To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he intends to take to bring about the speedy completion of the Airedale route through Bingley and Saltaire.

Excellent progress has been made on the preparation of the A650 Bingley relief road scheme.

This road is vital to the people of Bradford and Keighley and to their economic success. Will the Minister today guarantee that the road will be completed, after £12 million has already been spent progressing the work thus far? Everyone in the area, of whatever party—including those who drew up the economic strategy of the district—depends on the road. We have read in this morning's press that the Government will need to take transport off the road and put it on to rail. I accept that, but the road is vital to our area and we need guarantees from the Minister today.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this series of seven schemes is intended to bring a raft of environmental and economic benefits to the communities in the area. He will be aware that two have been completed; five are in preparation. I am pleased to note the hon. Gentleman's support for these schemes, by contrast with the stance of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who reiterated yet again today that the Labour party would impose a moratorium on all road schemes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that people find it difficult to understand why the Bingley bypass has only priority 2 status? Some very expensive preliminary works, including the diversion of the Leeds and Liverpool canal, have already been completed. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that the completion of the Airedale route, as soon as humanly possible, is essential to large numbers of businesses in Keighley and the Aire valley, and hence to much employment.

My hon. Friend's point is well made. 'There was, however, a thorough review of the road programme in March this year. As a result of that review, this scheme was placed in the priority 2 category—but I note what he has said, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) has said. The latter has already impressed on me the importance of these schemes to his constituency.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been invested in the Network SouthEast rail area over the last three years.

To March 1994, £1.4 billion at today's prices has been invested in the former Network SouthEast over the three years ended March 1994.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the 15,000 commuters in my constituency have in the past three years seen the biggest investment in their local lines in living memory? Is he aware that that has meant whole new fleets of Networkers being brought in to run the services, a major modernisation of track, improvements to signalling, and a refurbishment programme for local stations? All this has considerably increased the quality of local services.

My hon. Friend has almost answered his own question extremely well. I can confirm that investment in 1992–93, which was £558 million, was the highest since Network SouthEast was created in 1985. I am pleased to learn from my hon. Friend that his constituents are benefiting so much from the substantial and worthwhile investment of the past three years.

How long will such investment via subsidy continue for lines that are having difficulty becoming economically viable, to use the Secretary of State's words? It is Railtrack's stated policy that it will not support every route, and that it cannot and should not take into consideration social issues. Just who will be defining policy for the railways in future—or is this another example of the Government not only failing to communicate but failing to think things through?

No. The hon. Lady confuses two things. Railtrack and the rolling stock leasing companies will make investments on business grounds. It is the franchising director who commands a substantial budget to be spent on ensuring that socially necessary services continue to be secured for the benefit of the travelling public.

On the day when the case for a fifth terminal at Heathrow has been published, is it worth reminding my hon. Friend of the need to think ahead to ensure adequate capacity on the railway line out of Liverpool Street station to Stansted airport and stations in my constituency, because a third track and resignalling will be needed in the next few years?

I had the pleasure of travelling on that service when I returned from Stansted airport recently. I note what my hon. Friend says. He will be aware, in the context of airports generally, that the British Airports Authority has commissioned a half a million pound study of rail links to airports. We await that with great interest.

Despite the Minister's complacency about investment in the south-east, can he confirm today that this is the first year since 1940 in which British Rail, or any of the 25 train operating units, has placed no new orders for rolling stock? Will he acknowledge that privatisation is tearing the heart out of the railways? It is affecting morale, service and routes and, of course, it will affect investment in every part of the country. Surely we have a right to expect, after the drubbing of Dudley, to see some humility and sanity from Transport Ministers on the Front Bench [Interruption.] The Minister is responding. I enjoy that. Or are they content just to sit back and wait until they see the humiliation of the poll tax, Post Office privatisation and VAT on fuel revisited on Ministers? Will they take action now to protect our railways well into the next century?

Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is complacent about investment in the railways. In the past five years, there has been more than £6 billion-worth of investment in the railway as a whole. The hon. Gentleman will know that the financing plans announced at the time of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget provide for investment to continue at around £1 billion a year—three quarters of a billion pounds funded from taxpayer's resources and one quarter of a billion from the private sector. That is a very substantial and continuing investment programme.

Bearing in mind that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) told my constituents at the previous general election that the Conservative Government would not bring Networker trains to the north Kent line, may I congratulate my hon. Friends on the massive introduction of Networkers that has taken place over the past two years on that line? Can we be told something of the further extension of Networker trains to the Kent coast line?

We hear from my hon. Friends the real benefits that are coming from the substantial investment that has been undertaken and which will continue, in contrast to the empty rhetoric and scaremongering by hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision he has made to ensure that the vulnerable and elderly can still meet essential travel needs in rural areas following petrol price increases.

Local authorities already have sufficient powers to subsidise the running of additional bus services in rural areas where they see a need. In considering provision of those services, they are required to take into account the transport needs of elderly and disabled people.

Is the Minister aware that, following the recent petrol price increases, the local bus company in the Scottish borders has announced fare increases of 8 per cent.—well above the rate for either wage or pension increases? Does he accept that many people in areas that do not have bus services run vehicles that cost less than the annual road fund tax? When will he stop using petrol pricing as a mechanism to check the interests of the environment, and introduce road pricing policies in the cities, where the private car is a luxury not a necessity?

I am happy to tell the people of Scotland that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues made a significant contribution to the increase in petrol prices announced last week when they voted as they did for VAT on fuel. Everybody understands that. It may be an embarrassment to them now, but it was my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor who drew attention to the consequences for the rural areas of the vote that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues cast.

Has my right hon. Friend seen a report-[Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I cannot hear what is being shrieked at me by Opposition Members.

I can hear very well. Other hon. Members are suggesting that the hon. Gentleman removes his hands from his pockets when he stands to ask a question.

Thank you for your assistance, Madam Speaker. Should I require any advice on deportment or sartorial elegance I shall come to you because you are an example to us all, but I will not take advice from the scruffy yobbos on the Labour Benches.

I have no pockets in which to put my hands. That is why my deportment is so good.

Has my right hon. Friend read the recent report from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which recommends large increases in fuel prices? Does he think that that is one means, together with better public transport, by which to encourage a shift away from private cars? Does he think it curious that those who bleat about energy conservation and make political points about it do nothing about implementing measures that will conserve energy?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the Royal Commission's report and some of its consequences. One reason why we want a debate on transport in general and the proposals in particular is that the implementation of some of the proposals and recommendations would have a significant effect on the lives of literally millions of people and would focus in particular on those who live in rural areas. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, we do not have a commitment to a carbon tax, which would make their position even worse.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about improvements to public transport in Greater Manchester.

Subject to the availability of resources, the Government are ready to fund worthwhile improvements to all forms of transport in Greater Manchester.

Does the Minister realise that the people of Greater Manchester have suffered a decline in the frequency of their train and bus services and a decline in safety standards at stations because of the removal of staff, while the only minor improvement has been the restoration of trams in the centre of the town? If people in Greater Manchester are to enjoy good public transport, that requires substantial investment in at least five or six more lines for the Metrolink.

I am not entirely surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman spraying around yet more hundreds of millions of pounds in spending commitments, as the Labour party is prone to do on every occasion. He has an extraordinarily partial view of public transport in Greater Manchester. To describe the Metro as a minor improvement is to turn churlishness into an art form. It is a superb piece of public transport infrastructure, which serves its purpose extremely well. The Passenger Transport Authority has spoken to us about further extensions and when those are ready to be considered in detail, we stand ready to do so.

Would not one way of providing more money for public transport in Greater Manchester be to abandon the disastrous proposal for the M62 relief road? That would not only generate resources, but ensure a feeling of great relief in my constituency and end the planning blight that presently exists as a result of the proposals.

My hon. Friend makes his point in his own way.

As the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment report published today makes it clear that the economics of many road building schemes are unviable—that includes not only the M25, but the M62 road widening—will the Minister answer the question that he has just dodged and tell us whether he will now call a halt to any further work on the M62 road widening?

On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, as I told his hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), the Manchester authorities have—unfortunately, at a late stage—brought forward plans for the second extension to the Metro system. We have said that we will be perfectly happy to examine those in detail, although no allocation has been made in respect of 1995–96 because it is not anticipated that work would start by that time, so to that extent the application is somewhat premature.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects that the Fenchurch Street line will be privatised; and which authority will have responsibility for reviewing fare levels.

In 1995. The franchising director may include provisions in franchise agreements to ensure the reasonableness of fares.

For many years, commuters from Southend-on-Sea have enjoyed a rather inadequate and erratic service; the line has become known as the misery line. Will the Minister do all in his power to ensure that privatisation brings real benefits to the commuters of Southend? In particular, will the Government ensure that the financial arrangements are published shortly, so that we can attract a wide range of bidders?

The franchising director will publish further details of the first eight franchises early in the new year. My hon. Friend will know that £83 million has been spent on major signalling works on the line; I hope that, after years of misery, his constituents will now start to notice some improvement in the standard of service.

Will the Secretary of State make it a condition of the franchises that no intermediate stations are closed, that the same volume of trains travel along the lines each week and that the length of trains is not shortened? Will the Minister give an undertaking that that will be a condition of the franchise for the Fenchurch Street line?

The hon. Gentleman will be interested to note that, for the first time ever, the franchises let by the franchising director will include provisions concerning passenger comfort. As has been made clear many times in the House and elsewhere, the franchises will be based broadly on existing timetables. That cannot mean, however, that they will replicate those timetables in every detail, because that would not provide scope for the private-sector franchise operator to improve the service that is offered.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of the line will give travellers the opportunity to benefit from a more punctual service, with reasonable rolling stock and reasonable fares? Is that not a great step forward?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the treatment by the Highways Agency and ,its agents of residents and other individuals along the route of the M11 link road.

I am confident that the Highways Agency has treated residents with every consideration and everyone in accordance with the law.

Has not the cost of policing and security on the M11 link road now reached £6 million, and is not the amount rising at a rate of more than £500,000 a month? During a recent week-long operation in Claremont road, which cost more than £2 million, were not many of my constituents bullied—including vulnerable people, and others whose only crime was living on the line of route? Should not the Minister give an early Christmas present to the long-suffering residents of Leyton, and many others in this country, by promising that there will never again be another rotten road scheme like this in Britain?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not stand up and say thank you to the police, who carried out an operation—on behalf of the people whom he represents—against those who decided unilaterally to break the law. May I remind him that three public inquiries about the route have taken place, and that what the Highways Agency did was entirely in line with statutory provisions that had been democratically confirmed three times?

Although my right hon. Friend makes a good point about the M11, does he accept that the Highways Agency should deal with a national problem: the gridlock that is emerging in regions such as that covered by the M6 near my constituency of Stafford and that is causing massive congestion, not only in Stafford but on the M6? Does he agree that we should have electronically operated signs on approaches to motorways such as the M11 and M6 to ensure that people do not go on to motorways in the first place and proper diversionary roads in constituencies that are affected by people who wish to get off the motorway, as Michael Carey of Stafford borough council recommended recently?

Order. The hon. Gentleman has abused the question on the Order Paper. I allowed him to proceed because he mentioned the Highways Agency and he kept mentioning the M11. But it was a total abuse of today's Question Time. If the Secretary of State could answer the question in half the time that the hon. Gentleman took to ask it, I should be extremely grateful.

My hon. Friend is right to point out the need to provide drivers with more information than is available when they are in their cars and on motorways. I hope that he will be encouraged to know that I have increased the budget for that next year by about 20 per cent.

Considering all the figures again—all the millions of pounds that have been spent on security—is not the real issue that the money for the roads programme is being spent on the basis of a formula that is rigged towards roads and that is not part of an integrated transport policy? Will the Secretary of State justify this road and all the other roads in the programme on the basis of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment report published today? Why does he not come to the House and allow us debate its contents with him?

The hon. Lady will have to decide on which side of the road she wishes to walk. Last week, she condemned us because we did not spend £1.5 billion more on local road schemes. Today, she wants a moratorium on all road building. She has to make up her mind on which side of the street she wants to walk.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make public the findings of the inquiry which has recently opened into the Cowden train crash.

The Health and Safety Executive expects to publish the inspector's report in the spring.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the frequency of service on the Cowden line is only just over one half of what it was before the accident and that that is due to drivers' lack of confidence in the system? The provision of cab secure radios could go a long way to restoring that confidence. Will provision for them be made?

I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that both British Rail and Railtrack committed themselves at the public inquiry to putting cab secure radios on the Uckfield line. I shall encourage them to do so as soon as possible.

Will the Minister give hon. Members an undertaking that if the report makes it clear that, because of the cost of privatisation, safety measures are not being put in place either in the Cowden region or elsewhere, he will make money available to ensure that all safety measures are implemented as soon as possible? Some of evidence at the inquiry shows that British Rail is resiling from original decisions that it took some time ago.

Clearly, as a member of the Select Committee on Transport, the hon. Lady will understand that I shall not comment on evidence that has been presented to the Committee, not least because the report will come to me in due course. I am happy to assure her, however, that my commitment to safety being paramount is unchanged.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for an additional river crossing between Dartford and Blackwall; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will decide on the new route for the east London river crossing.

Several proposals have been made, including alternatives to the previously planned east London river crossing. I am still considering how those proposals should be taken forward.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the considerable congestion at the Blackwall tunnel every day and of the fact that my constituents are getting rather cross because their journey to work is bad? Furthermore, does he agree that the development and regeneration of the riverside, including the Thamesmead, Erith and Belvedere areas of my constituency, desperately require another crossing point to make it feasible for industry to relocate there?

My hon. Friend makes two very important points. First, he draws attention to the Blackwall tunnel, about which I can sympathise with him. He will be aware of our efforts, which mean that vehicles do not now collide with traffic from the north-bound tunnel. Nevertheless, we still have a problem trying to avoid the stoppages that occur too frequently. I can promise my hon. Friend that I am considering the problem urgently to see what more we can do.

Number 9, Madam Speaker.

It has been called. The supplementary question is now required.

When deciding the future of the east London river crossing, will my hon. Friend persuade the Secretary of State to pay far more attention to the crucial environmental aspects of the route and, in particular, will he ensure that Oxleas wood is not damaged in any way? May I invite my hon. Friend and his dog to walk the route with me on new year's day?

His hon. Friend does not have a dog but I am sure that I could hire one for the day. Were I not otherwise committed, my hon. Friend's offer would not be unattractive. I have, in fact, walked that route a number of times. My hon. Friend will know that some time ago—nearly two years ago, I think—I made it clear that we would not be proceeding with the Oxleas wood scheme, for precisely the reasons that he has outlined. I did not think that it was an appropriate way to proceed but. as he knows, what remains at issue is the strategic objective that the east London river crossing was planned to deliver—that is, a link between the A13 and the A2, which remains of considerable importance for the economic regeneration of the region, as I said earlier.

Is the Minister aware that I have opposed the east London river crossing unless an extension of the docklands light railway were to run across it? As for the objective that he has just outlined—joining two trunk roads—would it not be good value for money, in the light of today's report, to extend the DLR by a single line tunnel under the Thames to relieve the congestion at Blackwall and on the other road crossings, which are a second priority for east London at the moment?

Without speculating on how the crossing might be achieved, I acknowledge the appropriateness of the hon. Gentleman's observation. Clearly, if the DLR were to be extended on whatever crossing were provided for the road, the value, certainly in terms of value for money, would be in attaching the rail crossing to the road crossing. If the consequence of that were, for example, the ability to revitalise Thamesmead, which I know is of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) and to others, that would clearly commend it as an option. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that local authorities in the area, especially Bexley, Greenwich and others, have been concerned about the impact of locally generated traffic on such a crossing, and it will be necessary to take their concern into account. That is what the consultation process is for.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) for inviting the Minister to my constituency. Does the Minister agree that today's report by the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment casts severe doubt on the supposed economic advantages of the east London river crossing? What about the environmental damage that would be caused in an area where pollution already exceeds European guideline levels? Does the Minister not think that now is the time to put some resources into the railway crossing at Woolwich and into the provision of a Woolwich metro, which would do so much to regenerate the Thames gateway north and south of the river?

On the first point, I do not believe that the SACTRA report has a significant implication for the scheme about which the hon. Gentleman is talking. On the second point about the environmental consequences of the scheme, which is a slightly different issue, I remind him of what I said earlier. No one doubts that infrastructure of any sort will have some environmental implications. The decision for him, for his constituents, for his local authority and the local authorities on the other side of the, river, given that there is widespread agreement that we need more crossings of the river to facilitate economic regeneration, is how to balance the environmental consequences of the scheme and the economic consequences, and the job mobility that goes with that, of not providing the scheme.

Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to meet a cross-party deputation to discuss the Woolwich rail link, which would make a great deal of difference to all. Does he accept that about four fifths of extra traffic growth comes from increased economic prosperity and not from building new roads? If we want east London, north and south of the river, to share in that prosperity, we must have the crossings that we are contemplating. Will my hon. Friend try to ensure that whatever comes across the Thames does not turn south-west towards Brighton, but goes towards Dover, as that would meet the crossing's published purpose?

I will, of course, meet a delegation if my hon. Friend cares to bring one. If it is an all-party delegation, it will be so much the better for that. I note his other observations, and I believe that there is a great deal in what he says.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on public transport fare prices in London.

Public transport fares in London strike a reasonable balance between the farepayer and the taxpayer in meeting the costs of improving and maintaining the system. It is right that those who use the services and benefit directly from them pay their share of the system's costs.

What does the Minister have to say to all the Londoners who, because of cuts in the Budget will, in January, face fare increases of, on average, three times the rate of inflation? Is it not about time that the people who use the transport system in London get some benefit from it and do not get clobbered, yet again, by this Government?

That is the most extraordinary economic analysis I have ever heard. I am delighted to be able to confirm that, such is the low level of inflation, as a result of the policies of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, any increase in real terms looks like a sizeable multiple of the rate of inflation. I am delighted to put it on record that in reality—I note the hon. Lady's amnesia on this point—this is the lowest increase in cash terms in eight years. People in London understand clearly how important it is to have a reliable service, and they know that that relies on investment. Given the record levels of investment already coming from the taxpayer, it is not unreasonable that farepayers should make their contribution.

Inasmuch as fares affect my hon. Friend's budget, may I congratulate him on finding room in his budget for funding the Croydon light railway—the tram link in Croydon? It will do much to enhance Croydon's prosperity and to "regenerate the area.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was delighted to be able to say that funds had been reserved in our budget this year for that scheme to go ahead, subject to satisfactory bids being received from the private sector.

Would London farepayers not be happier about paying their fares if the Government had kept their promises on investment, which last year was £130 million short of what was promised in 1991 and which next year will be one third down on what London Underground has asked for? The money saved on the road-building programme in the budget has not been transferred to public transport, which is what the public have asked for and what today's report has confirmed as useful and necessary.

I am entirely satisfied that the public transport services in London have received record levels of investment over the past four years under this Government, in stark contrast to the pitiful levels of investment available during the 1970s under the Labour Government. It is really quite staggering to see that, in today's money, the Labour party was investing under £100 million a year in London Transport services, in contrast to nearly half a billion pounds on LT alone and another half a billion pounds on Network SouthEast today.

When will the Minister stop being so self-satisfied and wake up to the fact that London is now the most expensive capital in the European Union for commuters—more expensive even than Paris, Brussels or Rome—and that London fares are now almost twice the European average? What sense does it make to push up London's rail, bus and tube fares next month for the second year running by more than double the rate of inflation, since all that will do is force more commuters into cars and increase the levels of pollution and congestion? When will he call a halt to what is really at the root of this action—the Government's plans to remove all operating subsidy from rail services to the south-east, which an independent report recently predicted will increase fares by a further massive 65 per cent. over the next decade?

The one thing on which I will take no lessons from the hon. Gentleman is smugness and self-satisfaction. If there is one person who epitomises that on the Opposition Benches, it is the hon. Gentleman. As for his ludicrous scaremongering about fares and public transport services in the south-east, he really should know better. But then, we have come to expect no better from the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the only important statistic he appears to have overlooked is that when the Transport Research Laboratory looked exactly at what would happen if, for example, fares were reduced, it concluded:

"cutting fares by 50 per cent. reduces traffic and emissions by only 1 per cent. to 2 per cent."

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what resources are made available by the Public Accounts Commission for the National Audit Office to audit the accounts of the Department of Transport.

The National Audit Office budget of £36.5 million for 1994–95 includes provision for financial audit of the Department of Transport, its executive agencies and its sponsored bodies and for value-for-money investigations. The forward investigation programme of the NAO is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee.

I thank the Chairman for that answer. May I ask him to have a look at the audit procedures in relation to the Department of Transport's spending on private detectives to spy on anti-road protestors? As far as I understand it, it initially thought that that spending was ultra vires, then subsequently allowed the Treasury to approve it retrospectively. Surely, no one else in the public sector—for example, councillors—would be allowed to approve retrospectively expenditure which was regarded as ultra vires. Surely that is dubious audit practice, which should be looked at.

I will ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to have a look at the point that the hon. Gentleman raises, but, as I understand it, the Department of Transport has introduced revised contract procedures and the Treasury Solicitor will be approached and asked for advice as to whether detective agencies should be hired and who would be responsible for appointment of such agencies. I understand that that is the position. If the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me, I shah try to let him have further information.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will make more funds available for the National Audit Office to extend its oversight of bodies falling within the ambit of the Department for Education.

The National Audit Office budget of £36.5 million for 1994–95 includes provisions for financial and value-for-money audits at the Department for Education. The Comptroller and Auditor General has access rights to all universities. He is also the auditor of the funding councils established in 1993 for higher education and for further education in England, Scotland and Wales. A report on the financial health of higher education institutions in England was published earlier this month. Under the Education Act 1993, the Comptroller and Auditor General has access rights to grant-maintained schools and is required to report on his work annually to Parliament. The first report under those arrangements was published in August.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, speedy though it was, perhaps of necessity. Will he ask the National Audit Office to provide more funds so that grant-maintained schools can be audited more effectively? Under the present arrangements—it is made clear in the report to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—19 out of 20 grant-maintained schools were noted to have financial weaknesses. Three of them had qualified opinions from their own auditors. In Wales, serious reservations have been expressed about the book keeping of about half a dozen grant-maintained schools. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the NAO provides more money, or perhaps gets the Audit Commission involved, as it is in so many aspects of local government?

As for the NAO and the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Public Accounts Committee is satisfied with the forward programme and with its budgets. I understand that the PAC has a forward programme for the investigation of several topics. Perhaps I might write to the Chairman of the PAC, who I see in his place, to draw his attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what financial provision has been made by the Commission, to improve the access into Westminster Hall for disabled people via St. Stephen's entrance; and if he will make a statement.

No financial provision has been made to improve access to Westminster Hall for disabled people via St. Stephen's entrance because arrangements are made for access via Carriage Gates and New Palace Yard. A stairlift gives access to the Grand Committee Room, and other levels in the Palace can be reached via Star Chamber Court and the No. 1 lift. The Accommodation and Works Committee is currently considering schemes to improve access for the disabled, and a number of schemes have been included in the programme of works for next year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply will be received with utter disgust in the House and throughout the country? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that there are many people who have problems with walking, irrespective of age, who make their way into Westminster Hall via St. Stephen's entrance? Is he further aware that there are 24 extremely steep steps either to climb down or to climb up, which present enormous problems to many people? It is unbelievable, as we approach the 1995, that the Mother of Parliament cannot afford to provide proper access for disabled people. Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss the importance of such provision with his colleagues?

I understand that what has persuaded the hon. Gentleman's colleagues and others who are members of the Accommodation and Works Committee to make access for disabled people—it is not available for other members of the public—via Carriage Gates is the practical difficulty of providing good access for the disabled through St. Stephen's entrance, for the very reason that he has given. If the hon. Gentleman has thought of a solution to the problem, I suggest that he directs it to the members of the Accommodation and Works Committee.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), the said Committee has spent hours discussing the matter? One of the problems that we must face is that, when this historic building was built, it was not equipped, obviously, for access for the disabled. We must reconcile keeping the building and allowing proper access to it.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the point clear. The Commission has shown no hesitation in making financial provision for whatever improvements to assist access for the disabled which its Committees recommend to it.

To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee when financial provision will be made for a live feed of proceedings to be provided to hon. Members in their offices.

Provision for cabling the Palace and outbuildings for the live feed of proceedings is already in the works services estimates. By the end of the 1995 summer recess, I estimate that about 550 Members will be able to receive the live feed.

No supplementary question.

Brilliant.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed representing the House of Commons Commission, what further plans he has for expenditure on additional Christmas trees in the vicinity of Parliament.

I have been asked to reply. None.

Merry Christmas, Scrooge. I am very disappointed with that reply.

It is abundantly clear that the hon. Gentleman is in an extremely festive mood. If he has some serious suggestions about where there should be more Christmas trees, naturally I will ask my Committee to consider them.

To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will list the staffing levels in (a) security, (b) health and safety and (c) works in each of the last three years.

The figures for staffing levels for the three years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 requested by the hon. Gentleman are as follows: security staff 421, 415 and 407 respectively; health and safety two, two and two and the works directorate 184, 181 and 103. In addition, there are a number of other staff whose duties involve aspects of security or health and safety.

Is it not true that there are now three buzz words—safety, security and hygiene? If one mentions any of those words in the Palace of Westminster, the people with the public purse get glazed eyes, reach for their wallet and are immediately prepared to shell out whatever money is asked for under those three heads. Should we look into the working practices in the Palace of Westminster and consider bringing in one of the better management consultant firms to examine whether this place is overmanned, whether there are too many people in security and administration and whether we could save money in the Palace of Westminster to show that we set standards in this place which others can follow?

Whenever accidents occur in any of the three sectors to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the form of questioning to which those who are responsible in any organisation are subjected is quite different from the question that the hon. Gentleman has asked today. The House of Commons Commission, as an employer, must have regard to the safety of its employees in all those respects. However, at the same time, it seeks to pursue cost-effectiveness, and the staff inspector's work assisted in that. Where appropriate, it takes outside advice.

To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what plans he has to finance the expansion of the parliamentary data and video network; and when hon. Members will be able to input data on to the network.

Following approval by the House of the Information Committee's report on the parliamentary data and video network on 30 June, the Finance and Services Committee and the House of Commons Commission have approved the necessary funding for the installation of the full PDVN. Members can input data into the network immediately they become users.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will any finance be available to provide inputting devices on to the network and to allow the use of the network for parliamentary papers and other information, which would cut down on the enormous printing bills in this place and, perhaps, save a few Christmas trees for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)?

My hon. Friend has raised an important and interesting point, about which I think that I had better write to him. The whole question of printing needs careful study and I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is helpful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) that the House has endorsed the report of the Information Committee, which allows any hon. Member who has a modem to have access to the network, whether or not that person is in a building which is directly linked to it?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that very helpful point.

To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what new proposals he has for expenditure to improve facilities for the disabled in the Palace of Westminster.

The Finance and Services Committee has approved expenditure of £220,000 in 1995–96 on improvements to facilities for the disabled in the Palace of Westminster. Further sums will be available in subsequent years.

What progress has been made in providing facilities for wheelchair users who work in this place, including catering staff, civil servants who cannot gain access to the Box, which limits their chances of promotion, and hon. Members who are wheelchair bound?

As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, a special report by a firm of architects who are specialists in this work was produced to deal with the whole question of disabled people in the Palace of Westminster. I understand that the Accommodation and Works Committee has recently considered the report and it will come forward with recommendations. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Finance and Services Committee has never been backward in providing money to help disabled people.

How about facilities for the mentally disabled?

I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion with the seriousness that it deserves.

The failure to offer access to the Palace of Westminster for disabled people was revealed at no time more sharply than during the debates on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, when many disabled people wanted to be in the Gallery to listen to the debates. As a private Member's Bill, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, will be debated on 10 February and as the Government are planning to produce their own Bill, can special arrangements, which could be built on in the future, be made to enable the disabled to have access to the House, because the paradox is that that legislation calls for access to buildings? The disabled should also have access to the House.

I have a great deal of sympathy for that point of view. Perhaps the hon. Member will address his remarks to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), whose Committee is considering the disabled. We would certainly be only too anxious to advance reasonable sums of finance for that important cause.

To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what plans he has for further Christmas decorations in the Palace of Westminster; at what cost; and if he will make a statement.

I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that there are no plans to put up further Christmas decorations in the Palace of Westminster.

I share the pleasure of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) at the Christmas trees that you, Madam Speaker, arranged for New Palace Yard and Westminster Hall. I respectfully remind the hon. Gentleman that at the top of a Christmas tree there should be a star—

A red star!

The Bethlehem star should be at the top of a Christmas tree, rather than a doll.

I am not sure that I can say anything further.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make it his policy to extend parliamentary allowances to allow the full-time employment, at standard rates of pay, of at least one personal assistant, one research assistant and one constituency case worker for each hon. Member on the basis of direct payment of such salaries, national insurance and pension.

I have no plans to introduce such a system. I believe that the majority of hon. Members would prefer the flexibility of the existing office costs allowance.

Dear, oh dear! I had hoped that the Lord President would act as Father Christmas to us today.

A press officer.

No, I do not need a press officer.

I had some difficulty in discerning all of the hon. Gentleman's points because of the Christmas background noise, but perhaps I can make three points. First, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that the conditions in the House are, to use his words, "third world", he should have seen what it was like when I came here 20 years ago. Secondly, it was decided recently—I cannot honestly claim as much credit for it as I would like since the House defeated me on the subject—to increase significantly the office costs allowance of hon. Members. Thirdly, to echo what I said in my original answer, it was made very clear in the debate on that increase that hon. Members value the flexibility of the existing arrangements.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that parliamentary allowances should also reflect the number of electors in the constituency of each hon. Member?

Hear, hear.

I sense some support for my hon. Friend's suggestion—presumably it comes from those hon. Members who have constituencies like mine where the population has risen dramatically. I would not want to be the Leader of the House who attempted to justify that distinction in a clear-cut manner.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what has been the number of sitting days in the Commons for the Session 1993–94.

The number of sitting days in 1993–94 was 154.

Set against the background that most people who have a job outside this place probably work more than 220 days in a given year, why should Members of Parliament discuss later today a four-day week for themselves? If we could argue for a four-day week for all those workers outside, we could mop up the 4 million people on the dole. Let us get our priorities right and look after our constituents, not ourselves.

We seem to have moved a long way from the Christmas spirit that was shown when the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) spoke. My answer is not very different from what I have said to the hon. Gentleman before: he may have his way of working—that is a matter for him—but others have theirs, which includes doing an enormous amount away from Westminster. Most Members of Parliament work a six or seven-day week.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what studies have been made comparing the workload of hon. Members of the House with members of the legislatures within the United States of America, Canada, Australia and Germany; and if he will make a statement.

The evidence of the Select Committee on the sittings of the House made some comparisons between the sittings of this House and those of some other legislatures. I am not aware of other studies.

While the House sits more than most other legislatures in the democratic western world, is it not a fact that they do half the work that we do because they are parts of federal systems? Does the Lord President agree that, although we try to do a lot more, we do it badly because we are overloaded when compared to Congress, the German Lander, and our Canadian and Australian counterparts?

Despite his attempt to justify the thrust of his question, the hon. Gentleman makes the key point. He has obviously looked at the work and found that this House sits more than almost any other. It certainly does not sit less.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House of Commons has more Members of Parliament in relation to population than most other countries? Did we not miss an opportunity to reduce the number when we introduced the boundary changes?

I do not know whether my hon. Friend will be the first in the line of volunteers. That is a matter for him.