To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether it is his policy to encourage local authorities to privatise their airports.

Yes, it is our policy to encourage local authorities to privatise their airports. East Midlands was sold last summer. The BAA has operated private sector airports very successfully in Scotland and the south-east since 1987.

Given the enormous success of the privatised British Airports Authority in running Heathrow and Gatwick, will my right hon. Friend encourage the privatisation of Birmingham airport, especially as it will need to attract additional private capital for the £400 million investment programme that it is planning for the next 10 years?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the success of the privatisation of the British Airports Authority. It has led—this is very relevant to his question—to a substantial increase in capital investment in all its airports and to a great improvement in its services. It is much more enterprising and is now selling its services to countries overseas, which demonstrates the success of our policy.

Will not my constituents, who last year received £800,000 for the local authority from Manchester airport's profits, lose while the Minister's friends in the City gain from that absurd policy?

There is no reason why they should lose. The fact of the matter is that everyone has gained from the privatisation of the BAA. The passenger has gained very substantially. Instead of paying for capital expenditure from public resources, we now receive tax in return from the British Airports Authority. All round, it has been a very successful policy and I believe that it would apply just as well in Manchester.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning his proposals to reduce road accidents involving newly qualified drivers; and if he will make a statement.

Since issuing the consultation document "New Driver Safety", we have received more than 500 representations supporting action in that area. Given that support, I am now taking forward four main proposals: retesting for serious traffic offenders among young drivers; a separate theory test; post-driver training linked to lower insurance premiums; and road safety education at 16-plus.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that we have the best record on traffic safety of almost anywhere in the world? Since records began in 1926, the statistics are better than ever, despite a 14-fold increase in the number of vehicles. New drivers remain a critically important area, as about 20 per cent. of accidents are caused by about 10 per cent. of licence holders. Can he give us some idea of the date on which he will be introducing the important measures that he outlined, especially that relating to post-driver training and insurance premiums?

I confirm that we have one of the best safety records in Europe and that the number of fatal accidents on the roads is lower than at any time than since accident statistics were first recorded in 1926. Given the huge increase in traffic, that is a substantial achievement. The greater proportion of accidents is among young drivers and new drivers generally. My hon. Friend is right to concentrate on that, as I have done. I hope to be able to introduce post-driver training linked to lower insurance premiums. Following my discussions with the major insurance societies during the past few months, I hope to be able to bring forward that scheme in the autumn.

Although I welcome what the Minister said with regard to newly qualified drivers, will he tell the House what he is doing—and of his concern—about the elderly driver? Recently, there have been a number of accidents involving drivers aged 70 and over. Is not it about time that we set an upper limit, so that such people are retired from driving because, in certain cases, they are also a hazard on the roads? [Interruption.]

I heard an intervention from the Opposition Benches which suggested that the hon. Gentleman might take a different view once he reaches the age of 70. There is a much higher proportion of accidents among new drivers and that is why it is right to have special measures in that direction. The hon. Gentleman will know that retesting, medical certificates and so on are required for older drivers of a certain age and it would not be right to put a ceiling on those. Some people are capable of driving successfully and safely well beyond the age of 70.

May I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said and put it to him that it would be wise if the theory test were not too complicated? It should test obvious rather than arcane things, as there are a few simple causes for most traffic crashes.

There has been a general welcome to the idea of having a theory test before new drivers go on to the practical test. We are developing the theory test now, working with the National Foundation for Education Research. The theory test certainly must be in place by 1996 and I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement regarding the future of crossrail.

We continue to support the crossrail project. We were disappointed by the Private Bill Committee's decision not to find the preamble to the Crossrail Bill proved. We are considering, with the Bill's promoters—London Underground Ltd. and British Rail—how best to proceed.

Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will expedite this matter as soon as possible, bearing in mind the considerable anxieties outside the House regarding the matter and the economic potential of the scheme in terms of creating jobs?

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the scheme and, as I said, it is for the promoters to find a way forward. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport have made clear their support for the scheme and we are studying how best to take it forward.

Has my hon. Friend had time to study the representations from organisations representing business and commerce in London and the south-east, and the united view of local authorities across party-political lines, which remains firmly that crossrail is needed in the national interest and particularly in the interests of our capital city and the south-east?

I have indeed, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the tremendous work that he has done in sponsoring the Bill in the House. We were disappointed that the Private Bill Committee did not find the preamble of the Bill proved and I know that that sense of disappointment was widely shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Will the Minister make a distinction between a link between crossrail and suburban, domestic services on Union Railways to Kent, and a link with a possible Stratford international station? Would not the latter provide useful links to international rail services from central and west London and add to the already 150-odd stations which would be directly linked to Stratford by fast rail services?

I know of the hon. Gentleman's great interest in the further development of Stratford. He rightly puts his finger on the considerable complexity which surrounds the linkage between crossrail, for example, and other rail systems such as a second rail link. In drawing attention to the difference between a straight link and the exchanges which might be possible in Stratford, the hon. Gentleman does the House a service. I cannot comment specifically on the proposals for intermediate stations or on the outline powers in relation to crossrail, because they are matters yet to be determined.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Crossrail Bill was scuppered by the votes of two Labour Members? Does he accept that he would have the gratitude of all the people of London if he undid the consequences of that unholy alliance between the Liberal Democratic party in Tower Hamlets and Labour Members?

The whole House is aware that the Private Bill Committee procedure has served the House for many years. Many hon. Members, including myself, who have considered private Bills have considered how to address the principles behind those Bills entirely objectively. I would not dream of suggesting that that was not the case on this occasion. That does not detract, however, from the general disappointment felt on both sides of the House at the decision on crossrail.

The Minister will be well aware, even though he did not tell the House about it, of the extent of support from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and the Labour party for the principle of crossrail. We believe that the Bill should be recommitted. Having said that, serious concerns remain about the funding of crossrail, particularly if substantial works are deemed necessary to establish links at both ends of the route and to meet environmental concerns. Will the Minister therefore give an undertaking, on behalf of his Treasury colleagues, that any such works deemed necessary should not be prejudiced or sacrificed for lack of public finance?

We have always insisted, quite rightly, that the scheme should be taken forward in conjunction with the private sector and we anticipated substantial private sector investment. I believe that that is the proper way to proceed. There are great merits in that process, riot least in terms of the value engineering that the private sector can bring to such large projects. The Government have made clear their commitment through the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time a couple of weeks ago and the many statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and me. Any alteration to the scheme would obviously be a matter for the promoters, because they would have to determine how it should be funded and taken forward.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage freight to be moved by rail rather than by road.

We are encouraging rail freight in a number of ways. We have liberalised access to the rail network; facilitated the restructuring of British Rail's freight businesses prior to sale; improved the freight facilities grants scheme; introduced a new track access grant for marginal freight flows; and raised the maximum gross vehicle weight limit to 44 tonnes for combined road-rail transport.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rail strike, in which workers are demanding 11 per cent. for nothing whatever in return, will tip freight back on to the roads, which will be to the detriment of the environment and, of course, the long-suffering public?

I hope that everyone accepts that significant pay increases cannot be afforded without compensating improvements in productivity. If inflationary pay settlements are awarded, costs and prices go up and that means freight is tipped back on to the roads.

Will the Minister urgently tell the director of Railtrack to undertake a study of alternative routes for freight other than through the centre of London? Does he accept that misery is caused to thousands of Londoners, including my constituents, as a result of increased freight traffic? Does he also accept that 75 per cent. of freight traffic is intended for destinations outside London? Will he draw to Mr. Horton's attention the successful all-party lobby of Parliament today organised by the London Channel Tunnel Group as evidence of the extent of concern felt across London?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question is yes—we have instructed Railtrack to consider an alternative west-about route through Redhill and it will consider the costs involved.

The Minister will be aware that those of my constituents who use the A20 and the A2 want a better balance between rail and road for the dispatch of freight to and from the Kent coast to London. As long as there is uncertainty about the movement of freight, caused by regular railway strikes called by the RMT union, will not the effect be to keep freight on the road, ultimately damaging the environment of north-west Kent?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because, if one compares the rail freight and road haulage industries, he must be right. Every time a strike interrupts the supply of passenger or freight services, custom is lost. This strike, therefore, should be condemned by everyone with a real interest in supporting the rail industry.

Is the Minister aware that the Government have a cheek to attack railway people who go on strike for more pay, especially when the Government do not have the guts to introduce a pay policy and instead use a policy based on the dole queue? They have someone permanently present at those talks when they are supposed to be outside. In any case, if the boss of Railtrack can get £120,000 for three days a week, why should the Government condemn workers who are trying to get a living wage?

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made plain on a number of occasions over the past two years, there is widespread support in the country for the notion that one cannot afford to make inflationary pay increases of that significant size without compensatory improvements in productivity. We have been through this matter before. The days of something for nothing are finished.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of competition on rail services.

Evidence from previous transport privatisations shows that the introduction of competition encourages the development of better-quality services. I am confident that customers—passengers and freight—will benefit from more services of higher quality, improved efficiency and better value for money.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging answer. What effect will the industrial action by signalmen, who are asking for 11 per cent. without increased productivity and are supported by the Opposition, have on competition in the future?

One must bear in mind the fact that the competition is road and air, so it is important that Railtrack and British Rail be thoroughly efficient and competitive. The demand for a no-strings increase of at least 11 per cent. in signalmen's basic pay is inflationary and will not help the competitive position of Railtrack or the railway services. On Monday, the Railtrack board offered a 2.5 per cent. annual pay increase, which is in line with many other pay offers in both the public and private sectors. It also offered, and is keen to have, talks on major reforms and restructuring of signalmen's terms and conditions. It is irresponsible and damaging to the railways for the unions to undertake a series of strikes on an 11 per cent., no-strings pay claim. It is important that the talks begin again and I am anxious that that should happen. The real question, however, is for the Opposition, who have been notable for their silence on this issue. Does the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) approve of the strike for an 11 per cent., no-strings pay increase? Yes or no?

Does the Minister believe that potential bidders for the franchise to run trains on the south-west line have an accurate picture of what they are letting themselves in for, given the reliability figures compiled for the passengers charter? Is not the Minister concerned that as important a flagship of Government policy as the citizens charter should compute inaccurate figures and measure wrong times? Some of the punctual trains are recorded as having gone twice and some less punctual ones are recorded as never having arrived. Should not a search party be sent out for the passengers who are in official limbo and compensation be given to season ticket holders?

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that the figures be accurate. If they are not, we shall certainly look at the matter.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the commuters of Reading are completely fed up with the strike, as a result of which many are now climbing on buses that run from Reading to London, which is an efficient service at about two thirds the cost? Does he agree that commuters will not return to the railways unless the railways wake up to the problem?

My hon. Friend is right. That is the danger for jobs in the railway industry of a pay increase of at least 11 per cent. without any productivity improvements. However, I emphasise again that the chairman of Railtrack has said that he wants to achieve a settlement on the restructuring—which is separate from the immediate pay offer—which rewards the signalmen for their skills and gives them a modern employment package. That restructuring must offer value for money, for the reason that my hon. Friend gives, but it is quite separate from an 11 per cent. demand with no strings attached. That is why I call on the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to condemn that demand and, above all, to condemn a strike that is damaging to the railways.

If, as the Secretary of State asserts, it would be inflationary to find the £5 million that it would cost to pay the 5.7 per cent. increase that was offered by Railtrack and later withdrawn, what does he think the £7 million that Railtrack has expended on refurbishing its offices is? Is that inflationary or is it deflationary?

I have made my position clear every time that I have been asked. I have frequent discussions with the board of Railtrack and members of the board of British Rail about public sector pay policy and I shall continue to do so. People would expect me to have a clear view about the Government's general position on public sector pay policy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last visited Hastings and Rye to assess its road traffic needs.

On 19 May, I travelled along the A259/A27 south coast route from Dymchurch to Lewes, passing through Hastings and Rye, to see for myself the road for which we have 11 major schemes programmed.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and ask him whether he has seen the mischievous article in The Observer yesterday, which said that there might be some falling back in the plans for the A259 through my constituency. Is he aware of the worry that that will cause the nearly 13 per cent. of my constituents who are unemployed and can he assure me that the economic development of my constituency, which is so vital, will proceed speedily with the continuation of those road plans?

Yes, I thought that it was mischievous, too. My hon. Friend is right about the economic importance of transport in her area. Much of the A259 is picturesque, but primitive to say the least. Rye certainly needs its bypass, although the tunnel is expensive. The biggest problem is the Winchelsea to Icklesham section and I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to reconsider the needs of the area. That landscape and heritage are not only spectacular but unique and I could not recommend to my right hon. Friend the construction of a new road in the Brede valley.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect on passengers of the plans to privatise the railways.

Our proposals will result in better, more attractive services being offered to rail passengers through the introduction of private sector skills, innovation and responsiveness to passengers' requirements.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that better services for rail passengers are what is required? Does he also agree that the present strike is causing a great deal of inconvenience to rail passengers? Is not he amazed that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) still has not condemned the strikers?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the effect on some passengers deciding not to use the railways and I want it to be entirely the other way round. I want to build up more opportunities for railwaymen with a great many more people using the railways. Let me try it another way. I have said that I think that a strike on the basis of a pay claim of at least 11 per cent. with no strings attached is irresponsible in present circumstances. I have also said that the restructuring talks offer big opportunities to sort out the pay, terms and conditions of signalmen in a modern employment package. Might I therefore ask the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras whether he agrees that it would be desirable for the strike not to take place in order that the restructuring talks, to ensure value for money in any arrangements, may now take place? Perhaps he will make his position clear on that.

Has the Secretary of State been in one of the modern signal boxes? If so, has not he observed the incredible technology and the responsibility that signalmen now have—just as much as air traffic controllers? Has the right hon. Gentleman actually seen a signal box in operation?

These matters have been spelt out to me, and I know exactly what the issues are. That is why Railtrack is seeking a modern employment package for signalmen, with up-to-date terms and conditions, and I agree with Railtrack. That is precisely the point; separate discussions should continue on that, and the chairman of Railtrack has made it clear that he is keen to engage in such discussions. I support him, and hope that the strikes will be called off for that reason as well—to enable the talks to continue.

If my right hon. Friend has difficulty in hearing me, it is because I have not used my voice in the Chamber for the past year.

I assure my hon. Friend that I never have any difficulty in hearing him. I have had no difficulty in hearing him to great effect during the past year, and now the whole House can do so again.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that British Rail's signalling staff do extremely responsible jobs that are immensely important to everyone? Will he confirm that their representatives have been conducting negotiations about an improvement in their pay to reflect the improvement in productivity that has been taking place for several years? Will he confirm that the week before last those representatives believed that they had reached an interim agreement involving payment of 5.7 per cent. on account, and that that would be confirmed last week? Will he confirm that officials from his Department then summoned three members of the board of Railtrack and told them that it was not on, and that the boss of Railtrack had to be dragged back from his holiday—as did the chief negotiator, who had been holidaying in the West Indies?

The Railtrack board made its offer last Monday afternoon. It was for a pay increase of 2.5 per cent.—exactly the same as the offer to British Rail, very similar to many other current public sector offers and, indeed, in excess of some private sector offers. The board also said that it was keen to undertake the restructuring talks as part of a separate exercise. The chairman of Railtrack has repeated that, and I strongly support him.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if a further rail dispute is to be avoided, it will take all the skill of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, this evening and beyond it, to reach a solution? Does he further agree that, once the talks are under way, the threat of industrial action should be suspended and that management must show great patience in its talks with ACAS to try to work out a solution and to avoid another dispute?

I certainly hope that the talks can take place without further strike action, which would be unjustified and would be of no benefit to the railway system. However, the details of the negotiations on restructuring are a matter for the Railtrack board.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of new cars sold used diesel fuel in each year since 1990.

Six per cent., 9 per cent., 12 per cent. and 18 per cent. in 1993.

Despite the rapid rise in the popularity of diesel cars, the Minister is aware that a report earlier this year by the quality of urban air review group highlighted environmental problems with diesel cars, especially particulates—tiny soot particles—that are associated with lung cancer. What are the Government doing to persuade the motor industry to clean up emissions from diesel cars?

Particulate emissions could prove a serious problem. However, on current levels of diesel penetration we expect particulate levels to decline. If diesel's share continues to increase rapidly, or if the Department of Health's Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants demonstrates that there is a need for further reductions in particulates, the Government may need to consider a range of measures to reduce levels.

My right hon. Friend has drawn attention to diesel fuel. Can he confirm that, owing to price differentials, unleaded petrol accounts for 50 per cent. of the market?

I can so confirm, and it is a major advance brought about by this Government. Indeed, it has been a more rapid advance than in other Community countries. It is important to remember that catalytic converters have had a dramatic impact on the levels of emissions from those cars fitted with them.

Given the growth in traffic, is not it time that the Government paid more attention to the report from the Department of the Environment's quality of urban air review group? Should not there be some real action and should not we go back to the real reason why we have such problems—the fact that the current growth of traffic is unsustainable?

The forecast growth of traffic will not have the impact suggested by the hon. Lady. The rapid decline in emissions more than makes up for growth.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, over the past five years, the Government have made considerable strides in improving emissions from cars? Does he further agree that one of the problems is that many older cars that could be transferred to unleaded petrol are not being transferred? A further problem is that many diesel-engined cars are still dirty and more tests are required to ensure that they are cleaned up.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; however, the problem with older cars that cannot be fitted with converters will, self-evidently, run itself into the ground. On the question of smoky diesels, there is already a smoky diesel line. We all have a responsibility to ensure that we properly maintain our cars. If motorists maintained their vehicles, both diesel and petrol, to the proper standards recommended by manufacturers, we would not have the current emission problem.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the subject of benzene emissions from vehicle exhausts; and if he will make a statement.

I have received several representations from hon. Members about the health effects of emissions, including benzene, from fuel. As a result of measures that we have already put in place, we are set to see a marked decline in all vehicle pollutants, including benzene, which will be sustained well into the next decade.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Has his Department evaluated the difference between unleaded and super-unleaded fuels and the aromatic hydrocarbons emitted from them? If not, will he, as a matter of urgency, call on the relevant Government research laboratories to start work on that especially important environmental consideration?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter, not least because, of course, Associated Octel Ltd. is in his constituency.

That has nothing to do with it.

I know that that has nothing to do with it, except that it means that the hon. Gentleman has an interest in the matter; I am not for one moment imputing anything else. Yes, we have taken a great deal of interest in the problem of super-unleaded petrol, which has a higher octane factor than premium unleaded. It accounts for only 6 per cent. of the market, however, and the figure will decrease as more cars become capable of using premium unleaded. I am sure that this is just the first chapter in a long catalogue of matters that we need to address and are addressing through our professional advisers.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, pursuant to his oral answer of 21 February, Official Report, column 13, what progress has been made in the review of NHS trusts.

I understand that the National Audit Office expects to publish a review of Treasury management of national health service trusts in the autumn.

That was the part of the answer that I could predict. In his reply on 18 April, the right hon. Gentleman told me that the Comptroller and Auditor General would reply to my letter about Guy's hospital "shortly". May I ask him how long is "shortly" and how soon I will get the answer?

I understood that the hon. Gentleman had received a reply. If he has not, I will certainly see that he gets one and I apologise. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the decision on the allocation of resources is a matter for the Department for Health. Once the decision has been made, it will be a matter for the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General to study the matter if they see fit to do so.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when he next intends to discuss with the Secretary to the Cabinet the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

I do not intend to do so. The powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General are matters for Parliament. They are set out in the Exchequer and Audit Department Acts, the National Audit Act 1983, and other legislation.

Is it in the interests of Parliament for the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General, an officer of Parliament, to be undermined by a Minister resisting an inquiry by the National Audit Office, as happened in the case of the call that I made for an inquiry into industrial training in the United Kingdom?

I am not aware of the circumstances, but I should be very surprised if a Minister had resisted such an inquiry. In any event, I understand that the hon. Gentleman has discussed his allegations with the Comptroller and Auditor General and that the Comptroller and Auditor General has agreed to produce a public report in due course.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what funds have been made available by the Public Accounts Commission to the National Audit Office to investigate the work of the Overseas Development Administration.

The Commission approved the National Audit Office's most recent corporate plan in July 1993 and its estimate for 1994–95 in December. We plan to meet to consider the 1994 corporate plan on 5 July. The voted funds enable the NAO to audit the financial accounts of 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 ODA, but the final decision on whether to proceed with investigation is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General, in consultation with the Public Accounts Committee.

It has come to my notice that more than £500,000 from the ODA's budget is being spent on technical co-operation officers working to regulate tax havens in the Caribbean. That is in clear contradiction of the Government's stated policy of providing aid to the poorest people in the poorest countries. Why has not that been picked up by the Comptroller and Auditor General? Will the Chairman ensure that the Comptroller's; attention is directed to that matter to ensure that a proper evaluation is made of whether Britain's overseas development technical co-operation programme is, indeed, delivering aid to poor people in poor countries?

Let me see what I can do and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. Friend suggest that the PAC investigate the huge increase in British exports to Malaysia as a result of the Pergau dam contract and the consequences for British exports of the campaign against that contract that is being run by Opposition Members?

The PAC may wish to continue its inquiries into the Pergau dam, but that is a matter for the Chairman of the PAC and the Comptroller and Auditor General in consultation with each other.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has that road safety has improved in towns and villages which have recently been bypassed.

Bypasses of towns and villages greatly improve road safety, but often need to be accompanied by traffic-calming measures within the towns bypassed. Measures such as road humps and chicanes slow local traffic down and can reduce casualties by up to 70 per cent.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that, when a new bypass is considered, any further road improvements should be anticipated? Is he aware that, in the village of Landbeach in my constituency, his Department is proposing a second bypass? It is not wanted by the residents and is a complete mystery to the local transport department, which sees no need for it.

I had the pleasure of being in my hon. Friend's constituency only last week. Not surprisingly, the issue of the second bypass was raised with me then. I am aware of the questions raised by both the Landbeach and the Stretham bypasses, which, as local bypasses, are both priority 1 schemes. Consultants are now considering options around Landbeach and Stretham and the schemes are likely to become more in the way of on-line improvements than village bypasses. Against that background, and with the lack of local enthusiasm, which has been voiced by my hon. Friend so forthrightly, the consultants may need to consider the problems again.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission if he will make a statement on the results of the Commission's investigations into child care arrangements in Parliament.

A survey of potential demand for child care arrangements has been carried out under the aegis of the Administration Committee. Following the decision of that Committee not to issue the report of the survey or to take any further action, the Commission is considering how to proceed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how disappointing most hon. Members will find that response? If he reads today's Order Paper, he will find that several of the questions tabled to him relate to this issue. That shows that there is widespread concern.

The hon. Gentleman should direct his disappointment at those of his hon. Friends and others who are members of the Administration Committee, and not at me, as I share a great deal of his disappointment. The provision of vouchers was one of the matters considered in the survey to which I referred. I hope that it will be possible to debate that and other issues, bearing in mind the fact that the Commission does not normally proceed to introduce a new service unless advised to do so by one of its Committees—in this instance, the Administration Committee—or following a debate in the Chamber as a result of which the House asks that the service be introduced.

May I welcome the Commission's reinvestigation of the subject, which shows that things have come quite a long way since the first child was born to a serving Member of the House, which was when my mother bore my half sister?

As far as I know, the hon. Gentleman's personal connections are without parallel in the House. The issue that he has raised goes much wider than that of child care provision from the point of view of the staff of the House, in which the Commission is interested. It will be for the House more widely to consider whether a scheme of child care provision or of vouchers should extend to Members and their staff. It is the involvement of both the House staff and the staff of Members that makes this rather a complicated issue with which to deal.

To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what consideration the Finance and Services Committee is giving to the report by the Information Committee on the provision of a Parliamentary data and video network, HC 237.

To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what plans the Committee has to make provision for the introduction of an electronic information system for hon. Members and their staff.

The Committee has already begun to consider the report from the Information Committee on the proposed network and it hopes to complete its consideration shortly.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how much has been spent to date on developing the network? Can he assure me that the House will have an opportunity to debate the report before the recess so that progress can be made and so that hon. Members may have access to the network when they return in October?

The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question concerns a matter that is extremely complicated; if he will allow me to do so, I will therefore write to him. On the second part of his question, I assure him that the House would have to have a debate before it proceeded to implement the report. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already indicated that he hopes to hold such a debate before the summer recess.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the rest of the country and the world are talking about information super-highways, we in this place are still limping along a muddy footpath? Such a system could save the House a great deal of money. It could improve the way we do things in the House and would act as a beacon to encourage the rest of the country and the world to use information technology. Can my right hon. Friend give us a better idea when the network will be in place and when a decision will be taken, so that every hon. Member may have an appropriate piece of equipment to link into the network?

I will ensure that the views of my hon. Friend and of the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) are made known to my Committee when it meets tomorrow to discuss the matter. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) would like to take part in the debate when it occurs. If the House decides in principle to proceed with the recommendations of the Information Committee, we shall of course also look at ways of speeding the process up.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission if the Commission will authorise the expenditure necessary for a line of route for disabled persons to be created using the lift next to the Members' entrance; and what consideration he is giving to the structural consequences of the building and installing of new equipment to facilitate disabled access.

I understand that the Accommodation and Works Committee's inquiry into ways of improving access for disabled persons visiting the palace gives full consideration to the structural implications of any proposed modifications. I will arrange for the hon. Gentleman's other comments to be brought to the Committee's attention.

As with all old, venerable and distinguished buildings, is not there a danger, in making structural alterations to this place, of really harming that which people have come to visit and to see? Given the understandable and correct demand that disabled people should have access, however, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would take very little imagination to use the lifts from New Palace Yard and, for that matter, from the other end, where Members of the other place have lift access to the main floor?

It is precisely the difficulty of accommodating changes to help the disabled in an historic structure which has meant that it has taken some time and very careful study to bring forward proposals to meet this pressing need. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there are entrances that have lift access at each end of the building. The entrance at the other end of the building is probably more usable from the point of view of the size of the lift than the entrance at this end of the building. However, those considerations are very much in the Committee's mind and I am sure that the Committee will be glad of the hon. Gentleman's comments.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission if the Commission will publish the results of the survey on child care in the parliamentary estate.

I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave earlier.

Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the parliamentary nursery campaign which, for 25 years, has advocated facilities for children in this place? Does he also agree that that matter affects not only female staff or female hon. Members but male staff and male hon. Members? Will the right hon. Gentleman try to ensure that he publishes the results of the survey, which will show quite clearly the huge need to have such facilities in place as soon as possible?

I agree with the hon. Lady's opening comments. I also agree that the debate which I feel will need to take place in the House should be informed by the results of the survey.

What is the cost to the taxpayer of the survey and the related inquiries?

I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the figure.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission what plans the Commission has to make public the information contained in the recent survey on child care in the parliamentary estate.

I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

Did the right hon. Gentleman read in yesterday's issue of The Independent on Sunday about the case of Julia Rainsbury, a catering assistant in the House who earns £154 a week and has to fork out £60 ;a week in child care expenses? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not fair that Ms Rainsbury does not receive any subsidy towards her child care costs while all right hon. and hon. Members receive a subsidy in the form of free parking?

My own view is in favour of help with child care costs. I have spoken in the House in favour of tax relief on them, too. Direct child care costs do not attract tax relief at present, but those of a workplace nursery do. Important issues such as that came up in our debates. I thought that members of our staff put their case before the Committee with great dignity.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress is being made towards reforming the sitting hours of the House of Commons.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the hours of working of the House.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to implement the Jopling report.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress he is making with implementing the Jopling report.

I am currently engaged in constructive discussions with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). Our aim is to find ways of enabling the House to conduct its business in more sensible ways and with more sensible hours, without unacceptably reducing either the Government's capacity to carry out their programme or the Opposition's flexibility in deploying and pressing their case. It is my hope—I think that I can say "our hope"—that those discussions will enable us to map a way forward before the summer recess.

I am grateful to the Lord President of the Council for that encouraging reply. Does he agree that at least part of the low esteem in which the House is held by the general public stems from the barmy hours that we keep? Will he ensure that, in the discussions that he described, despite the recommendation of the Select Committee, he will consider bringing forward sittings into the mornings so that we might have something resembling a normal working day in which we could pursue a full-time single job as we were elected to do?

I do not think that I would wish at this stage to hold out a significant prospect of going beyond the proposals in the report concerning the exchange, as it were, of some Wednesday mornings for some Fridays, but that is clearly one of the subjects of the discussion between the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and myself. As for what the hon. Gentleman called barmy hours, of course I should like to see further progress in avoiding late-night sittings, but I hope that he will not underestimate the extent to which we have already made progress on that front over the past decade or so.

After considering the Select Committee's report, does my right hon. Friend agree that time in this House could be more effectively spent if debates on the Floor of the House were properly timetabled and if Committee timetables were agreed in advance? One could then see whether it was feasible to serve on a Committee because one would know when it would finish. Will my right hon. Friend urgently pursue the Select Committee's recommendations and see whether the matter can be brought forward?

I am sure that there will be much sympathy with those thoughts among hon. Members on both sides of the House, although I detected the usual hostile muttering from the Opposition Benches below the Gangway. Of course, the very matters to which my hon. Friend refers are among those being discussed in general terms by myself and the Opposition.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will never be unanimity about any proposals to reform the working of the House and that the present proposals represent the best compromise—unanimously supported—that has come forward for many years? Will he please make as speedy progress as possible? Did I hear him say that he hopes to have a debate before the summer recess—and if not, why not?

I certainly accept that they are constructive and worthwhile proposals, and they are bringing a constructive and worthwhile response. I do not think that I can go beyond that at the moment. If, as I hope, we are in a position to map a way forward before the summer recess, I would expect to seek an opportunity for debate on that map.

Will the Lord President recognise that the idea that office hours should pertain in the House will have little impact on hon. Members who live outwith Greater London? What is essential is a pattern of sittings in the House like that in the European Parliament, which would enable us to balance our parliamentary, constituency and family responsibilities—along with a pattern of decentralisation to Scotland and Wales, of course.

Apart from the predictable but somewhat more tendentious last part of that question, I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Lady's point. We must strike a realistic balance between the different duties of Members of Parliament. I accept that greater certainty about the pattern of business is one of the prizes.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received over the format for Prime Minister's questions.

The matter has been raised in a number of recent exchanges in the House, including some at business questions. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Procedure Committee decided last week to seek ideas on possible options from myself and from the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). I shall seek to respond—as, no doubt, will they.

Although the Prime Minister may have his reasons for wanting a change, will not Prime Minister's Question Time always be the subject of highly controversial matters? Without the open way in which we now put questions, hon. Members' questions on given subjects could be passed on to other Departments, placing Back Benchers at a vast disadvantage. The present system may have its faults, but the alternative seems to be worse.

In view of the all-too-characteristic aggression with which the hon. Gentleman asked his question, I should say that I understand that the matter was raised in the House not by the Prime Minister but by other hon. Members, who expressed concern about the format. No one is seeking to avoid proper questioning, let alone controversy. The question is whether the present format is best organised to achieve its aims in a satisfactory way.