself. As the citizens charter second report announced, £135 million of savings have been achieved under the "Competing for Quality" programme.

In evaluating the value-for-money initiatives that he is taking, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the home civil service has an unenviable reputation throughout the world for its objectivity and lack of corruption? Will he ensure that those values are enshrined in any "next steps" agencies that he establishes?

Unenviable?

I think that my hon. Friend meant to say an enviable record, in which case all hon. Members would agree with him that that is so. My hon. Friend is right that the maintenance of those standards, which are envied worldwide, is a central objective of policy in the changes that we are making and have made in the civil service in the past 10 years.

Is not it clear that this Government provide the worst possible value for money? Did not the electorate make it clear last week that they considered that the Government were totally discredited and divided and that the sooner they went, the better?

In the time that I have been here—since 1979—I have heard the hon. Gentleman make similar remarks, usually about two years before elections that we win.

Should not we ensure in the European parliamentary elections that the socialists are defeated so that the European Parliament can work with this Government to ensure that we maintain good public services and the minimum number of civil servants?

All the efficiency gains made in both British Government and British industry would be lost as a result of the centralising tendencies that both Opposition parties would reinforce in the European Community.

As the right hon. Gentleman has stated that market testing of public services is his flagship project; as he has estimated, although he has never substantiated it, that it achieves savings of £100 million a year; and as the Cabinet Office efficiency unit has officially estimated the cost of consultancies at £565 million last year, with savings of a mere £10 million, should not he do what any chief executive would do if his pet project turned into a field day for waste and corruption—namely, resign—or is the pay-back to the Tory party from those jobs for the boys such that even he can cling to office, like the Prime Minister?

Not for the first time, the hon. Member has completely confused himself, but he will not confuse the House. Savings of about £135 million have been achieved by market testing. The annualised cost of consultants is probably about £1 million. The total cost of consultants is about £10 million. The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) is a distinguished management consultant and used to work for Inbucon, so perhaps he will be able to put his hon. Friend right on some of these matters.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessments have been made of the extent of the changes in efficiency and quality of public services as a result of the application of the citizens charter.

The citizens charter second report, published in March, reported fully on improvements in efficiency and quality in public services since the launch of the citizens charter. Individual services also assess improvements and publish their performance results.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the total cost of the citizens charter programme amounts to less than 2p per family per week? Does he agree that that represents excellent value, given the improvement in services and the pressure for improvement in public services? Is not that the reason why overseas countries are now using our citizen charters as an example of the way in which they may exert pressure for an improvement in public services?

My hon. Friend is right. More than 30 countries—France, North America and many others—have come to see or have considered our experiences in this matter. He is right to say that there has been a considerable improvement in services. One example that leaps to mind arose from the league tables for schools, which led to significant improvements for a number of schools in the past few years.

What changes are there in efficiency and quality as a result of the scrapping of the charterline experiment in the east midlands? How much did that wasteful experiment cost and should not the money have been used for other purposes, such as supply to local authorities in the area to enable them to inform people of the services that they provide?

As I have told the hon. Gentleman before, the majority of the money that was spent on charterline went into the development and research phase. That was used to create a database and to provide information for a number of other services. For example, the Royal Mail is producing a directory of all homes and services in the country at no cost to the taxpayer; the BBC will have a telephone helpline; and directories such as the British Telecom and Thomson directories will also use the information. That is all for the benefit of the taxpayer.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how the House will receive information about decisions on appeals against a Department's refusal to make information available.

The parliamentary ombudsman will keep the House informed of his findings when investigating complaints under the code of practice.

The House and the country will understand that using the parliamentary ombudsman as a method of appeal is a far more practical and speedy way to get information than trying to use a freedom of information Bill or Act. Will the parliamentary ombudsman have sufficient resources, and will the House have an opportunity to consider a range of reports when enough experience has been gathered?

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend because I think that the system will be cheaper, quicker and more easily accessible to the citizen. We have doubled the resources that are available to the Parliamentary Commissioner to make sure that he can do the work swiftly and with the competence that we always associate with his work.

Will the Minister confirm that the multitude of exclusions and exemptions from his code of practice on open government means that there will be no official disclosures on, for example, the arms-to-Iraq affair, about which he will no doubt be pleased, or the Pergau dam affair? Will he also confirm that there will be no disclosures of policy analysis or of any information that the Government do not consider reliable? Is not the truth of the matter that the code of practice is just a sham?

No. The exclusions from the code of practice are those that are found in most freedom of information legislation abroad. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) that the system will work to achieve the objectives, which I share, of those who campaigned for greater freedom of information and that it will do so at much less cost and with much greater ease of access for the citizen.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress in contractorisation in the public service.

In the period from April 1992 to December 1993, decisions to contract £855 million—worth of work to the private sector were reported under the "Competing for Quality" programme.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that ghastly word "contractorisation" masks an admirable concept. Does he further agree that its implementation sometimes threatens the career structure of people in the system? I shall give an example. Technical recruitment to the Ministry of Defence may be inhibited if people do not have a proper career structure. Will he assure me that he will liaise with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that that potential problem is addressed?

As my hon. Friend says, market testing and contracting out are designed wholly to improve value for money and the quality of service that the public services, including the Ministry of Defence, provide. In specifying projects, the Ministers who are involved in making decisions obviously take into account matters such as recruitment, which my hon. Friend mentions. I will, of course, speak to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on that matter if my hon. Friend so wishes.

What does the Minister conclude from the contractorisation of the fireworks safety campaign from civil servants to a private company, which resulted in a doubling of the cost, in the production of useless information and in a record number of firework accidents? When will the Government realise that our civil servants are still the most efficient, the least corrupt and the least politicised in the world and stop handing over their jobs to cowboys?

One part of the hon. Gentleman's question was correct—our civil service is entirely commendable. But that is not to say that some of the things that it does cannot be done better, as has been demonstrated by the market-testing programme. The in-house team won the bid in 60 per cent. of market tests, and in practically all those cases significant savings, sometimes down to about 25 per cent., were made.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the efficiency scrutiny report into the Government research laboratories.

The efficiency scrutiny team will make its recommendations shortly. I intend to publish the report and to consult widely before reaching decisions on the way forward.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that 90 days represents a ludicrously short time scale for the scrutiny of the efficiency of 53 Government research laboratories? Is not it likely that the scrutiny team will produce simplistic rationalisations and cuts, which could only damage the Government's research base?

I do not believe so. We will all see the report when it is published, and then we shall consult carefully. There is no reason why the Government should not examine carefully research overhead costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) says, we want the money to go to science. If we can find ways to save money by dispensing with unnecessary overheads, we should do so.

Is not it a fact that the Government have no money of their own—only taxpayers's money? Should not we review research laboratories sensibly and regularly so that money spent on behalf of taxpayers is applied efficiently and effectively?

My hon. Friend must be right when he suggests that it is the duty of any Minister to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent as efficiently as possible. We shall do that through the study and we shall do it right across the board.

When considering the report, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that a recent parliamentary answer that I received showed that research funding for Wales is absolutely disgraceful? Will the Chancellor of the Duchy discuss that matter with the Secretary of State for Wales, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and other organisations involved in scientific research in Wales? Will he consider also devolving to Wales—to the Welsh Office—the function of research councils, together with at least 5 per cent. of funding?

It would be a bad idea to devolve research council funding to Wales or to Scotland. Vice-chancellors and most of the research community—in Scotland, at any rate—are strong supporters of maintaining a national system. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is concern. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales recently took steps to reinforce research excellence in Wales, which will enable research contracts to be won on merit more freely, perhaps, than in the past.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Government research laboratories should enjoy state-of-the-art management and organisational structures and should apply their resources as effectively as possible? Is not it essential that the review is carefully considered?

As we are supporting through the Economic and Social Research Council good research into organisational theory and proper management, it would be paradoxical not to apply them to the science base itself.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress he has made in reducing secrecy in Government.

The Government's new code of practice on access to Government information came into force at the beginning of April. I am confident that it will prove to be a significant advance.

Is not it the case that the code, which came into effect on 4 April, will not allow the public to become fully aware of the growth of scandals such as Pergau and Matrix Churchill? Until we have a Government who are prepared to be open with the electorate about the way in which they run their affairs, scandals such as Pergau and Matrix Churchill will continue and the Government cannot claim to be open or to seek an end to secrecy.

As the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) asked the same question, word for word, a few minutes ago, I suspect that it was written out and handed to the hon. Gentleman. The truth is that the code's exemptions are just about exactly the same as those in freedom of information legislation around the world. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously interested, he will discover that the new code of practice policed by the ombudsman will be a major step forward.

On behalf of amateur and professional historians, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on persuading his colleagues to release confidential Government information? Does he agree that that is a step forward in open government?

I was grateful for the thanks that were delivered to the Government the other day by the Institute for Contemporary History. We have made major steps forward: I commend to the House for example the Farm Hall transcripts and many other things that have been released in the past year, from which the institute might learn something.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the results of introducing the citizens charter.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) earlier, the citizens charter second report is just such an assessment.

But does the Minister agree that the citizens charter is totally incapable of stopping Departments throwing away taxpayers' money? For example, how could it possibly get back the £200,000 that was lent to Unicorn Heritage plc and a gang of failed business men? How does it help that?

That is a disgraceful use of parliamentary questions. The "Competing for Quality" initiative, of which the charter is a part, achieves an enormous amount of improvement in value for money—as has already been said, £135 million gross in this year alone.